Review: Room

Year: 2015

Certificate: 15

Director: Lenny Abrahamson

Screenwriter: Emma Donoghue

Cast: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Sean Bridgers, Joan Allen, Tom McCamus

Jack (Jacob Tremblay) is five and he lives with Ma (Brie Larson) in Room, a situation which as far as he is concerned is completely normal. But when Jack turns five, Ma begins to tell him about the world outside of Room, and how she and Jack came to live- as prisoners- inside it.

Lenny Abrahamson’s powerful adaptation of Emma Donoghue’s equally powerful 2010 novel is an account of an unspeakably awful crime told through the eyes of a five-year old child. Jack’s voiceover narration orientates us within his life: he tells us what is real (lamp and light-switch) and what is not (trees), but as the camera bounces around the walls of Jack’s home, this cheerful description is at odds with the grotty and claustrophobic enclosure where Jack and his mother have been forced to live by Ma’s kidnapper (Sean Bridgers), known only to Jack as Old Nick. Room is an example of how truly harrowing subject matter can be discussed in a way which exhibits the full horror of the situation without ever being gratuitous. Seeing through Jack’s eyes softens the hard edges of the story as he absorbs everything with the equanimity of childhood. Having been born in room, he has never known things to be any different.

The impressive achievement of creating a film that deals with terrible circumstances honestly but without voyeurism is in large part due to the extraordinary performances of the two leads. Larson, who is most often seen brightening up daft Hollywood comedies but who delivered an absolutely astonishing lead turn in 2013’s Short Term 12, commands the screen as Ma. Her performance is so communicative that the camera does not need to provide an explicit description of what is done to her- it is evident in her every move and facial expression, and in her interactions with Jack. Ma is torn between the need to protect him and the desire to liberate them both, knowing that in order to do so she must force the knowledge of Jack’s incarceration upon him. Newcomer Jacob Tremblay, too, is a remarkable find, and the mother-son bond between the two characters is utterly believable. Tremblay comes into his own in the latter half of the film, brilliantly communicating Jack’s reaction to changing circumstances and an evolving relationship with Ma.

Emma Donoghue’s screenplay is an elegant distillation of the novel which maintains the effect of telling the story from Jack’s perspective (the novel is entirely written in the first person) without the overuse of the device of voiceover. A downside of the inherently visual medium of film is that the initial gradual reveal of the reality of Jack and Ma’s situation which is a strong (and devastating) element of the book cannot be preserved here. Furthermore Abrahamson, while clearly an expert at getting excellent performances from his actors, has a rather straightforward visual style. However, Danny Cohen’s cinematography is not without some flair. The camera initially bounces around, reflecting Jack’s innocence and childish energy, but becomes increasingly static as his understanding of his situation increases. Another (perhaps unavoidable) weakness is the occurrence of an emotional crescendo around the midpoint that, while allowing the narrative to shift into something more subtle that might be suggested by the film’s first act, also unbalances the pacing slightly, at times making the second half feel overlong.

Despite these reservations it’s hard to see how a better adaptation could have been made. Although at times an extremely touch watch, the story is told with such emotional sensitivity and such perfect performances that it transcends it’s headline-grabbing start point to access something altogether deeper and more affecting.

Verdict: 4/5

Image credit: aceshowbiz.com

Bridge of Spies Review

Saving Private Rylance 

Released : December 26th 2015

Certificate : 12A

Director : Steven Spielberg

Cast : Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, Billy Magnussen, Austin Stowell, Sebastian Koch

Plot : During the Cold War, Russian spy Rudolf Abel (Rylance) is arrested by the american government. In an attempt to give him the appearance of a fair trial, James Donovan (Hanks) is assigned to defend him. Matters are complicated when american pilot Francis Gary Powers (Stowell) is shot down and captured by the Russians.

Yet another leading film this award session, and as time passes, predictions can quiet easily be made about the Oscars with the influence of the passing two award ceremonies. The award this film acquired at the recent BAFTA’s was that of best supporting actor to Mark Rylance (awarded before I saw the film) for his portrayal of Russian spy Rudolf Abel who seems surprisingly calm during his trial. The film also brings Steven Spielberg back to into award nominations, with last entry being Lincoln. A general critical response seems to be that we can be inclined to take such well-established directors work for granted. And that Bridge of Spies has reminded us of his skill of the craft, which we still need to appreciate, even with a routine fourteen academy award nominations, winning three of these. A true Meryl Streep of the directing world. And Bridge of Spies partners him again with Tom Hanks in a film studying patriotism, justice and humanity. But a less talked about and my surprising aspect of the film is that of the involvement of the Coen brothers. They being the two who wrote the films original screenplay, adding to the films nomination categories.

