I, Daniel Blake Review

The Pursuit Of Happyiness 

Released : October 21st 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Ken Loach

Cast : Dave Johns, Hayley Squires, Natalie Ann Jamieson, Micky McGregor

Plot : Daniel Blake (Johns) struggles with the complexities and harshness of the welfare system after a major heart attack. Seemingly unable to qualify for benefits, alike single mother (Squires), together they face poverty.

Ken Loach, the quietly famous British director famous for the classic Kes, reunites with frequent collaborating writer Paul Laverty. Together their most famous work includes The Wind that Shakes the Barley, and more recently The Angles’ Share, and now I, Daniel Blake. Ken Loach in his most famous for his films about the everyday British citizen, within different stories. Often Loach’s film have a humorous edge but ultimately poetic sadness to them, the style which has made him famous. While his other films, alike with Laverty has a slight quirky edge to the story that accompanies the social commentary aspects of the film, I, Daniel Blake doesn’t contain such uniqueness or quirky edge. It is a straightforward social commentary about the poor suffering with the benefit system of Britain, told through a humours melodramatic tone and subtly directing and writing.

The first issue with I, Daniel Blake (as with the rest of Loach’s films) is that they don’t exactly enthral the average cinema goer. Loach makes slow paced subtle films that a rooted in clarity of character and dry directing. In other words, the films stay rooted in realism, and when this feature is carried to such extent such as with I, Daniel Blake, it can create issues with pacing. While the film isn’t particularly long, the very dead pan style of its storytelling, means that at some times the humours sweary nature of lead character doesn’t maintain a throughout entertaining sensation. This is where I, Daniel Blake differs from Loach’s other films, as the unusual, inventive or intense situations that the characters find themselves in is dropped, meaning that his style of filmmaking can become tedious at times.

Luckily it contains enough of the essential Loach elements to make it enjoyable. One being that Loach can find actors that aren’t mainstream and that fit characters like a glove, the two actors being Dave Johns and Hayley Squires. While the performances aren’t of the quality to make them hugely memorable, they are very enduring and what is most important about a Loach film, very realistic. With this realism means that there aren’t hugely emotional scenes that demand great floods of tears, as in mainstream Hollywood dramas, and for this reason may not seem as impressive as others. However, the two actors, Squires in particular disappears into these characters, and this joined with Loach’s directing style completely immerse you in their reality. It is likely for such reason, why the film comes across monotonous and dim, because this is their reality.

Loach’s style of directing and the overall craft of the film is very subtle, but effective in this pursuit of realism. There are many sequences where the audio is drowned out by the hustle and construction sounds going on around the characters, to help build the world of working class Britain. Similarly, Laverty script which contains little exchanges and idioms of the characters equally construct the setting of Newcastle. What is most poignant about Loach’s style, is the way he doesn’t show everything. He is a very selective director and will linger on certain shots longer than perhaps other directors would do. Many of the scenes take place in the council housing and Loach plays of this via shooting through doorways frequently to show the scene and characters. This sells the cramped and limited existence of the characters. The direction does become slightly repetitive, as the walking of characters, indoor scenes and emotive scenes are all shot in a separate way and rarely deviate. So, Loach style which is sombre enough as it is, when joined with such a bleak story does create a very dreary picture. While this is the aim of the film as it attempts to reflect the reality of these characters, it doesn’t quiet have the stirring drama and humour to heighten the film to a captivating as well as poignant drama. But there is great skill across the board to immerse the audience in this world as to convey the story and point.

Verdict : The film creates a excellent level of affinity with the characters and the world, but moving and humour elements are few and far between to make the film stand out, as realistic as it is.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Run the mouse up the screen.”

Modern Horror Series : It Follows

It’s Behind You

Released : February 27th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : David Robert Mitchell

Cast : Maika Monroe, Daniel Zovatto, Keir Gilchrist, Jake Weary, Lili Sepe, Olivia Luccardi

Plot : After an innocent sexual encounter, teenager Jay (Monroe) is told by her partner that he has passed on to her an odd curse, in which she will be followed by an entity.

