It (2017) Review

The Goonies on Elm Street

Released : September 8th 2017

Certificate : 15

Director : Andrés Muschietti

Cast : Jaeden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs,  Bill Skarsgård

Plot : Set in the 1980’s in a little town called Derry, a group of six children, who refer to themselves as ‘The Losers’ Club’, are terrorised by a shape-shifting monster called Pennywise ‘The Dancing Clown.

In keeping with the legend of It, twenty seven years on from the original mini-series, we have the return of The Losers’ Club and Pennywise. Directed by Andrés Muschietti whose only previous experience is the moderate successful horror flick Mama, the story of Stephen Kings It has been redone and updated. This film tells the story of what is commonly referred to as Chapter 1, while the book doesn’t make such a clean distinction, in which the characters face Pennywise for the first time as children. An actor yet to become as well-known as his brothers and father, Bill Skarsgård, plays the evil clown.

As scary as the clown might seem on paper and how horrific the story sounds, this film is far more a horror-adventure rather than a straight up horror. The quest that the children go on to defeat the demon is much more alike The Goonies and Super 8 than any horror flick. The film bleeds the nostalgia for the other 80’s set children adventures, much in the same vain as Stranger Things. This atmosphere and the coming of age aspect of the story brings real warmth to a film that holds no punches when it comes to the darker monster elements. The opening scene of the film is of course the iconic scene from the book and miniseries of Pennywise meeting Georgie while he races his paper boat. From this opening scene it is instantly clear that this is a more brutal and faithful adaption of the source material than the miniseries. Audience that were hoping for clever, suspenseful and inventive scares may be disappointed by the blunt and unrelenting use of ghost and ghouls in this film.

The abundance of monsters is in-keeping with Andrés Muschietti previous film Mama. The horror sequences become so frequent that at times they become slightly trivial, but after a point the quality of the scares and the thrilling pace they add to the film wins you over. With a run time of two hours and fifteen minute’s there is barely a moment to breathe, giving the film a brilliantly relentless pace. Certain set horror pieces, such as a confrontation with Pennywise halfway through, is visually brilliant and really is the stuff of high quality creature-feature work. The CGI that is worked into and around Pennywise is handled very well to create a clown that looks just real enough. But what shines through is how Muschietti deals with the other half of the tale, surrounding the kid’s drama and their development which is the real success of the film.

The cast are across the board good with the standouts of The Losers’ Club being lead Jaeden Lieberher, who is fast becoming a child star, and Stranger Things star Finn Wolfhard who really elevates the film with his comedic talent. As for Bill Skarsgård work, it is as good if not better than Tim Curry’s work with the character. While Curry’s performance was more calm and collected, ironically, Skarsgard makes the character noticeable more manic. The vocals in particular give the character a more unhinged and insane vibe, making him fair less comical and ironic than Curry’s rendition. This is matched well with the CGI decision to have his eyes just off kilter from one another.

It is a million miles better than the miniseries and falls among the better Stephen King adaptions. While the horror aspects are more thrilling and exciting than they are actually unsettling, there are plenty of moments to gasp at. What makes It one of the stronger Stephen King adaptions is that it’s as much about the characters as it is about the monsters. Effective in many areas, from laughter, excitement and character development, this is the better side of mainstream horror films.

Verdict : Both The Losers’ Club and Pennywise are brilliantly brought to life in this fast paced horror adventure which is big on characters and scares.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “If you’ll come with me, you’ll float too.”

Logan Lucky Review

Back To Basics For Soderbergh

Released : August 25th 2017

Certificate : 12A

Director : Steven Soderbergh

Cast : Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough

Plot : Two veteran brothers living in West Virginia, who are locally known to be cursed, fall on hard times. They decided to rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway in North Carolina.

SPOILER WARNING – Review contains allusions to the ending of the film.

After stating four years ago upon the release of Side Effects that he would be retiring from film-making due to the ‘horrific’ way the industry treats directors, Soderbergh returns with another heist comedy. Other complaints that the director had about the industry revolved around how commercially driven the industry has become and how this effected creative freedom. Knowing these facts when watching the film, changes the experience. The way two outsiders try to take on the big corporation, elements of the ending, and the overall quirky creative nature of the film, all makes sense given the directors stated attitudes.