As far as this writing and the story it creates, it results in very classical cinema. This isn’t using the term in relation to it being of a very high standard, but rather due to its attitude to subject matter. With a plot with little morality to divide (as most war film do divide) and minimal character development, but furthermore the tendency to dramatics (overly for some) topics of patriotism and justice. It gives the film a squarer and more ununique take, with vibes relying on drama as seen before in Stevens films such as Lincoln and War Horse. This does makes the film perfect material for Steven to create specific atmospheres, but there is lack of capitalisation in some areas of the film. It is a surprising screenplay to come from the Coens, and it very much has a sole purpose in the narrative meaning, lucky that meaning will be a crowd pleasure. The film will leave audience happy as it’s a punch the air tale about doing the right thing. But Steven could have capitalised more on the tension particularly within the climax of the film, tension being a different atmosphere to drama. As an audience member there was little doubt in my mind that their would be a happy ending, the film could have attempted to sway audience more.

Steven however is masterful at building and instilling the warm message the film has into the cold world of Berlin, and immersing the audience into that world. While the film won’t generate relatability with the population of america, but Steven does manage to construct great work within Berlin, showing off his scene management with panning shots down along the building of the Berlin wall being noteworthy. Another effect which was refreshing to see again is his ability to manage action sequence, which was lacking in his recent instalments. Despite it being just one scene of a plain crash, it looks stunning and worth several of many other films action scenes. This along with other subtle effects, despite the films reliance on dialogue (always difficult to add to directing wise), shows Steven great skill. Not necessarily for new shots or for atmospherical creation, and other aspects like the obvious choices to construct certain scenes is probably the main reason why he will be missing out for the directing award nomination, doesn’t make his work any less tasteful. To conclude on Steven’s contribution, this film feels very much like a perfection of his art form of the good willed dramatic war story, varnished over War Horse and Lincoln.

Now to address the acting, which this side of the film is carried by Hanks and Rylance. This doesn’t imply that there isn’t other acting talent involved, but the other characters feel more 2D and serve to compliment the works of Hanks and Rylance. Gaining higher status with a brilliant performance in Wolf Hall after a career devoted mostly to stage, he follows it with a minor role in The Gunman and now this, earning him his first film acting award. This was a dark horse for many of the awards session due to the fact that in comparison it is the most subtle performance probably across all acting categories. This due to the characters lack of extreme emotion displayed or inner conflict within the character, this is a performance gaining praise solely through conviction and believability and rightfully so. While Stallone might still be the favourite, the acting in the sporting role categories is looking the hardest to call at this point. As Rylance differed himself from Hanks in this film via the pure deliverer of lines, Hanks to a degree still felt scripted, while Rylance didn’t. In many ways the end goal of an acting, to distinguish a script within a genuine character.

Bridge of Spies doesn’t bring anything new to the table within its genre, story or directing. But all long with the acting are executed to such a fine quality that it doesn’t matter. It is without a doubt that many may watch B of S and find it to be rather cliché in scenes that attempted to be more poignant than they are (the hyperbole reaction of the american government and people being a main one), but its impossible not to enjoy this film good natured tale. This being a tale fuelled with talent across the board as far as writing, directing and acting meaning that these cliché frameworks are more than welcome on screen within such good hands. Another brilliant and memorable collaboration between Hanks and Spielberg in a film with style and motive no stranger to either, but lucky the quality outshines any repetitiveness. S of B is well written, brilliant directed and superbly acting (thanks to Rylance), but in a year of unique cinema, only one Oscar is likely for this film.

Verdict : Steven has created his most enjoyable film since Catch Me If You Can, while the film could have had a different vibe within another directors hands, Steven’s were good enough. Rylance now has a career in film as a true character actor.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “And don’t nod at me like that you son of a bitch.”

