Anomalisa DVD Review

(Adult) Toy Story

Released : March 11th 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson

Cast : David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tom Noonan

Plot : A man (Thewlis) who is depressed by the mundanity of his life, finds hope in a chance meeting with a stranger (Jason Leigh).

Famously wacky none mainstream filmmaker, Charlie Kaufman returns with Anomalisa, a film adaption of his play of the same name. Most famous for his writing ability, with a number of his films being Oscar nominated for their screenplay, including Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind and Being John Malkovich. For this film he ventures in directing as well (this being his most famous director role), along with little known film maker Duke Johnson. Anomalisa gained an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature Film.

Several imaginative qualities are obvious within the framework of this film. Firstly there is the stop-motion animation work, and as well as this how all but two characters, our leads, are voiced by the same actor, Tom Noonan. This latter feature is obviously a clever way to convey how our lead character, Michael, views everyone as the same and finds no variety or pleasure from his interaction with people. A Guardian article (and others) have suggested, due to this voicing effect, the films dream sequences and how the all the character are animated to look alike (apart from our leads), that Michael suffers from Fregoli delusion. This is a delusion where a person believes everyone else to actually be the same person who changes their appearance. Without further research into Kaufman response or inspiration for the film, I am unaware if this theory carries water. But alike many of the Kaufman’s films, they are so jarring and imaginative in their storytelling, that is seems wrong to attempt to narrow it down to one meaning. If Kaufman’s intention here was to convey messages about the nature of mundanity and depression, instead of the delusion, then these effects are very creative.

The script for the film is much less subtle or effective in this respect of conveying meaning. While not all of his films preach about life’s deeper meanings and the human nature, this film and Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, do carry these. Unfortunately ‘Eternal Sunshine…’ far surpasses Anomalisa in richness of dialogue and overall script. The overall negativity and pointless conveyed in the dialogue of Michaels character with everyone else is rather ‘obvious’ and unimaginatively done. People in the hallways of the hotel and always swearing or masturbating. As well as this the dialogue of the romance that ensues between Michael and the shy self-conscious Lisa, who he falls for were lacking in panache . While realistic, the scenes weren’t half as moving or gripping as his previous work which so greatly captured people’s spirits.

As for the story as a whole, without spoilers, the film will likely leave the bulk of the audience feeling unfulfilled. Not that a film is obliged to perform this task, and critiquing of a storyline sometimes feels obtuse, due to its very subjective nature, but I too was left dissatisfied. For those who enjoy and respect ending that rebel against a conventional film ending of boy meets girl, then there may be something here for you. But for a film that examines life and human nature, it would have been nice to have an ending that attempted to answer these questions or approach them a little better.

Anomalisa is alike all of Kaufman’s films, beautifully made, with create creativity and flare. This films approach to the topic matter is a bit more generic and less aesthetically surprising than his other films. But it still packs a lot more heart and craft than many other films of last year, just not up to his regular work.

Verdict : One of Kaufmans weaker films. It’s not quite as entertaining or thought provoking as his other works, but is still a heartfelt well-made study of the human condition.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “At last! Another person!”

Take Shelter DVD Review

Twister

Released : November 15th 2011

Certificate : 15

Director : Jeff Nichols

Cast : Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain, Shea Whigham, Tova Stewart

Plot : Haunted by apocalyptic dreams and paranoia, Curtis (Shannon), quiet family life is disturbed.

A small festival film that didn’t perform hugely at the box office. It gained great critical success and a few awards at minor festivals. Written and directed by film maker Jeff Nichols, who while isn’t well known has gone on to make more ‘small’ but critically acclaimed films after this one. He is the writer/director of Mud (one of MCConaughey’s break out roles), Midnight Special and this year Loving. Before this film he had little motion picture experience apart from one short. Shannon, the lead, would go on to collaborate on all of Nichols, as well as The Iceman and Man of Steel.

