The Big Short Review

The Real Wolves Of Wall Street?

Released : January 22nd 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Adam McKay

Cast : Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale, Brad Pitt, Finn Wittrock, John Magaro

Plot : This true story begins in early 2005 and follows a small pocket of financial business men who notice, research and discover the flaw in the American housing market and the imminent effect it will have on the world economy with the 2008 recession. They decide to bet against the American economy.

As award sessions continues with the BAFTA’s and the Acadamey Awards around a month away, The Big Short emerges as a nomination stand out (not able to compete with some heavy hitters such as The Revenant with twelve however), British audiences now get a taste of Adam McKay. The film has been given the same nomination between both awards boards, with editing, adapted screenplay, directory, supporting actor (Bale) and film. The adapted material aspect of the film has a prestigious source in cinema history, as it is another book adaptions from Michael Lewis. This being the author behind past years award hopeful’s such as Moneyball and The Blind Side. While the director amusingly is quiet new to the award scene, Adam McKay (director of both Anchormans, Step Brothers and The Other Guys) has gained his first BAFTA and first two Oscar nod’s for this film due to his involvement of both writing and directing. But it is perhaps this comic edge that has earned it the best film position. As it’s an amazing story that needs a rough edge of sarcastic and blunt humour to make all the numbers, technical terms and the huge disaster it deals with to turn it into a great film.

The film follows the initial working of one man, Dr Michael Burry (Bale), a financial wizard who is a self diagnosed aspergers sufferer. From many late nights stuck to a computer screen shifting through the records of all the mortgages on the market, he discovers the dangers of the late payments. This eventually leads to him betting all of his business money against the market predicting the eventual crash. The huge flow of money attacks two other groups, one headed by Mark Baum (Carell) and the other Jamie Shipley (Wittrock) who both see the potential for huge benefit. This is the brief outline of the film, which it attempts to stick too despite the huge technical complexity of the issue at hand. This is a film that perfectly deals with its complex topic, by both humorous sarcasm and wit to help make the financial details easier to swallow. It is typified by the multiple outtakes where celebrities (of which are perfectly cast for multiple reasons) interrupt a scene steeped in technical language, it break it down into metaphors and terms the audience can understand. This combined with the effect of Jared Vennett (Gosling) narration and direct address makes the approach very similar to that of The Wolf Of Wall Street.

This atmosphere of the film might have been added to the film largely by McKay’s involvement of the screenwriting aspect of the film, to what extent is unknown. Due to the serious dramatic tones of Michael Lewis previous books which have been adapted, it could be argued for none readers that perhaps the humour was a large impact that McKay had to the film. If so then hats off to him for a large part of the appeal, enjoyment and greatness of this film. While the humour is very reminiscent of McKay’s other films, being sweary and rude, it is pitch perfect for this adaptions. McKay was able to tip toe between the drama and humour evenly and brilliantly throughout most of the film. Up to the climax which has a big mode shift as the reality is unveiled to the audience. This change in gear atmosphericaly is sudden and clean to the bone, but overall needed for the films messages to resonate with the audience. McKay’s work of direction was notable, with unique effects such as breaking up scenes with montages of stills of culture (giving the editor a nightmare that they dealt with expertly) and as mentioned the presentation of the gear change.

For the acting side of the film there is both good execution and tackling of the characters development along with the final act of the film. Of course the heavy hitter of the film is that of Bale as he takes on a new skill in his acting career of mental illness. While the film doesn’t explore the characters backgrounds to a huge extent, the work of McKay to devote Bale the unbroken screen time he requires and Bale’s repetition of key mannerisms and easy with emotional scenes makes the performance a worthy contender this year (despite him not being a favorite). Gosling was irresistibly enjoyable as was most of the supporting cast (Rafe Spall, Hamish Linklater, Jeremy Strong) to being the comic relief for the most part with a montage of funny blunt one liners of banter between one another. Steve Carell had a fairly simple character to deal with, perhaps why the praise hasn’t been as large. Despite this Carell second outing for a lead for a drama again pleases audience with a solid performance hammering home is talent as an actor with a career outside comedy.