The review tag line which has been most widely circulated is ‘its Coen’s meets Oceans’, and atmospherically it is clear to see why. If a direct film comparison could be made, it would be Barton Fink, due to the way both films are statements about the issues of film making, although Barton Fink does so much more explicitly. Logan Lucky does it as follows. The film isn’t very marketable on paper, the protagonists are unusual and outsiders, the humour isn’t mainstream and is often subtle, and the ending of the film has a definite statement about large corporations and their morality. These features make total sense when you consider Soderbergh complaints about the industry, that it’s become too mainstream, money obsessed, and lacking creativity. So, it appears he made a film that addressed these issues in a very subtle way. To push back in a small way against the film industry, he refuses to use conventional heroic handsome main characters, he doesn’t stay to the ‘accepted’ style of modern comedy, and he ends the film with a middle finger to corporations.

On top of this, the film is distributed by Soderbergh own private company (ensuring creative freedom) and the writer behind the film is a Rebecca Blunt, who is widely believed to be a pseudonym. Enough on the underlying messages of the film, does it function as an entertaining comedy heist. Absolutely. Whoever wrote the film, the script is brilliant. Combining character driven humour and situational comedy and topping it off with a huge amount of deep South American caricatures. Making this a clever and quirky comedy. This style won’t suit all mainstream audiences, as it isn’t as obvious and loud as other comedies out now, such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard. However, there’s definitely enough good laughs here for it to find an audience (or even become a cult hit). As for flaws in the script, the dramatic and emotional tones that come in towards the end aren’t very impactful. Also the overall structure and path of the film isn’t surprising and does stick very much to the Oceans formula.

As for the cast, all actors are relishing the roles very much. Many of the characters are larger than life, and many are clear caricatures. Due to the writing, Adam Driver and Daniel Craig will be the roles remembered from this film, as they are simply given more humour dialogue than Channing Tatum. Having said that, both Driver and Craig are brilliant in this film, being able to be believably portray their eccentric mannerisms and ticks which helps the humour land. These features make this one of the most quotable films recently, for all the right reasons. Seth MacFarlane accent and character can be forgiven. There is also the welcome addition of supporting roles from Hilary Swank and Sebastian Stan.

There’s plenty to really love here. While the film does follow the old Oceans formula very much, it is self-aware in this manner, with a standout line from a reporter in the film being ‘their calling it Oceans 7/11’. With great characters and great laughs this film will have you smiling on the way out of the theatre. Hopefully the success of this film will convince Soderbergh to put off that retirement a little longer.

Verdict : Despite Kermode saying the film is just high quality throw away fun, there are signs here that suggest a deeper meaning about the film industry. A great return for Soderbergh.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : ‘Did you just say cauliflower to me?’

 

Manchester by the Sea Review

Another Great Boston Film 

Released : January 13th 2017

Certificate : 15

Director : Kenneth Lonergan

Cast : Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Lucas Hedges

Plot : Lee Chandler (Affleck), a handy man working in Manchester, has his life turned upside down by the death of his brother (Chandler).

Kenneth Lonergan returns as writer director of one of this year’s Best Picture hopefuls, Manchester by the Sea. Lonergan has proved himself in the Academy’s eyes before, receiving nominations for his screenplays for the little know You Can Count on Me, and the famous Scorsese period gangster film, Gangs of New York. The film stars relative new comer Lucas Hedges has had very smaller roles till now, supporting in films such as The Zero Theorem and Moonrise Kingdom. However has proved to be one of the biggest surprises of the awards season.

The story is a pure character drama, with characters which are both relatable and original enough to be engaging. The character, as with many Boston set dramas, may not win the audience over immediately, but ultimately become very memorable cinematic characters. The story arc is masterfully told, allowing for backstory to be tastefully spoon fed into the present events and the creation of several beautiful character arcs. The film is lengthy, and the topic matter sombre and dry in parts, but the script and dialogue so well crafted, that the film is a rare drama that feels authentic and is engaging. The story has such an emotional spectrum, which is executed brilliantly. Amazing humour is sprinkled into the film throughout as a fitting way to keep the film grounded and enjoyable.