Nicholas style of storytelling, from what I have seen, is rather unusual. In the way that it has inventive and thought provoking story lines, but which are told and present very subtly and ‘non-Hollywoodised’. There good return to importance of character and a sombre tone throughout his films, these are some patterns which are established here and seem (from what I’ve seen) to continue throughout his work. Take Shelter takes its time with the development of its main plot, which is the mental state of our lead character Curtis, as he goes on a journey through these visions and the conclusions and actions that result from them. The effect of the style of presentation is hit and miss. Its ability to maintain tension and build the growing anxiety of the characters is done well, slowly and first and then at a developing pace it turns the screw on the tension. This isn’t done to such a degree that makes the film hugely memorable unfortunately, but keeps you hooked for the view time. This moderate level of success of the film, continues throughout the rest of the attributes, be it for some stand out aspects. Due to this, it is no wonder that Nichols has gone on to ‘better’ and more well-known projects, as there is definite promise here that isn’t quiet capitalized on.

For Nichols work here, there a pros and cons to both the writing and the directing. From the opening few shots of the film, you can see that Nicholas is a competent director, and is applying thought to the shot selection in order to actually develop the story. As with the poignant nature of all opening shots, we see Curtis in a wide shot, who is slightly off centre set. From this shot alone we can see that he isn’t quite sure of himself or of the world around him. Several other shots are of note, being that of his ability of knowing when to hold a shot wide stationary shot or when to pull in, executed well with the scenes of conflict and narrative progression. The writing however, isn’t quite as gripping. While it is serving the purpose very well of depicting our leads inability to describe his feelings, it doesn’t quiet garner the utopian family life or bound as well as it could to invest you with the characters.

Another solid feature of the film are the performances. Chastain as always is able to convey and depict the extremities of emotion in a striking hyperbole way, whether they are always grounded is down to personal taste. Shannon performance is slightly definitely the highlight of the film, with an ability to convey the characters conflicted nature throughout well, and deals with the extreme emotive cases with great intensity. But the film doesn’t quiet breach the barriers of good into great and make it a hugely memorable film experience. The entertainment and thrill that come from the inner conflict of our lead, doesn’t quiet carry over into the family dynamic of the film. While the direction mirrors the story’s meanings very well, the script doesn’t, with dialogue which while realistic doesn’t have the level of depth that is memorable.

Verdict : A film with a great concept, an excellent performance and directorial competence and promise, doesn’t quiet overcome issues of pacing and overall lack of grip of the film.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “I still take off my boots not to wake her.”

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 Gift DVD Review

Couple Retreat 

Released : August 7th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Joel Edgerton

Cast : Rebecca Hall, Joel Edgerton, Jason Bateman

Plot : Childless married couple, Simon (Bateman) and Robyn (Hall), with a bumpy past move into a lavish new house in a new city for a fresh start. Upon arriving Simon is approached by Gordo (Edgerton), a high school friend of Simon. Gordo’s persistent attempts to become friends is uncomfortable and soon leads to dark waters.

The Gift is first feature length film to be directed by Joel Edgerton, and first written film in the sense that it’s his first feature length film that he hasn’t adapted from other material. Edgerton has had a limited acting career (in the sense of mainstream success), but since his arrival has turned out some critically praised performances, most famous for his lead role in Warrior, and more recently a supporting role in Black Mass. As well as Edgerton going into new water, Bateman is a lead who has the famously comedic runaway star of Arrested Development, how has had limited success with his ventures into drama grounds, with the films being little acknowledge in the mainstream and receiving modest critical praise (the films not Bateman). Hall is most at home within the genre, after her famous turn in The Awakening has proven herself a worthy thriller component. As a writing and directing debut, it gives a good insight into the tone and style the Edgerton could be taking with his future career outside of acting. Here we have a twisting, jarring thriller about one man’s friendly yet sinister relationship with a couple. With a limited cast and restricted setting of story, there’s little to distract from Edgerton three components in this film.