The Big Short however as it most likely to do fails on most accounts on translating all of the little details that surround the story. But its a feet to even attempt a film adaptation of a book that is brimming with such dense technical story. So this means hats off to McKay in his efforts to take all that he can and make it funny. Some will undoubted say that the events are one for a film loaded with comedy. But as a pieces of cinema it is funny as it is dramatic, even if its shouldn’t be making jokes in the first place. And for the most part of the film there is much entertainment to be found in the film despite the failing to grasp many of the details of the technical side of the film. Some may find that the film has resemblances outside of the story topic to The Wolf Of Wall Street with the direct audience address, humor style, attitude to subject matter and directorial effects. But due to the more ‘human’ story being told, it does have a warmth the superior Scorsese film lacks. It’s up to the individual audience member as to whether the similarities jeopardize quality of film.

Verdict : You will laugh, you won’t cry and you won’t understand all of it. But you should appreciate talent involved, resulting in a film as eye opening as possible while maintaining entertainment.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “You wanted to be rich, now you are.”

Mini review: Joy

Year: 2015

Certificate: 12A

Director: David O Russell

Screenwriter: David O Russell

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Dascha Polanco, Bradley Cooper, Isabella Rossellini

David O Russell and Jennifer Lawrence’s latest collaboration is a frustratingly histrionic dramedy loosely based on the life of Joy Mogano, inventor of the self-wringing mop. While Lawrence is- as always- note perfect and the supporting cast all put in strong performances, O Russell’s love of surreal hyperbole obstructs rather than enhances what should be an inspiring story. While there are several strong sequences (such as a particularly fist-pumping late-stage confrontation with a rival businessman), it feels overlong at just over two hours and one can’t help but feel a little more simplicity and a little less self-aware oddness would have created a more cogent piece.

Verdict: 3/5

Image credit: foxmovies.com

The Revenant Review

The Good, The Bear and The Ugly 

Released : January 15th 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Alejandro González Iñárritu

Cast : Leonardo Dicaprio, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter, Domhnall Gleeson, Paul Anderson, Forrest Goodluck

Plot : A hunting party, guided by Hugh Glass (Dicaprio) and his son (Goodluck), are met with hostility by the indigenous tribe. Whilst running for their lives the party is slowed down by the severe injury’s of Glass after a bear attack. This strikes debate amongst the party as the native tribe slowly catches up.

As the BAFTA’s loom, British audience get a chance to pass judgement on Alejandro González Iñárritu new western, and with all the nomination indicating that this film will be giving him the best director Oscar for two years in a row. When films are formulaically released at such a time as January award season in an attempt for the films to be fresh in the minds of the academy in order to better chances of getting to votes, it does mean that British cinema goers get a late verdict. Meaning as the Golden Globes take place and the nominations pour in, the British cinema fanatic will know who much every critic and academy members like the film before viewing. As such a majority of British viewer will see The Revenant with the knowledge that it has gain several awards as well as 12 Oscar nominations, a factor that will undoubtedly be in the minds of every viewer and can have one of two effects. The average man expects to see the best film ever and is disappointed leading to great distaste for film, or peoples pleasure is matched by their hype claiming it a new favourite. Either way the result is an extreme.

Straight off the bat The Revenant isn’t a film with a base story line that is revolutionary of the genre, it’s a simple revenge film, which has gained its praise via its execution. The films structure outside of execution and construction isn’t anything to write home about, neither are the characters that complex or individual. Tom Hardy’s Oscar nominated role for example is a true bad to the bone baddie. He possess very little aspects that we will related to due to his total distasteful nature and evil plotting, the same truth apply for the most part for the other character and story dynamic. But for this reason it means that when a story such as The Revenant is handled by such experienced and naturally talented people, it means these simple blocks can be placed together perfectly to create a masterpiece. This doesn’t imply that anyone can make a great film out of basic characters and story premises, but what it does mean is that people of such a high caliber have an ability to really excel, resulting in surprising twists to the genre and great execution such as profound emotional impact in scenes as well as the unique brilliant cinematography.