Review: The Hateful Eight

Year: 2015

Certificate: 18

Director: Quentin Tarentino

Screenwriter: Quentin Tarentino

Cast: Samuel L Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth, Demian Bichir, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern

Tarentino returns for his (arguably) eighth feature with a frost-bitten tale of treachery in the outback of post-civil war Wyoming. Bounty hunter John ‘the hangman’ Ruth (Kurt Russell) is on the way to deliver captive outlaw Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to Red Rock for the pleasure of watching her hang when the arrival of a blizzard forces his stagecoach to spend the night at Minnie’s Haberdashery en route. Cooped up together under trying circumstances, suspicions begin to run rife between the Haberdashery’s incumbents. Is Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins) really the new sheriff of Red Rock? Why is Domergue so blasé about her situation? And- since this is Minnie’s Haberdashery- just where, exactly, is Minnie?

Tarentino’s trademark fondness for loquacious exuberance shines through, and the dramatis personae is littered with raconteurs who, by and large, feel well-realised and (although they are indeed as hateful as the title suggests) are entertaining to watch. This character-based drama drives the narrative until the splashy final half when everything goes to hell in a tainted coffee tin and the bullets (and viscera) begin to fly in typically hyperbolic style. The cast go all-in, with Samuel L Jackson putting in a commanding performance as Major Marquis Warren, a Union soldier turned bounty hunter who, facing a room partially populated by ex-confederate racists, is determined to give as good as he gets. Jennifer Jason Leigh is also mesmerising as the delightfully despicable Daisy Domergue, her scenery-chewing antics contrasting well with Kurt Russel’s perennially wry John Ruth, to whom she spends most of the film handcuffed.

Although the language and violence is unarguably gratuitous and the film is perhaps a little baggy at just under 3 hours, The Hateful Eight is a surprisingly coherent and entertaining piece featuring a well-told story and exciting performances.

Verdict: 4/5

Image credit: facebook.com/thehatefuleightmovie

Trumbo Review

I am Spartacus

Released : February 5th 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Jay Roach

Cast : Bryan Cranston, Helen Mirren, Diane Lane, Elle Fanning, Louis C.K., John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Alan Tudyk

Plot : In the late 1940’s a series of Hollywood workers, including screen writer Dalton Trumbo (Cranston), are arrested and blacklisted for being a member of the communist party.

Bryan Cranston follows up his television career with his first of ‘professional’ acting, meaning his first lead in a film that is of a staged serious acting nature. As what better creates the platform for serious as well as high standard acting than and biopic, especially one which has one of the names of the person in the title (examples include Ray, Gandhi, Capote, Amelia, J.Egar, all are bait for one thing). As is the pattern with these types of motion pictures, there has been an across the broad set of nominations for Cranston portrayal of Trumbo, as nothing gets the awards interest like a biopic. What makes this film more favorable to film critics and film awards is the story’s link to Hollywood’s past, which is one of the most eye opening of films about films. Hence alike The Aviator in the sense of the films revolution around a single built to impress performance as well as its ties with the developing years of cinema. However the difference here is that Trumbo’s story linked to cinema is much more prevalent in the minds of some audience members (due to the plot point of Sparticus) and a much more entertaining focus on film with more actors impersonated and a better feel for the film making system developed.

On the side of screenplay, the films has a slightly weak and less gripping opening. The film demonstrates from the outset the persecution the Trumbo and others like him endured without ample time to get to know the characters, hence this isn’t as effective emotionally as it could be. The script suffers in so other aspects as well, in some cases treading water between what is realistic and what is over dramatized dialogue. Trumbo’s character himself is the pinnacle of this issue, with dialogue that is outlandishly brilliant, but is it large than life. The film is self aware of this fact in a line delivered by Louis C.K characters, and on the whole the entertainment value of the script outweighs the thoughts that it stumbles at points being cliche or too purpose built. These issues are also largely lost in the mist of additional aspects of the film where it effectively tackles the topic with a brilliant attitude towards subject matter (not too seriously), integrating a family dynamic that while isn’t unique is well executed, and an all round vibrant and well paced script, and well steeped in the Hollywood history (with the right measurement of cinema legends such as John Wayne and Kurt Douglas) But many lines in the film are a stretch dragging the film out of reality if for the briefest of moments.