To address Lonergan contribution, in this award climate it wouldn’t be surprising if his directing efforts went unrewarded. With the likes of Villeneuve, Gibson and Chazelle dealing with larger than life stories and presenting with such flare and spectacle, the subtle work of Lonergan may be forgotten directorally. But this is a shame as the warmth and heartbreak that Lonergan is able to convey, and perfectly capture character drama, is a gem. If it isn’t cliché to say, from the opening shot, the films presentation has passion and calculation. Lonergan skills as a screenwriter are amazing, building characters and their exchanges which are some of the most engaging and life like this year. Hence making the Screenplay Oscars a coin flip between this and Hell or High Water. Not just the main characters but all supporting casts lines, contribute to the story and represent genuine human traits. Not a throwaway line exists within this film, making it a drama that could be enjoyed for hours.

And to round off the growing merits of the film, the performances are stunning. Casey performance for some, as with the majority of his work, may be viewed as underplayed. But the effect made the character much more lifelike, Lee’s emotions aren’t overplayed, or exaggerated to make the drama more engaging. Instead, much alike the script, the acting is subtle which makes for a more authentic cinematic experience. Lucas Hedges role as well is stunning honest in his acting, bringing to life a tricky character who initially may seem shallow, but develops. Michelle Williams is able to bring so much to the film is so few scenes, absent for probably eighty percent of the film, she is still memorable walking out of the theatre.

Manchester by the Sea is an amazing feat of character drama. Each viewpoint and emotion that is delivered by the script and the acting is understandable and emphatic on some level. It is a film with a subtle current, which ultimately pulls you in. While the story line may be one of the saddest of the award season, this is balanced by the amazing sense of humanity and warmth that the actors and script bring to the film.

Verdict : A few with few flaws. It takes the theme of grief and is able to actualize it with such precision and skill. Plus a heartfelt ending, great humour and amazing performances.

Verdict : 5/5

Quote : “I can’t beat it. I can’t beat it. I’m sorry.”

Split Review (Spoiler Free)

We Need To Talk About Kevin 

Released : January 20th 2017

Certificate : 15

Director : M. Night Shyamalan

Cast : Anya Taylor-Joy, James McAvoy, Haley Lu Richardson

Plot : Three girls are abducted after a birthday party. They soon realise that their abductor (McAvoy) suffers from split personality disorder.

Night Shyamalan, undoubtedly, returns to top form in his new film Split. After four mainstream films, that were poorly received by fans and critics, and other films that aren’t widely known, Shyamalan was considered written off by many. With Split, a film he self-funded as to retain as much creative control as possible, he recruited some brilliant rising horror craftsmen. The cinematographer for the film, Mike Gioulakis, who Shyamalan reportedly wanted to work with instantly after seeing Gioulakis work on It Follows. As well the lead of the film is played by Anya Taylor-Joy, an actress who burst onto the scene with a compelling performance in what is considered 2016 best horror film, The Witch.

Split’s premise alone is an engaging story, with such a quirky psychological concept, it’s a rarity of film making. The premise of the film would make anyone sceptical, unless you have Shyamalan and McAvoy attached to the project. And you can tell from the opening scene that there has been much care taken with the films craft. Firstly, the girls in distress, due to Taylor-Joy character, don’t fit a conventional horror film mould (a side note; it is debatable whether to classify this film as a horror). These characters are smart, and don’t just despair that the situation and have an intriguing dynamic, which was refreshing for the horror genre. Taylor-Joy character is given a backstory that is brilliantly told and bleeds into the rest of the film. The quality of her character and her performance is good enough to match McAvoy going all out in a character with 23 sides. The script deals with McAvoy’s character very well, knowing that humour is required to keep him grounded, and McAvoy’s comedic talent shines in this film.

Of course, being a story told by Shyamalan, there’s a high level of attention that audience will pay to each shot, taking in every detail. Studying the film so much for clues about the narrative, may lead audiences away from the fact, that this is a brilliantly directed film. The shot selection and camera movement screams enigma, keeping you engaged without. It’s not just the storyline that keeps you edgy throughout, Shyamalan has clearly thought through every shot very well, and it’s a joy to see such precise and passionate filmmaking. It is for this reason and the performances, that makes Split so great, because as many other critics have said, the brilliance to this film isn’t confined within the ending.