Without a doubt the runaway selling point of the film is the direction from Alejandro Iñárritu, who surprisingly had never filmed a horse before in his career until The Revenant, and yet he was able to build scenes of stunning nature an arsenal of components. Dealing with bear attacks, large scale battles, horse cashes, show downs, character drama (something he had already perfected in Birdman) all while capturing and dealing with the sprawling Canadian landscape. Each scene of the film is captured in such a unique visually ‘tasteful’ way that every sequence feels authentic and beautiful, overcoming the challenge of pacing that many two and a half film. But it is clear to see that the films long nature and wholly artistic approach to filming means that it won’t please the widest of audiences, if people are contempt with long scenes absent of dialogue and entertainment that is purely directorial, than there isn’t an issue. But every audience member won’t be able to deny the absolute visual ‘joy’ of some of the shots. To pick an obvious example, the bear attack in this, which is teased within the trailer, is like the Saving Private Ryan beach landing scene of animal attacks in films. In short breathtaking.

To address the acting side of the film, there will be much attention directed towards Dicaprio due to the hype at the idea of him finally winning an Oscar, but there needs to be hats taken off to some of the supporting cast. Will Poulter and Domhnall Gleeson turned out brilliant supportive roles, Poulter as the young lad of the hunting party well out of his depth morally and physically and Glesson as the rather weak captain attempting to keep his crew in line and focused. Both of there best scenes being the one revolving around just them, the fact that it was noticeable alongside Hardy and Dicaprio can stand as a testament to their growing skill. If there was an Oscar for best newcomer/best overall year for an actor, Glesson would be a main contender for it. Tom Hardy has as well gone from strength to strength since 2011 to become one of the definitive actors of this decade, typified with his role in The Revenant as a bad guy that isn’t his more interesting character, but delivered with such believable nature, conviction and ease it is well deserving of the Oscar nomination it has received.

And the frosting on this cake is of course the main man Dicaprio, as he turns out his third Oscar worthy role of the decade (with Mr Candie deserving an nomination as much as Waltz deserved to win). Probably not the role he will be remembered for due to the films lack of ‘fun’ in comparison to others, but due to the skill that is demanded of the role it’s his biggest piece of Oscar bait ever. This being due to the roles duties such as conveying emotion while seeming on the edge of death, telling a story with just facial expression (due to lack of dialogue) and its always a bonus to throw in a foreign language for good measure (as speaking native American to his son). As well as these star performances it would be a crime not to mention the work of Emmanuel Lubezki as cinematographer, who is in serious danger of winning his third academy award with this film, if it wasn’t impressive enough that he this year is his 8th Oscar nomination within his career.

Verdict : The Revenant offers perfection in fields of acting, cinematography and especially directing. Some might find it too focused on its artistic nature, or find little metaphorical meaning behind Iñárritu shot chooses, but its all done for the sake of beauty. As MGM production say in their slogan, “Ars Gratia Artis”, meaning “Art for Arts Sake”.

Verdict : 5/5

Quote : “If you look at its branches, you swear it will fall. But if you watch the trunk, you will see its stability.”

Inside Out DVD Review

Finding Emo 

Released : July 24th 2015

Certificate : U

Director :  Pete Docter, Ronnie del Carmen

Cast : Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Kaitlyn Dias

Plot : The story of a little happy hockey playing girl Riley (Dias)who has to move across America with her mother and father to a new home, school and life. This has big effects on her emotions, who Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Disgust (Kaling), Fear (Hader) and Anger (Black) all inside her head.

Disney Pixar’s final instalment before the long awaited and much hyped Finding Dory, for which a trailer dropped a few months after the films release. With the Finding Nemo, Toy Story and The Incredibles, there is a regiments tick box system in order for it to be a Disney Pixar. Firstly you need a topic that has strong childhood themes, not just in the story but equally in message, emotional range and appeal to both adults and children for different reasons. And who better to help meet the film fit that mold, than of the founding sculptors Peter Docter, the writer/director of Inside Out as well small projects such as Monsters Inc and writer of WALL.E and the Toy Story Trilogy (soon to be quadrilogy).