To open by addressing his storyline, it’s a patchy piece of brilliance, with a conflicting amount of falls and success. The film has a mostly fresh and exciting concept, which devolves issue with its deliverance with a slight issue of pacing. Reaching the end of the film, it falls into a bad trap of feeling slightly too long, the reason for which can be spotted easily. The middle act of the film is slightly extending and the plot point aren’t gone through as fast to allow for what is Edgerton directorial padding which has the function of building tension and displaying his acting talent. Some of the sequence could have been without, and the great story premise might have gained better impact if it was delivered more relentlessly. Secondly the issue that fights against the power of the strong story premise are slight issues with predictability. While the overall ending and third act of the film comes as a surprise, there are scenes which set up for later tools of tension and thrill building that you can see being constructed, which will not be named for the sake of spoilers. These two issue due reduce from what is an irrepressibly dark thriller story that has some inventive twist on the generic for an opening stance.

For Edgerton directing, he is stronger than his writing, with ability to build very impressive set pieces of tension for a first directing job. It isn’t a Sam Mendes American Beauty, but it’s the most notable quality of the film for Edgerton and why it’s exciting to see where he will next take his talent. The shot choices did use its share of the generic modern horror effects, but they were few and far between his own directing ingenuity, that they weren’t a bother. From the opening shots that prowl the house the couple are moving into you can tell that Edgerton has thought through the shot choices very well for both meaning and effect. For effect he’s presentation of the house, the camera looming with creeping shots around the house, clever camera trickery to create a really high quality jump scare and fair share of meaningful shots choices such as glass imagery in the beginning to forebode certain plot points. As upon reflection of the story not a huge amount of action or progression is actually present in comparison to modern day thrillers, however the directorial work presents the tense scenes that are effective enough to mostly account for the lack of quantity. Some might find the iconography of toys and gifts for atmosphere not quite as effective as many other Blumhouse production films, but the film tastefully relies on other effect.

For the acting, the performance that surprisingly prove the strongest out of the trio would have to be Jason Bateman for a believable and vivid performance which is the strongest performances outside of the comedy genre ever. Bateman was able to deliver a performance that served the mystery aspect of his and Edgerton characters past well enough to keep the audience entrenched in the enigma of the film, whilst the same time come across as a genuine grounded character. The strongest parts of the performance were generically the ones with the extremist of emotions, particularly within the final act of the film, where he effectively reflected the gravity of the threatening situation. There are faults in the acting, such as the scenes of childish mocking of Edgerton character which seem a little over the top. Edgerton performance in the film seemed slightly stiff, an impression was built that Edgerton was very conscious of his performance as so much was invested in this character. Resulting in a character that didn’t quiet smoothly flow on the screen as most villains do, but it can be forgiven has the first attempt at having such a wide involvement in a films making.

The Gift unfortunately isn’t up there with the greatest writing/directing debuts of actors, so this is no Dances With Wolves, however it did show promise. The initial plot concept was enough engaging the audiences from the start, however as the enigma element becomes more prevalent as the narrative progresses the quality of the film pals. As this side of the story as to the murky past of the Egerton and Batemans character is just not unpredictable enough to render a lapse in the films thriller elements, which the film sets aside for Hall’s character investigation. The directing work is by far Edgerton’s best achievement of this film as a feature length debut, as it has a slightly greater level of originality than the writing did, and only ever featured the generic effects in sprinklings. The overall feel of the film has a great establishment of an all aspects, but the different trio of genres that it attempts to incorporate create for an uneven and patchy arch of the film, not committing to either one enough. However, The Gift is an undoubtedly thrilling experiences while it lasts with a twist ending to catch the majority of audiences off guard, and a maintain atmosphere of unease and threat to provide the best film Blumhouse has made since for a while, but their recent content isn’t much to compete with.