The directorial work from Jay Roach if nothing else seems him step into a new chapter in his little know career. With past credits of directing work being the of the Austin Powers series and two thirds of the Meet the Parents series, he is steeped in comedic credibility. This is mostly likely why this is one of the better dramas for him to work on, as it is (while not consistently due to story line) a funny film. For the most part Roach function within the film was too position Cranston as well as possible to allow him the reel in those award nominations. This is very obvious for some parts, such as a unusual shot of an extreme close up on Trumbo’s eye as we see the reflection of his name on screen as he sits in one of his movies. While this may attempt to appear authentic and poignant, it does seem to serve a great advantage to showing how well Cranston can tear up. Not that this is bad directing, but it isn’t particularity adventurous or risky.

Cranston’s Trumbo portrait does as stated before, have one foot in the imaginary, it takes some plot development to be able to get on board with the character to a degree that audience can have an emotive response. This is by no means the fault of Cranston, but rather the script, and by a third way thought the film Cranston had tackled the character down to reality and made him more than enjoyable. While the character isn’t a wholly complex one, emotionally speaking or have a huge amount of character development it is a feet to pull the character off. As on paper he is one that many could quite easy ham up. So this Oscar nomination is award for the ability to play the unusual character with convictions as well as being able to tear up (to a believe extent) at a drop off a hat and get that crock in the voice in such scenes to really give the audience the feels. While the emotions for the audience might not match Trumbo’s he does tick all of those box’s, maybe with a little less charisma the character would have been fully landed to give an emotional performance.

Trumbo entering this award season listing for one reason only, Cranston performance, in this film containing all the conventions of a typical bio pic award bait film. This doesn’t make it a cheat of talent just due to its formula, but it does make it recognizable as a sub genre of film. Within this sub genre the film won’t be ranked as higly as others, but there is still strong work and entertainment involved. Its a memorable performance from Cranston who manages take his skills as a strong character actor from television to film for the the first time in a performance which is overshadowed by other talents of this year. Trumbo is a eye opening film about a side of Hollywood not well documented, and for fans of the movies it will be a joy to see this historical pieces steeped in classical cinema history. And along the way you’ll a solidly entertaining charismatic performance from Cranston with a script to boot, full of smooth and fun dialogue, unfortunately there isn’t enough skill to make it a bio pic hit. But remember, that many of the bio pic greats are some of the best in cinema history, not always as easy as it looks.

Verdict : Cranston embodies a larger than life character from a script that has a story which is eye opening and a brilliant period piece, as well as a tad charismatic and cliche. Goodmans a riot as well.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “I’m in this for the money and the pussy and they’re both falling off the trees!”

The Drop DVD Review

Gandolfini Final Hustle

Released : November 14th 2014

Certificate : 15

Director : Michaël R. Roskam

Cast : Tom Hardy, James Gandolfini, Noomi Rapace

Plot : A bar in New York is run by Marv (Gandolfini) and cousin Bob Saginowski (Hardy), who both look the other way as local mobsters use the pub as a drop off for cash. The two routinely help the money change hands within the bar, until one night their robbed for five thousands, placing them in deep with the mobsters.

World class television series and film actor James Gandolfini last film is released after his untimely death. Gandolfini granted will not be remembered for his film performances as much as his Golden Globe winning iconic role in The Sopranos as Tony Soprano, a family man who is forced to juggle home life as well as his involvement with the mob. Hence Gandolfini is pitch perfect type cast for The Drop, a small crime thriller about cousins who run a bar in New York for the mob. The film tackles issues such as family ties, past glory, desperation and neighbourhood history, all wrapped up in a simple small story with complexity and character count alike that of A History of Violence or Drive. Meaning a film dealing with crime, but with more subtlety and scope than many of cinemas greatest crime outings, this doesn’t mean that less is more within the genre, but historically it hasn’t been the case.  With these sorts of films comes a higher level of investment in character, as the film doesn’t have as many guns blazing to distract audiences. For this film we have Tom Hardy’s lead as a quiet bartender who has a simple monotonous routine, and Gandolfini the manager of the bar who is frustrated by his position after former local fame.