To talk more on the performances, McAvoy’s role in this film is likely an actor’s dream, and it is one of his best roles yet. A lot rides on his performance, and due to an excellent script by Shyamalan, there character couldn’t have been better realised. There are scenes that in a ‘split’ second, the character change swing from humorous and playful, to eerily sinister. And throughout he remains hugely entertaining. Taylor-Joy’s role in the film, demands slightly less of her than The Witch did, but she’s an actress with a great ability to speak volumes without any dialogue, and really shines as another compelling ‘horror’ character.

Split is a hugely pleasing film, it’s such a joy to see a filmmaker regain their spark after becoming an definitive name of the turn of the millennial. Here he displays just as much skill with script writing as with directing. A script, which has dialogue that both develops character and story excellently and contains an overall narrative that is unpredictable and rich. Directing that is so well crafted, creating sickeningly thrilling set piece of action and drama, and an ability to maintain tension throughout, despite a limited set.

Verdict : Shyamalan is back. Split is hilarious, deliciously dark, unpredictable, poignant and rewatchable. A jaw dropping experience.

Verdict : 5/5

Quote : N/A (As to reveal nothing.)

Silence Review

The Last Samaritan

Released : January 1st 2017

Certificate : 15

Director : Martin Scorsese

Cast : Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Yōsuke Kubozuka, Tadanobu Asano, Issey Ogata, Liam Neeson

Plot : Two Jesuit priests travel to Japan to find their mentor who apparently has renounced his faith after persecution.

Scorsese follows is most humorous and ludicrous films with his long-desired project Silence, a film that he has desired to make for thirty years now. This being his third film that deals with faith, he re-joins with frequent collaborator Michael Ballhaus and relative newcomer Rodrigo Prieto, both cinematographers, to ensure that if nothing else this biblical epic is one of the best-looking films of the award season. And speaking of awards season, Andrew Garfield stars in Silence, making him a lead role in two of this year’s award tipped films.

Silence is a true epic, in both runtime, semantic scope and technical mastery of its creation. To deal with the second feature, the film obvious deals with the deeper questions of God’s silence, what is means to betray him and general religious philosophy. What was a surprise, was the character drama on show here. While it was to be expected that Garfield and Driver’s character carry the weight of the drama via their character arcs, the supporting casts performance and their scene with our two leads were outstanding. The film contains an abundance of brilliantly scripted set character interaction of brilliant quality. These scenes added much to the film as they developed the character of the oppressed and the oppressors of Japan at the time. This gave a great level of humanity to all the characters allowing for a story much less black and white then; Christianity is goodness and all else is wrong.

Dealing with Scorsese work, for those who appreciate the subtle methods of direction that convey meaning, this is the wrong film. As Scorsese techniques and bold and striking when telling this tale. Initial high bird’s eye view shots create the sense of a God like over watch, and the wide-angle shots of Japan show the immense magnitude of our lead character’s task. Not that these or any other of the shot choices within the film are bad, On the contrary the delivered the story excellently, in the third act a reliance on POV shots from Garfield’s character really build the atmosphere. However, for such as intruding topic and story it was just missing the presentational edge that other Scorsese films had. But when you’re dealing with Scorsese there is always a certain level of excellence, the opening scene one of the most strikingly well shot scenes openings of recent memory.

The opening scene also shows off some of the acting from the well-known trio of actors that star in the film. With Neeson having largely retreated into action roles, it is easy to forget his skill, and he’s actualisation of grief within this film is so real. Grief being a key emotion that all three actors have to deal with, and Garfield does so excellently. Garfield being an actor that can manipulate his voice very well to convey emotions, as for his eyes, which convey so much. Apart from a single over the top scene (on both Garfield and Scorsese part) he is working at the top of his game, and his character tackles with a high magnitude of complex emotions than many other awards contenders.

Silence is not a film that is ‘enjoyed’, due to the gruelling emotional weight, thought provoking nature and graphic scenes. Yet in the same vein of 12 Years a Slave, it is a film that conveys great talent both behind and in front of the camera. Other similarities include character drama that is both intelligent and realistic, and manages to make the audience think.

Verdict : Scorsese may be very forward in how he tells this tale, but that’s a small issue with what is probably the best religious drama of recent years.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “I pray but I am lost. Am I just praying to silence?”