Verdict : Edgerton has enough imagination to keep you on board for his next outing as a writer or director, but not enough talent here to establish his skill in either field, as it can’t quiet shake some aspects of the generic.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “You see what happens when you poison other people’s mind with ideas?”

Mini review: Freeheld

Year: 2015

Certificate: 15

Director: Peter Sollett

Screenwriter: Ron Nyswaner

Cast: Julianne Moore, Ellen Page, Michael Shannon, Steve Carell

Julianne Moore stars as Laurel Hester, whose struggle to transfer her police pension to her partner Stacie Andree (Ellen Page) in the wake of Laurel’s terminal cancer diagnosis had a lasting impact on gay rights in the States. Despite excellent central performances from Page and Moore, the by-the-numbers screenplay and straightforward direction leave Freeheld feeling ultimately televisual. Frustratingly, the civil rights element and domestic drama element seem to jostle for position, each ultimately undermining the other as Laurel and Stacie’s relationship is not allowed sufficient screen time before the cancer diagnosis and subsequent legal struggle (with the supporting characters it brings in) become the central focus of the narrative.

Verdict: 3/5

Image: Fandango.com

BFI Flare review: The Girl King

Year: 2015

Certificate: 15

Director: Mika Kaurismäki

Screenwriter: Michel Mark Bouchard

Cast: Malin Buska, Sarah Gadon, Michael Nyqvist, Patrick Bauchau

Amid the Catholic-Protestant conflict raging throughout 17^th century Europe, Kristina (Malin Buska), only child of the late King Gustav II of Sweden, is raised under the watchful eyes of Sweden’s Lutheran court and it’s chancellor, Axel Oxenstierna (Michael Nyqvist). However, when Kristina comes of age and begins to rule as queen, her* radical proclamations and unconventional conduct in private cause tensions within the court.

A Sweden-Canada co-production, The Girl King is a valiant if ultimately flawed attempt to illustrate the life of an extremely unusual monarch. Buska, already a well-known theatrical actress in Sweden, is a perfect choice for the intelligent and rakish Kristina, and is a commanding screen presence. However, one can’t help wonder if she is being held back slightly by the requirements of performing in a second language (other than the occasional exchange in French, the film is spoken in English), as her delivery of the lines doesn’t quite equal the exquisite subtlety of her facial expressions. Michael Nyqvist (known for the Swedish Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy) does admirable work here as Sweden’s Chancellor, showing a surprising deftness in the more comic moments. The exchanges between Axel and Kristina, particularly when he is trying to delicately approach the subject of her tomboyish nature, are some of the best scenes in the film. Other highlights are Sarah Gadon as Kristina’s love interest, Countess Ebba Sparre, and Patrick Bauchau as the French philosopher René Descartes, with whom Kristina strikes up a correspondence which scandalises the pious members of her court (while Sweden and France had a mutual enemy in Germany, France’s allegiance to the Pope made their truce an uneasy one).

Despite the quality of the acting and some clever cinematography courtesy of Guy Dufaux, The Girl King ultimately feels a little ramshackle. Bouchard’s screenplay makes much of Kristina’s love for Ebba, and while it’s refreshing to see such an unapologetically queer historical figure pursuing their desires, the arc of Kristina and Ebba’s romance feels clichéd and despite an elegant turn from Gadon as a character Ebba is paper-thin. Indeed, even Kristina’s crisis of faith- surely hugely important for her as a character- feels glossed over here, and this lack of achievement of the script in really getting under her skin leaves the whole piece feeling too light. This, coupled with the slightly uneven tone where moments of high camp sit uncomfortably next to overwrought emotional scenes, serves to eject the audience from the narrative. A few moments of sloppy editing further underscore these problems.

All in all The Girl King feels like a film which is punching below its weight somewhat. However, there is still much to like here, particularly given the dearth of LGBT historical figures represented on screen. The narrative holds together well enough to showcase the film’s stronger components, and if this is Malin Buska’s Hollywood calling card she will certainly be one to watch in the future.