Speaking on the topic of less being more, The Drop rides this waves throughout the whole narrative, relying on subtle metaphoric character interactions and lines hidden in a story that has little substance or weight. The film attempts to take a look at what its likely for the small timers or the ones beaten down by the bigger mob bosses, which is a good enough fairly unexplored premises. But the film lacked from very little in the ways of actual entertainment value to keep the audience on board for the poignant story to develop. There is some light and enjoyment to be derived from this gloomy thriller, such as a general likeability factor of Hardy’s simple bar tender character a few violent thrills as the plot develops, and the main selling point Hardy’s character discovery of abandoned pub and their friendship. But for many these comfort pleasures of the film will not be able to endure the rather dry and limited script which may be effective to creating believable characters, but not in dialogue that will hook audiences or provided stirring lines.

Other aspect such as directing did have their sparks of originality but few and far between. There is particular good handling of the final scene within the bar with unexpected camera work (due to dress up until this point) of a camera flip to follow the money exchanging hands, and also the overall building of suspense within the bar in the final act does bring about a level of tense atmosphere. But perhaps due to lack of experience that Roskam has, there is very little else brought to the directorial scene. There are attempts in directing, as with he story itself, to be more metaphorical and artistic than it really is, for example an opening cliché shot showing the bar through a reflection in a puddle. It could be argued that its plain presentation is purposeful in order to suit the mood of the film and clearly present the character driven drama of the film, and with little action, these no opportunity for flexing of directing muscles. But close up shots and over the shoulder shots wear thin when the dialogue on-screen isn’t enough alone to hook audience. Overall whatever the reason, Roskam work wasn’t anything memorable.

Now for the aspects of the film that were note worthy, that being the work of Hardy, Gandolfini and Rapace. Hardy’s character in this is far more subtle than many of his other roles, but that doesn’t make it any less hooking. The likeability factor of Hardy’s simple humble bar tender is the best part of this film, the characters written persona while being quiet and recluse is a needed presence as an average joy good guy within the story. Hardy delivers him in a plain and threatened nervous manner in the film, which makes you route for him all the more in the film, it ticks the box of what all protagonist should do, you care about what happens to him. Gandolfini work is brilliantly type cast for the character type, and fits the uncontempt angry manager like a glove, with particular flexing of acting muscles towards the ending of the film via some more emotional scenes of the film. While both performances are entertaining enough, the same cannot be said for the source material, even though Hardy has little to say. The dialogue was attempting to be too high reaching or poignant that it really is, but the characters created by script was solid.

The Drop is an attempt at a crime thriller driven by small cast character drama, and it has some of the components to do so. It contains written characters that are entertaining enough with actors which handled them well, but due to the overall dialogue that isn’t stirring as well as an old story, the characters can’t keep the film afloat. Ultimately the short run time of an hour and three-quarters drags, in a crime film, a genre that is definitive for its thrilling nature. While there is some enjoyment to be derived from the little story of Bob and his dog (he finds in a bin leading to a friendship with Noomi Rapace character) that make you invested in the character, it’s a recreation of a worn out ‘find my money’ story which is lacking in the necessary drive as far as twists and turns (which aren’t predictable) married with a script of intelligence that can left the film out of the gritty cold world it is set in.

Verdict : You might like a story of a bar tender and his dog, trying to make the best of it, as that undoubtedly tugs on heart-strings. Unfortunately it isn’t a unique, or even adequate, take on crime drama to do Gandolfini or Hardy work justice, there just needed to be more substance as far as story and script.

Verdict : 2/5

Quote : “But it didn’t, it was just a stool.”

Spotlight Review

From The Man Behind The Cobbler?  

Released : January 29th 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Thomas McCarthy

Cast : Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci

Plot : The true story of one newspaper and a team of journalist given the case of a Priest accused of molesting more than eighty boys. As they follow the story down the rabbit whole, they start to discover a mass cover up within the Catholic Church.