2014 was a big year for modern horror, with three standouts gaining big critical (although not box office) success. Those being, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, It Follows and The Babadook. It is rare, given the amount that fly under the radar, for a horror film to be praised by critics, and each of these films was for very different reasons. It Follows got noticed for both its indie vibe as well as its retro feel and setting, with homage paid to both the set design of the classic 1970’s slasher horror film as well as the style of filming. Directed and written by David Robert Mitchell (a filmmaker famous for little else) made a unique film, not only for the reasons listed, but also for the ‘monster’ of the film as well as the imagery that is used.

It Follow is full of imagery and style the reference many classic films, Halloween being a standout. While the directing is unique from Mitchell, the music score, the 70’s setting, the blonde and other aspects all reminisce of the classic horror film. From just this alone, it becomes clear that some a lot of thought has gone into the film from Mitchell’s end. Just as Carpenter in Halloween introduced the use of in depth and out of depth and movement in the corner of the frame into the horror genre, Mitchell plays with it both in his directing as well as pure nature of his monster (an anonymous being that audiences scan the frame to spot in scenes). The way the film has a close nit set of friends who are young and deal with the issue also brings in elements of many 70’s and 80’s classics. The imagery that Mitchell uses as well, although may be obvious and clear in meaning, are enjoyable to have present as it is rare that a director in this genre takes the time with such qualities. What all this amounts to, and is clear from the very opening sequence of the film, is that Mitchell is very skilled director who has thought out this little project of his very well.

Due to such skill, It Follows was able to create genuine scares without the use of much blood or a monster as such. This is a very rare feature of horror films, where the way in which a scene is presented, rather than what is being presented create more of the scares in the film. It was a quality achieved in Halloween, as it was just a man in a mask, and is again done so here, as it just a person following you. So above all else, It Follows was elevated to the level of prestige that it was due to its directing. As to the storyline, which the imagery suggests, there is a theme of innocence, and the loss of it that come with growing older. While the film doesn’t attempt to make a bold point about this topic, in horror films this is something that is repeated. In the slasher films revolving around teenagers, the sexually active ones are killed off first, and It Follows seems to play off this convention as its main theme.

It Follows isn’t a horror film for everyone for the following reasons. Not every horror film fan will appreciate the directional choices such as the imagery and the intertextuality that takes place. Also the story structure, which is basic on dialogue and characters, and could be labelled as repetitive at times as that characters continuously run away from ‘the following’, may result in a bore for some. But for people who appreciate the artistic craft and execution over a flasher ‘fun’ blood feast, they will have a very special time.

Verdict : A very unique horror film which has a great level of freshness to both its story and directing, providing genuine scares and a great atmosphere throughout.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “It could look like someone you know or it could be a stranger in a crowd. Whatever helps it get close to you.”

Modern Horror Series : Howl (2015)

British Werewolf on a British Train

Released : October 16th 2015

Certificate : 18

Director : Paul Hyett

Cast : Ed Speleers, Holly Weston, Elliot Cowan, Sam Gittins

Plot : A late-night train breaks down in a wood, where a werewolf circles.

This is one of the most conventional horror films around in recent years, a straight to DVD film about people being eaten by werewolves on a train. These films have always been the bottom of the pile for the horror genre, but it recent years especially there has been a huge surge in the amount of moderate budget horror created. Most of which doesn’t make it to cinemas and is lucky if it gets a spot-on television. But out of this vast abyss of corny horror films, Howl managed to scrape a 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, miles ahead of most of ‘these’ film types.

First off, as with these generic horror films, they are extremely predictable and Howl is no exception. You can guess the people which will die early on within seconds of them being on screen. The biggest reveal this film has to offer is the surprise that there is more than one werewolf. Also, these films rarely have imagination to the direction, with the age-old point of view shots from the creature’s looking at the victims through the woods. Howl fits with this as well, with Hyett (Howl being his most famous picture) using his fair share of the troops. The acting as well will be often, terrible, Howl manages to maintain a mostly acceptable level across the board. And the writing could have been done by anyone, with characters making the poorest decisions and character archetypes of the genre being used fully. But surprisingly Howl manages to be an entertaining film, as when a film fits these conventions like a glove to a well-executed standard, and has enough budget in the special effects department, it can be irresistible.