Verdict: 3/5

BFI Flare is the British Film Institute’s annual LGBT film festival in London. More information about the festival can be found here.

*A note on pronouns: in terms of the historical record, there seems to be a fair amount of debate between academics over both Kristina’s gender and sexuality, with varied theories suggesting Kristina may have been any one of what we now know as gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex. As there is little historical consensus on this, and as the film portrays her fairly unwaveringly as a cis lesbian, I have used female pronouns in my review. If this is a problem let me know and I can edit to gender neutral. Many thanks to my historian friend Katie for doing some academic investigation into Kristina’s history.

Image credit: facebook.com/TheGirlKingFilm

Chappie DVD Review

RoboCop 

Released : March 6th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Neill Blomkamp

Cast : Sharlto Copley, Hugh Jackman, Dev Patel, Yolandi Visser, Watkin Tudor Jones, Sigourney Weaver

Plot : South Africa has become the leading county for crime fighting, as the chaotic gang crime and high murder rates have been tamed by a division of robotic police force. But conflict ensues when the creator of the robots (Dev Patel) gifts one robot with a coded consciousness.

Neill Blomkamp returns for his third South African based violent sci-fi flick, and this time its more South African than very before, as joining the South African talent Sharlto Copley (present in all three Blomkamp outings) is now South African rap duo Die Antwoord, staring and generating the soundtrack of the film (along with the help of Hans Zimmer) . For this feature, since Blomkamp has dealt with aliens, and spaceships, he now rests his sights on robots and artificial intelligence, with a script he has written (as he did with Elysium and District 9). With his third film the promises of talnet that were earned with Best Picture nominionee District 9 are still present, despite the modest critical reception of Elysium which was deemed to be lacking in the creativity and heart that its predecessor had. Perhaps the complex plot point that come with aritifical intelligence be ale to bring back some level of heart, to balance out Bloomkamp reliance for big cgi effects and extensiveness violent action sequences to allow for a film of better praise by critics who are looking for more than the average sci-fi shoot em up film type, despite the gripping and skillfully nature behind many of these films.

To address Blomkamps writing for this feature, which was completed with the help of co-writer Terri Tatchell, who also co-wrote District 9, there is undeniable aspects for dispute. This isn’t held within the largely 2d supporting characters (tipified by the villains of Blomkapms films) but more the set of a generic formula of the film. Despite the creative settings that both Elyusim and Chappie presented, there is the obvious generic rivalry in the film, you can see from the opening who is pitted against who and that the film for all of its development will boil down to and extravagant (all be it entertaining) closing action sequence. Good vs evil which is set up and set in a predictable direction to pay off for the big scale crash and bash (not that this isn’t well done, but makes for an uninventive story, rapped up in inventive premise). Secondly to this is and ending that may have outreached the bounds of imagination for many audience members, despite it being for the reason to make a profound ending to the film (bringing in some of that heart) it does so with a stretch too far, even for the world of sci-fi.

But for the positive attributes of Blomkamps, it is a joy to see his trade marks return to the screen, with noticeable trade marks making as repetitive (in a good stylistic way) as Zac Synder, but for sci-fi. Blomkamps iconography is as always, brilliant and beautiful, helped by the addition of Trent Opaloch, cinematographer for Blomkamps previous films (as well as the equally visually stunning Captain America: Winter Solider). There work together helps to create worlds and characters that are truly a visual feast that are underrated in this respect, as are the action sequences they produce which due to their bloody nature with Blomkamp get slightly smeared. This is what makes Blomkamp much more alike Zac Synder than Michael Bay, for his signature trade mark visual nature to his films. With this in mind as to the artful choreography of his action scenes, Chappie is lacking in them in comparison to Blomkamps previous work, making for a film with a slight lack of pace in some scenes, but doesn’t lose their visual appeal with a strong opening and closing display of bullets flying. Although it could easily be argued that like Synder, there is sometimes a tendency to rely on slow motion action too frequently.