Yet another entry into the Oscar run hit British screens late and just in time for the BAFTA ‘s, where we have the true life account of the newspaper team that lead investigative work and broke the ice onto the Catholic Church’s abusive controversy. Weighting in with six Oscar nominations including best picture, directing, original screenplay and two best supporting actor. Spotlight is at face value one of the ‘dryer’ films to be nominated for the best film this year, despite controversial subject matter. Recently in British boards being criticised by some for being too under dramatic in its attempts to follow the investigative process to the letter and finding its long run time a drag. The aspects criticised can be seen in the film, but when one considered the topic matter being dealt with, it seems like a story that needs to be dealt with delicacy and, as reporting should be, a unbais portrayal. Not all historical films should have the purpose of throwing stones and making obvious blames, especially when the story is still fresh and continuing to a large extent. Hence Spotlight journalistic approach tip toes around the fire as it should, avoiding turning into a smear campaign it could have easily.

The story focuses around a four person team of Spotlight, an independent investigative unit working for the Boston Globe. As a new Jewish editor (Schreiber) arrives, his first action is to encourage the team to investigate the case of one priest accused of molesting eighty boys. And so down the dark trail the team emerges. From a writing viewpoint the film does suffer from similar minor issues that other biographical Oscar baits have suffered, this being that not all finer details will be taken in by audience. The script is amazing in its ability to maintain realism within the technical world, with a film teaming with such dialogue that has twists a turns. Audience will follow the progression perfectly, just maybe not every single cause for new discovery. Where the script is even more impressive is its ability is to keep the story grounded within central characters which account for much of the films enjoyment. Another minor issue that could quiet easily be picked upon by some criticise is that of the characters used to portray (of which there are three) molested victims, some of which could be argued to be extreme or stereotypical in their fractured persona’s.

Aside from the entertainment value of character acting and realism drama, it may be the surprisingly skilful work of Tom McCarthy that felt extremely authentic and thoughtful. Despite being subtle and maybe less noticeable to cinema goer’s not hooked by the movement of the camera, it is film filled with both unique and meaningful camera work. Some aspects of his work more obvious than others, with a combination of zooming in and zooming out effect for poignant set pieces within the main office of Spotlight. As well as other works such as especially iconic opening movement showing the priest pull away from a police station to then merge into a point of view shot with a onlooking police officers. Also there was the effectively straightforward use of wide shots to depict character movement, all of which added more to the scenes authentic nature. While these effects aren’t ground breathtakingly unique, in to a year when Iñárritu is playing that card, it was brilliant to see a director who had though through the meaning behind shots so well and brought an extra element of directorial art to a film which could have easily been ninety percent over the shoulder shots.

Now to move onto the acting aspect of the film, in which the nominations across awards boards have not been consistent, with Ruffalo gaining BAFTA and Oscar nomination, and McAdams gaining ‘just’ the Oscar nomination. For some reason the Golden Globes didn’t hold these gems as highly. As well as these two actors work the whole cast functioned together exceptionally to really build a believable office team dynamic. Schreiber for example turns out a career best performance in a solid turn at subtle acting, and Keaton also stands out with his ability to change gear from his previous eccentric characters to more human ones. Ruffalo however does steal the show for a number of reasons, firstly his ability to master the unusual mannerisms of his character which despite being obvious are still executed with great precision. As well his characters more emotional response to the story being a joy to watch, as Ruffalo doesn’t flinch to turn out set pieces of dramatic acting which are truly stirring and real. These two factors will make him stand out more than the other actors due to their straighter performances, but this doesn’t take away from Ruffalo (or any other the actors) skill.

Some could claim that a film such as Spotlight has a slight protection from criticism due to topic matter dealt with, as some biopics already gain praise just for topic matter, The Butler being one in recent memory. But Spotlight doesn’t fall under that category, of course the investigate drama is more tense due to case, but its has so much more to offer than and insight into a cloudy and dark topic. Although for many cinema goers the story might speak louder than the skill put into the film, but due to class performances from McCarthy (both writing and directing) and Ruffalo as a beacon of a top call turn out of cast, there are moments when you appreciate them more than the story, and the story is a fascinating one. Though it is unlikely to walk away with many of the awards it is nominated for this year, it has enough subtle, low-key, professional work in it to be a real professional biopic. Like other films of this years awards it doesn’t beg the bigger audiences due to pace and a quiet nature, buts it’s a slow burner with the ability to remain in mind after viewing due to both talent and topic.

Verdict : Your standard sell out success with highbrow critics. Enjoyment is the wrong word to describe the film, due to style and topic, which is why it may lose out on awards and box office success. Admiration, that’s a word for the story and crew.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “It’s time, Robby! It’s time! They knew and they let it happen! To KIDS! Okay? It could have been you, it could have been me, it could have been any of us. We gotta nail these scumbags! We gotta show people that nobody can get away with this; Not a priest, or a cardinal or a freaking pope!”