The horror genre is one of the most successful genre at creating bad films, which make a good time. The film’s enjoyment can be mirrored by the style behind of special effects. When you finally see the beast, it is so over the top and borderline laughable, that you simply suspend all rational thoughts other than to just be entertained by the carnage. There is something extremely entertaining about a film which executes this style with fair levels of skill, harking back to the genre’s early years such as Friday the 13th. Films which knew that the sole pleasure that they offered was the thrills, chills and laughs and watching one character at a time being gruesomely dismembered. This is exactly what is offered by Howl, and the only aspect that makes it work is plenty of action and predictability and solid special effects department. The reveal scene of the first werewolf in all its glory comes unfortunately late in the film, but as you can see when you google the film, is such an odd spectacle that it’s just enjoyable.

It’s very easy to be critical of films like this, and any criticism that are made could be just as easy applied to any straight to DVD horror film that came out in the last 10 years. The only unique criticism that could be thrown at Howl is that the werewolves, don’t look like wolves. But this film can serve as a great guilty pleasure film, if the mood is right you can relish the violence and the cliché nature of the film type. So, Howl manages to separate itself from ‘the rest’ by the following. All the clichés are meet, which would usually be a drag but when they are done in such a (overall) visually well executed manor, with a great batch of monster to boot it offers great fun. Most likely the film isn’t worth by many people’s standards the price stage of the Blue-ray copy, but it’s a good bonus as well.

Verdict : Have fun in watching an classic style of horror film executed just as badly as all the rest. But with a lot of blood and hilarious monsters it’s a fun guilty pleasure.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Bear’s don’t Howl”

Modern Horror Series : We Are What We Are (2013)

Dinner Time

Released : October 25th 2013

Certificate : 18

Director :  Jim Mickle

Cast : Julia Garner, Ambyr Childers, Bill Sage, Michael Parks

Plot : A family with an ancestral tradition find their rituals threatened when the mother dies of an unexplained cause. This leaves the daughter (Childers) with the duty of performing the family’s yearly acts.

We Are What We Are became noticed via its appearance at the Cannes Film Festival in 2013, it was up for a minor directorial nomination. The film was since meet with across the board positive critical success. Director Jim Mickle has gone on to have similar small film critical success with the equally dark and violent thriller Cold In July (2014). The film’s most abstract plot is that of a family with a cannibalistic ritual living in a secluded American town. The advertisement campaign didn’t boast this feature too much, and rightly so, as to label the film a straight out cannibal horror would be wrong.

For horror fans that are hoping to see a full blown flesh eating riot, they will be disappointed. As while this film is definitely horrific in parts, the film is more alike a family drama with sharp gothic atmosphere and horror sequences. The spends most of its time with the relationship between the children of the family, and their relationship with the father. Behind this is a slight religious aspect as the father believes the family has gained a level of purity from their rituals. So this is worlds away from a The Hills Have Eyes type cannibal film. This makes for a unique experience that for the whole works very well and provides some edge of the seat sequences, however pacing does become an issue. The highlights of this film is the two lead characters, the daughters, Rose (Garner) and Iris (Childers). These teenage actors bring a heightened level or performance that carries the film, and it’s the most impactful aspect. They carry the film in the sense that for a horror that devotes much of its time to drama, these performances needed to be solid in order to make the film work. The themes the children deal with in this film such as innocence and duty are gripping as well, equally to that of the violent sequences. These performances also balance out what is at times an over the top performance from the father figure (Sage).

Other positive aspects are that of the atmosphere that the film builds. There film as a strong gothic feel to it, which while is achieved with recognisable tropes, it is executed very well. This may be a flaw for some audience, as with the ‘scares’ being few and far between, some might understandable not be hooked by the atmosphere and the acting alone. Which is the man flaw in the film, is that it does drag in parts. This is mostly the price that the film pays for being tasteful with the cannibalistic side of the film, and focusing on something more character driven. The film takes time with its atmosphere building and character setup, which does mean the first act of the film fairly weak and the dialogue isn’t gripping enough to keep you totally engaged. By the second act it is worth it though as the film picks up, from both a character drama viewpoint and a straight out horror one. But the film doesn’t quiet manage to shake off the tropes of the gothic genre that it uses throughout, and when you combine this with the fact the film doesn’t use many conventional horror sequences (e.g. violent flesh eating and murdering), it can be easy to see how this horror is acquired taste which does require a patient cinema goer.