As for the acting talent on offer, we have a voice performance by Sharlto Copley, making for an odd but effective robot with a South Africa accent, a very brutish and 2d Hugh Jackman as the badie veteran, and the interesting addition of a rap duo trying their chops at acting. Copley is able to create more of an interesting character than previously in Elysium, as he was burdened with the 2d villain role (which he performed with impressive conviction, but ultimately wasted on the character), how much of the voice was genuine or altered in post production is unknown but the end effect is impressive. To a large degree Yolandi Visser and Watkin Tudor Jones suit their roles like a glove, due to a degree them playing watered down versions of their on stage music personas, odd ball and gangster. Helping to create a ‘family’ dynamic with Chappie that is convincing and brings a level of emotion and conviction which is surprising for rap artists, and the addition of their songs in the sound track suit every aspect of the film pitch perfectly. The addition of Dev Partel is good type casting as is Hugh Jackmen, to embody the nerdy moral aware programmer and the hard headed ruthless solider, hence the actors are sutied to their roles to make performances with good conviction and help to anchor the beautiful and believable world created by Blomkamp and Opaloch.

Unfortunately it might have to be said that Chappie is the worst of Blomkamps sci-fi trilogy, but this doesn’t change it from being a Blomkamp film, and that means there is an inherent high quality, it just dropped a bit for this installment. The main falling point of this film is the potential that comes with the artificial intelligence genre and the interesting concepts that this holds, and why the film quickly and early finds direction, the final third loses it self in a generic good versus evil followed by an slightly outlandish stab at a profound ending. But along the way the audience will be rewarded with laughs, thrills and awe of Blomkamps eye for making the cgi effects artistic rather than gratuitous, this with his continuing imagination maintains him as one of the leading lights of the sci-fi genre. He will continually suffer from his first outing be so strong and everything being compared to this, but Chappie is by no means anything close to a bomb, just not as unique as the premise and director/writer could have been. A thrilling outing that may not be as memorable, but is a fast burning rush, that might stumble at the final hurdle, but this doesn’t smear the overall experience.

Verdict : No sci-fi classic, but its a tasteful rehash of old genre concepts and Blomkamps finger prints are all over it, making it an cut above the rest of yearly sci-fi entries.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Why did you build me to die maker?”

Triple 9 Review

Natural Born Robbers

Released : February 19th 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : John Hillcoat

Cast : Kate Winslet, Aaron Paul, Norman Reedus, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Anthony Mackie

Plot : A ex military crew paired with some dirty cops pull a bank robbery to gain information from a security box for the Russian mob. Forced into another job after payments withheld by the mob, the crew lead by Michael Atwood (Ejiofor) must figure out a way to rob a highly secure federal building. The crew relaises that they need a distraction, and decide on a triple 9, police code for killing a cop.

John Hillcoat returns after making moderate success with Lawless, another violent and big cast fuelled crime film. Now he takes on modern crime with one of the best cast assembles this year (due to early release) in the thriller genre, with a cat and mouse cops and robbers film about betrayal, desperateness and neighbourhood violence. Hillcoat general vibe set after Lawless was that he was a big fan of the blood and guts and had the ability to develop solid character drama to make an entertaining enough thriller, but many reviewers found that there was something holding it back narrative wise, a slight lack of originality that kept it in the realms of seen before violent cops and robber’s thrillers. Triple 9 script has some similarities to Lawless with the robbers having a strong team dynamic, but now we have goodies on the robber’s side to and a heightened dealing with morality within the story. But does Triple 9 have the suspense, thrills and acting quality able to make another modern robber squad thriller stand out alike The Town in recent years. Acting talent is certainly present within the film and the trailer alone boasted large scale uses of the city (no quiet at Heat level) there is promise.