The story structure of Inside Out is filled with features that echo the settings of Monsters Inc, from theme to structure. The way that the emotions of the day are filed away like the scream canisters and of Monsters Inc and the employment like setting that both the emotions and Monster share. For poignant meaning and message, Inside Out carries enough to match all of the past Pixar films. It could be argued that the fact the stories characters are actual emotions makes this easier than to do so with abstract characters such as Toys and Monster as your dealing with inner thoughts from the start, which is true. But this by no means take away from the skill and talent that has gone into the script of Inside Out. From the relationship that the child has with the parents, to the relationship between the emotions characters all of which is a relish to watch. Providing sampling of high quality laughter and tears in the right balance for the film to provide the perfect feel good film. And if this wasn’t enough the film can be praised for its tackling of the most universal topic, in a way that children can enjoy, and maybe even learn from.

Second to Docter work on the funny and moving script, is that of his directorial work. For the sake of hyper criticism, the world that is created inside Riley mind, isn’t quiet as entertaining as that of the Monsters worlds, despite its simplistic metaphorical construction. Some sections of the mind seeming slightly overly dramatic (huge islands of life sections collapsing over minor issues), but for the sake of the children, this wont be noticed. And due to the strong script, the entertainment is plentiful via that of the interactions of sadness and joy through this world. This joined with the aurora of the Monsters Inc universe, with the field memories, the construct of a professional environment within her mind and the scope makes it hugely enjoyable. And besides, a film about emotions doesn’t hugely rely on the setting. Docter construction of the outside world with that of the inside world is handled beautifully, particularly in the more emotion scenes of the film. Allowing for the message of conflicting emotions to be clearly conveyed to the target younger audience. The literally fight conflict between the emotions proves for particular pleasure.

As for the emotions themselves the voice casting is outstandingly well done, with many of the actors persona’s matching the emotions they portray. With an ensemble of good characters, no doubt that each family member will walk out saying which was there favourite. In the name of fun Bill Harder’s voice as Fear supplied me personally with the most fitting voice for the emotion and supplied the most entertainment. But the main selling point character wise is that of the chemistry between Joy and Sadness. Due to the extreme of emotions and brilliant nature of the script, the actors jobs were almost effortless. It is for this reason why the two create yet another total mesmerizing and unforgettable character friendships of a Disney Pixar film, able to stand tall next to Buzz and Woody, Mike and Sully. Through Joy and Sadness will never likely gain the same iconic stature as these cinema duo’s, they certainly deserve their spot as character duo’s across both the animated and non-animated greats. As well as this the interactions of all the emotions in front of the screen seeing Reilly’s world is both brilliant as it is simplistic in concept, hence Inside Out carries a huge punch of character quality to stand out this year in cinema. Perhaps not for complex or flawed nature, but purely in terms of entertainment.

Inside Out is without doubt the best feel good film of the year, there are some who might resist due to the huge critical consensus, shown by its 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But for a slight degree, with an animated Pixar film critic viewing can be allowed to be toned down. As these film in essence are for the entertainment of children, and the simplistic telling communication of some important metaphorical messages. As long as the film is aiming to please these two demands, then it is only a questioned of how enjoyable the film is found to be. And Inside Out passed with flying colours as quite possible the most touching film Pixar has made. Audiences will laugh as like children with a perfect tone of comedy that deals with all the emotions flaws equally. And a simplistic yet moving message that can act as comfort for both adults and children. Which is that sometimes you have to feel something, and this is something that you shouldn’t resist or be afraid of, and that it isn’t your fault.

Verdict : No Pixar film has pleased both of its audiences, adults and children, in such equal measurements. Full of warmth and humanity, an imaginative storytelling treat.

Verdict : 5/5

Quote : “Okay, I’m positive that you’ll get lost in there!”

Spectre Review

Moderate Royale 

Released : October 26th 2015

Certificate : 12

Director : Sam Mendes

Cast : Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott, Christoph Waltz, Rory Kinnear, Monica Bellucci, Dave Bautista

Plot : Bond (Craig) goes rough, leading his own investigation and assault on an olden organisation known as SPECTRE. As he follows them across the global he slowly realises the mass scale SPECTRE has had not only on the world, but on his own life as well.