We Are What We Are is a bold piece of horror filmmaking which although uses conventional tropes, it is very refreshing to see a film of this genre that focuses more on characters and their arcs, rather than just resorting to blood and guts. The film does also have a couple of twists and turns to keep the narrative interesting, some are predictable, some catch you off guard. And what the film is mostly famous for is its final sequence which is rightfully left out of the trailer and is a more conventional violent treat which will please audience not hooked by the dramatic elements.

Verdict : An unique horror film with a refreshing level of depth and acting, but a script and a few more thrills to match would have helped.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “We have kept our tradition in its purity.”

The Hustler DVD Review

Pool Hand Luke

Released : October 27th 1961

Certificate : 15

Director : Robert Rossen

Cast : Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, Piper Laurie, George C Scott, Myron McCormick

Plot : The story of  ‘Fast’ Eddie Felsen (Newman), a top of his game pool hustler who’s been making good money on the road. But when he challenges Minnesota Fats (Gleason), the rumoured best pool player in the country, and meets a shy girl called Sarah, things get difficult.

 

The Hustler is another ‘classic’ to be made out of a Paul Newman lead. The film has big respect amongst filmmakers, enough that Martin Scorsese directed a sequel to the film called The Colour of Money, with Newman returning to the role of Fast Eddie. It gained one Oscar for cinematography, and six additional nominations that included all of the four main actors for their roles as well as best picture. While Newman in his earlier career had films much more noted than this, this was one of his very earliest, coming before Cool Hand Luck and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

From the general synopsis of the film you’d expect to see a drama based on a series of dramatic pools games, the film devoting much time to the drama of different games in isolation as he Eddie works his way to the top. While the film does contain this, there is a more prevalent storyline that occupies the majority of screen time. This is the story of Eddie’s relationship with Sarah which takes an unvarnished look at alcoholism, loneliness and depression. So for all the charm and charisma of Newman as an actor, the taste to this film may be surprising. For the romantic relationship of these two characters, the writing is realistic in the way that it is economic and understated. The script doesn’t contain clichés (for the time it was made) and doesn’t over-dramatize the topic matter dealt with. The result of which are characters that you may not ‘like’ or approve of, but this is a result of writing that is not hyperbole and is true to the characters (a line doesn’t feel out of place or made for memorabilia value).

For the acting across the board it ticks all of the boxes that are needed for great drama. The lead from Newman is as brilliant as ever, although it does fall into vibe of the rest of his characters in a career that’s slightly type cast. But the character development that his role goes through and that he is able to realize is superb, to really convey a character that is a changed man by the end of the story. The supporting performances are a great match to Newman as well. Gleason performance who plays Minnesota Fats, a confident and collected pool player who has been the best for years, is very entertainingly realized, but with a slightly rushed character arc. C Scott, who plays the manager of Fats, a rich but determined businessman, is the biggest standout next to Newman who grounds a performance with a gripping arc, despite being borderline over the top in some scenes.

Piper Laurie’s performance may not be as acclaimed, due to the characters weak cautious nature, which at times become tedious. But despite this Laurie very well captures a deflated character with little enthusiasm, a hard character to get behind but a well-acted on none the less. So The Hustler isn’t the engrossing sports drama in the way that many would expect, with an abundance of gripping pool room game scenes with poignant dialogue. Instead it is engrossing due to its flawed and ‘damaged goods’ characters which have brilliant arcs (which for their time would have been much more original than today) and performances that make it a standout character study piece.

Verdict : A sports drama that would seem dated made today likely, with pacing that will drag for some audiences. The performances and the script elevate the film beyond these flaws, in a slow burning melancholy drama.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : You have the best excuse in the world for losing; no trouble losing when you got a good excuse.