Review: Grandma

Year: 2015

Certificate: 15

Director: Paul Weitz

Screenwriter: Paul Weitz

Cast: Lily Tomlin, Julia Garner, Judy Greer, Marcia Gay Harden, Laverne Cox, Sam Elliott

A welcome return to the big screen for Lily Tomlin, Grandma is a beautifully balanced comedic drama in which Tomlin’s retired (and broke) poet Elle sets out on a quest to call in enough favours to raise the money necessary to procure an abortion for her teenage granddaughter, Sage (Judy Greer). Their progress is hampered by the havoc (past and present) wreaked by Elle’s flashbulb temper, and the skeletons in Elle’s closet which begin to rattle as, becoming increasingly desperate, she turns to more and more tenuous connections for help.

Despite the simple premise, Weitz’s film is a work of surprising delicacy, bringing together its seemingly disparate strands of pathos, frank wit and almost knockabout comedy in a way that never feels mishandled. Garner’s sage is a perfect comic foil for the mercurial Elle, providing the audience with a perspective through which to view Elle’s antics with affection as well as incredulity. Garner’s performance is note-perfect, with the spot-on comic timing of her facial expressions providing a counterpoint to Elle’s bursts of temper. In fact, Grandma is consistently funny throughout, with moments of absurdity both underscoring the verisimilitude of the drama (one of the best sight gags I’ve ever seen involving a toy truck occurs in the midst of a bitter reunion between Elle and an ex-lover) and providing a light counterpoint to the film’s more serious elements.

As displayed in his earlier work (most notably 2002’s About a Boy and 2013’s Admission), Weitz has a keen eye for interpersonal relationships, and one of Grandma’s triumphs is its exploration of the complicated web of familial and social connections surrounding Elle. While barely discussed directly, it becomes clear that the death of Elle’s partner of 38 years, Violet, weighs heavily on her, and this loss has fractured the already strained relationship between Elle and her daughter Judy (Marcia Gay Harden). It also causes her to pull back from a fledgling love affair with a younger woman, Olivia (Judy Greer), and the break-up which forms the first scene of the film has lasting consequences.

It is an absolute pleasure (and a rare one) to watch a film which affords such dignity and grants such complexity to an older, female protagonist. Elle is allowed to be by turns relatable and alien, warm and abrasive, and the subtle character development that occurs as she is forced to confront the trail of destruction that her acerbic temperament has wrought is utterly compelling. In fact, despite its wide supporting cast (including accomplished turns from Laverne Cox and Sam Elliott) and lean running time, all of the characters in Grandma feel like real people whose lives continue outside of the frame. Tobias Datum’s unobtrusive and naturalistic camerawork adds to this, placing the audience as almost fly-on-the-wall observers of the unfolding social drama.

Verdict: 5/5

Image credit: sonyclassics.com

Legend DVD Review

The Dark Kray Rises 

Released : September 9th 2015

Certificate : 18

Director : Brian Helgeland

Cast : Tom Hardy, Emily Browning, Taron Egerton, Christopher Eccleston, Sam Spruell, David Thewlis, Paul Anderson

Plot : True life story of the rise of the Kray twins (Hardy), Reggie and Ronnie, during the 1960’s. Two of the biggest gangsters that London and England has ever know. The film see’s them battle police, rivals, love and each other.

Legend is the remake of the little known British gangster film The Krays (1990) which tells the truth life story of the Kray twins, some of London’s most famous gangsters. To man the remake we have Oscar winning screenwriter of L.A Confidential (as well as nominated for Mystic River), Brian Helgeland, directing and writing the film. It is also packed with rough type cast actors to man the gritty London foot soldiers of the Kray’s, such as Paul Anderson (Peaky Blinders) and Taron Egerton (Kingsman: The Secret Services) both most famous for their likeable English accents and rude nature. And topping the film is Tom Hardy, truly flexing his acting muscles in as many unique roles as possible. First a film where he is the only thing on screen for the whole 87 minutes, now he embodies both main characters of Legend.