Firstly, the films story will be one that was bound to come under fire from highbrow critics due to obvious decisions within the narrative. There are cheap shots that can be made at obvious features, such as the racial profiling that occurs in the film, with great amount of crime and hatred for the police residing within the Mexicans depicted in the film. There is the lack of female representation that is of a positive light, either sexualised or negative characters. But more than many others are the teasing nature of which it deals with the violence in the film, having clear reference to violence and crimes effect on a bigger scale than just the cops and robbers. For example, there is the child and his uncle (Harrelson) playing with a toy gun, and the brief scene showing parallel action between the Russian mob mother and child reading a book and the police mother and child reading together, while the father prepares his gun for work out of sight of the child. This final point teases the idea that the film will address the violence occurring in a profound or conclusive way, but the film never does, and in the minds of many critics this means it can’t justify its use.

Directorial work from Hillcoat had one opening issue, the film opens with a big bank robbery which is polluted by the presence of some credits on screen, distracting from a poignant bit of thrilling, reduced from the moment. From an overview of Hillcoat’s work it is much like the writing of the film, as in it doesn’t give you much extra in the way of poignant shoot choice or particular inventiveness, but this doesn’t mean that his work doesn’t function. The majority of the film could fit into this pattern of giving you high quality rehash of past crime thrillers conventions, with little added to it to make it more memorable, but that doesn’t make it thrilling while it last, simple doesn’t get it into any halls of fame. Following this line of argument Hillcoat does prove himself as before capable to use a combination of brutal violence and tense construct to keep you enthralled in the scenes. The actions sequences are more frequent and better constructed than in his previous work, as he deals with a script dealing with less character driven drama. The ending act, as it should be in a film of this type is particularly well built together for genuine adrenalin.

For the performances to build the film, there is a diversity in quality of talent. Winslet plays a rather two dimensional villains, but perhaps the dialogue of a Russian mobster didn’t have the design of character development. Paul plays as always with great conviction and realism, unfortunately there are striking similarities between this role and his most famous. The same to an extent can be said for Harrelson role, and while such a character with charisma and sarcasm may not be taken overly seriously, it still is achieved with great talent, with one of the most captivating performances of the film. Ejiofor being to many the heavy weight on the set still having the aura of 12 Years a Slave lingering about him, in this less serious role he plays the head of the robber gang, much alike its disciplining father, who also happens to be desperately attempting to claim a life back with his own son from the Russian mob. Unfortunately, he doesn’t spread his wings as much as his best work, nor is he expected to for this type of film, with a driven more by the interaction of the characters than any specific set piece of acting, which the actors achieve to keeping the films world believable and engaging, rather than create memorable performances.

The standards of Hillcoat second outing as a director create a film with standards to matching quality of his first outing, but maybe Lawless wins due to the added entertainment of period piece setting. Much of the same pros and cons come with Triple 9 as Lawless, which can be summarise into the fact that there is high quality enjoyment here, but to pack such a big cast into a famous genre there is always the hope that a new classic will be born. Let it not be forgotten the huge amounts of skill involved to create a new gem within an old genre, it is not an everyday occurrence. So with Triple 9 do not expect to be blown away, but you have a skilful rehash of conventions and codes from the greats, in particular it took its inspiration from The French Connection and Heat claims Hillcoat. Well it’s definitely more Heat than French Connection, but its lacking the directorial and acting excellence to place it in the same league as its inspiration. It’s got great action, and surprisingly hooking story, adequate acting and satisfactory directing to generate a fast burner full of twists and turns and bullets, but it’s over in a flash.

Verdict : Falling just short of the over the top fun of Lawless, Triple 9 has a the same mood and ingredients. Definitely more thrilling that Hillcoats previous work, but the thrills and the mostly unpredictable character interaction does quiet pack enough punch for an as memorable experience as Lawless. Lacking in originality within story and execution, meaning people will be quick to critic its violent, political incorrect nature, unfairly so.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Out monster the monster.”

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!”

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