The bond film that has carried much hype around it after the rumoured that it could be Daniel Craig’s last outing as the British spy. Whether this is true or not will depend on who you ask, but the character stepping down is that of Mendes, who originally said that Skyfall would be his only instalment, but now is quiet insistent to leave Bond behind. These factors and the huge popularity of Skyfall, as the film which wasn’t a book that provided to be better than most, built up much anticipation for the 24th Bond film. Much excitement was also rallied when it was announced that Christoph Waltz would be the villain to do battle against Bond, the double Oscar winning actor who seems as if most of his career was building to being a bond villain.

Following the story of Skyfall, which story and script wise proved to be the best bond film for Craig and some labelled ever, left Spectre with a ‘return’ to the loosely book based material. Spectre was very much built like a fare well to Craig, due to the way that the film’s plot linked to all of Craig past films to create what felt like an extravagant finale, like an end to a franchise or horror trilogy. The way that the film went about this felt very purpose built, which was intensified by being followed by Skyfall. Skyfall’s use of a villain with connection to the other main characters past wasn’t a new idea to Bond but a rare one and not overly dramatics. But to follow it straight after with a villain of the same nature seemed unoriginal. It was much ruined by the huge build up that was present for this villain, maybe due to the connection with Bond or maybe because of it being Waltz or both. The build up was immense, only to result in a villain whose presence in the film is briefer than any other villain in a Craig Bond film, or ever. Resembling that of an old horror film where you see the monster at the end.

Other aspects of the plot of the film didn’t fly as they should, particularly the aspect of the film trying to interlink with every past villain by claiming that they are part of SPECTRE. Some could argue that this approach is new and original and attempts to bring Bond to modern standards instead of generic good guy versus bad. But when on screen it didn’t feel genuine, as with the link between Bond and the villain. Having had no inclination to the existence of SPECTRE existence or a link of any kind between the past villains, the same with that of the Waltz character relation to Bond, it gave the film a forced reality. In order to make this Bond more dramatic, dark and compelling, it built a story to tick all of those boxes, but didn’t really gel with the Bond universe, feeling less like a Bond film than Skyfall did. Despite the story aspects there were Bond classical trade marks that where more noticeable and enjoyable than in any Craig Bond film, such as the car full of gadgets, the villain with the unusual weapon, and the over the top method of killing Bond. These were fun warm additions to a story that was attempting to be overly dark and concluding in a clichéd way.

Not every aspect of the film fell apart along with the story, most noticeable being that of the directing of Mendes, who as out done himself, as if nothing else Spectre is one of the best shot Bond film ever. This is made clear from the outset of the film with an action scene in a Mexican Festival of Death, the camera panning through the crowd following Bonds movements is stunning and unlike anything the franchise has given us before. The actions scenes pitched by Mendes were also a special in the clean and orchestrated nature, however did fall short on the believability and the memorability of the works of Casino Royal and Skyfall. But Mendes other aspects where sound such as the music title sequence and the presentation of the vast different landscapes that Bond travels to on his journey. Mendes feel of the story was sound, despite the story itself being the fail, hence doing the best with what he had, constructing the dark suspense of the organisation to a tee. With a particularity memorable scene of the introduction of Waltz and Bautista in a SPECTRE meeting, using the shadowy effect that can be seen in the trailer to keep the audience enthralled and on edge, only to then let these two beautiful character have limited appearance.

The acting from Craig was up to the same high standard as usual, despite this film having the lacking nature of the character development from Bond as previously meaning that for some his performance may prove to be too subtle. But without a doubt with this performance amounting to the fact that Craig is the best actor for Bond since Connery and surpassing him. The Bond girl played by Lea Seydoux was impressive but unfortunately again one of the more passive girls to grace the screen during Craigs reign. Waltz was generic Waltz, enjoyable in his brief but maniacal cunning way.

Spectre is likely to have crowds divided due to it being so different from past Bonds, just as Skyfall did. But unfortunately it thought it was packing a bigger punch than it actually was. A global villains organisation could have been enough on its own to have taken the drama of Bond up, as this is a plot point had not been expanded on before in the time of Craig, but it lacked the direction. The film succeed on the following, performances, directing and build up (as you do go along with the Bonds hunt throughout the film, only to be left hungry). Failing with story, style and action.

Verdict : Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale by some way, but still a hell of a lot better than Quantum of Solace.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.”