Straight out of the gate if audience were expecting a wall to wall gritty London based mob film, filled with cultural richness and brutal violence then they might find it unpleasant to have a large act of the film taken up with romance. Hence there is a surprising edge of Goodfellas female involvement in the film which plays a big part. This could be a positive attribute, as it sticks to the films true story, adds to the dynamic of the twins relationship and adds depth to the film, in premise. However the execution of this aspect of the film doesn’t fly as high as other aspects of the film, which it needed to in order to occupy so much screen time. The poor quality of this romance between Reggie and Frances (Browning),  a local office girl who dreams of more and falls for Reggie charming nature and glamorous lifestyle, is hard to pin point as it is certainly not the acting. Due to the writing mostly the romance was rushed into placed from the start with little exploration of why Frances is so immediately mesmerised by Reggie. The doomed loved story then continues to spiralling down due to the pressure of gang life, Ronnie’s character and Reggie late working nature, a gangster love dynamic that has been explored before. The writing however didn’t hook entertainment or tug at heart strings, due to this aspect of the script being more square than the rest of the film. Obviously the films tone needs to alter slightly between relationship and crime genre, but it was obvious to see that Helgeland found more imagination and pleasure for writing the crime aspects.

Continuing on to Helgeland’s work as both screenwriter and director of the film, there are aspects of his work that kept the film more than afloat, but thoroughly enjoyable. For script purposes of the film Helgeland was brilliant and turning out pitch perfect cockney humour between the characters full of zest and wit. The only issue is that of the film being unable to trade in its entertainment value of humour and action at the start into drama and tension towards the end, ultimately the film suffered from pacing. As the initial ecstasy enjoyment of being immersed into the world of the Kray’s and their rocky relationship doesn’t quiet transfer into gangster drama of an equally high calibre for much of the second half. As the film falls into a bleak and fairly dry drama between the nature of Ronnie and the suppressed frustration of Reggie. However Helgeland’s work is top class in aspects of humours and invigorating  screen writing as well as directorial work with a set that is top class at building a beautiful and believable world of 1960’s London to stage the legacy to audience, but not quiet make it as human for the ‘colder’ side of tale.

The secondary heavy weight talent on the film is of course Tom Hardy, being much more prevalent in recent cinema history than Helgeland, and who’s work in this film is the framework for the entire film. Hardy demonstrates true talent as a chameleon actor, being able to deliver brilliant chemistry between himself as he plays both role. We aren’t totally sure how the shooting process went, but it doesn’t matter as the tip toeing between the two brothers ticked the only box that it needed to. This being the fact that the brothers felt like completely different people, characters and actor, of course the audience all know the truth but for Hardy to walk in each day and create the two persona’s so effortlessly is brilliant. Some could say that the task seems fairly easy, but Hardy had to create chemistry that would translate into believable conflict and relationship, hence act out one scene and then remember his mannerisms of the scene to construct the reaction of another character. Where some actors struggle to maintain their half of one scene, Hardy had to construct an entire dual character arc.

Legend hits as many hits as many good notes as it does bad, but when playing in the gangster genre there needs to be exception panache to allow for people to stand and recognise, but at the end of the day it’s still great fun to be taken along for the ride. Helgeland was able to beautiful and stylishly recreate another crime ridden world for the story to be set, and worked wonders in stage a snappy and crisp dialogue to initially get you on board with this world. Tom Hardy turn out a solid performance as does Egerton and Browning, but these characters find more to work with initially than when their relationships hit the rocks, resulting in quiet noticeable issues with pacing. And maybe the running commentary could have been a little more imaginative as memorable, rather than a slightly plain description of the story. But its undeniable the fun available here, filled to the brim with gritty violence that almost comical when you’re not cringing, cockney accents with plenty of four letter words, and an entertaining enough chess game of gangs and police. Of course Hardy fans will have a blast here as well.

Verdict : Hardy gives a brilliant dual character performance, but he had a little less to work with on the ending character drama then the initial blast of brother hood. This issue exists for the films romance, story and overall entertainment. Better action crime comedy than stirring character drama.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “What is that? I come here for a PROPER shootout! What you gonna do with that rollin pin? You gonna bake me a cake? What I want is a shootout, a SHOOTOUT IS A SHOOTOUT… like a Western!”