Arrival Review

Starship Bloopers

Released : November 10th 2016

Certificate : 12

Director : Denis Villeneuve

Cast : Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker, Michael Stuhlbarg

Plot : After 12 UFO’s land across the globe, the US army recruits linguist  Louise Banks (Adams) and mathematician Ian Donnelly (Renner) to help communicate with the aliens.

From the screenwriter of the 5th Final Destination film and The Nightmare on Elm Street, ironically comes one of the smartest films of the year. Of course the aspect of the crew that got all cinema goers excited was that of the director. A director renowned for his dark thrillers which drip with brilliant cinematography and calculating presentation. Also ironically, the year the most iconic alien film has a sequel, this film takes the genre in a whole new direction and tone. As we enter the end of the year, this continues the early oscar buzz excitement as the good reviews poor in for the film.

From the screenwriter of the 5th Final Destination film and The Nightmare on Elm Street, ironically comes one of the smartest films of the year. Of course the aspect of the crew that got all cinema goers excited was that of the director. A director renowned for his dark thrillers which drip with brilliant cinematography and calculating presentation. Also ironically, there year the most iconic alien film has a sequel, this film takes the genre in a whole new direction and tone. As we enter the end of the year, this continues the early Oscar buzz excitement as the good reviews poor in for the film.

The story of the film is a brilliant one, and a very new approach to the alien genre, arcing back to Close Encounters territory. Granted only so much credit can be given to the film maker for this aspect, as it is an attempted screenplay. What was really needed to make such a story work was the hand of Villeneuve. A director who was willing to take the time with the story, its complex themes and to avoid as many conventions and clichés in order to realize such a unique approach. Fortunately, these are all features that Villeneuve has displayed throughout his whole work and performs brilliantly here. One feature that Villeneuve is so good at, is building and maintaining an atmosphere that suits the film perfectly throughout his film. The overriding themes that he conveys through the shots in this are that of tremendous spectral, and innocence. All the shot surrounding the aliens are beautiful enough and well thought out enough to make up (mostly) for the lack of ‘action’ that occurs on screen.

Aspects of the film that felt slightly disappointing was the execution of some narrative point. The film centre’s around a single question for the aliens, and thanks to Villeneuve shot that instil and sense of awe, there is the anticipation of a great poignant reveal to this question. The reveal and execution felt slightly rushed, which was surprising, since all other aspects of the film were given such good time to mature. The use of an exposition dump was slightly off. As well as this, the answer wasn’t quiet as smart as the rest of the film annoyingly, such a sense of awe that was built up played off for a rather simple concept. But these issues will be mostly overlooked for many critics and audience members as it is wrapped up in such a brilliant complex and unpredictable plot overall, that a few issues with the climatic acts won’t be much of an issue. The one narrative flaw that some audience might not forgive is that of the pacing, but for most the intellectual drama will be a good enough counterpart for the bullets.

The acting of course as always from Adams is of a very high quality, and she dealt very well under Villeneuve style of heavy reliance of close up of characters. Although it is almost accepted these days, it is worth remembering the skill require to act to nothing, as this film went through probable its share of green screen. One general consensus from many reviews is grips with the character of Jeremy Renner, and a useless of this. While this character doesn’t develop the plot particular, it brings a great level of humanity delivered very well by Renner which was need in the balancing of the tone. The tone of which is unlike any other film that has dealt with aliens, in a film that is overall one of the most unique of the year. While it contains a few flaws, and not quite as much white knuckle excitement as Villeneuve other films, Arrival and very well executed new addition to a genre and will be remembered.

Verdict : Not quite as fulfilling as his other works, due to some small issues. But Villeneuve has brought another very well acted, stunning well shot, thought-provoking film to our screens.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “Now that’s a proper introduction.”

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.”

The Nice Guys Mini Review

Released : June 3rd 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Shane Black

Cast : Ryan Gosling, Russel Crowe, Angourie Rice, Margaret Qualley, Matt Bomer

Plot : In 1977 Los Angeles a private investigator (Gosling) teams up with fist of hire enforcer (Crowe) after their paths cross due to two merging cases, the disappearance of a girl and the death of a porn star.

Shane Black, an writer director who is behind Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Iron Man 3, is returning to the buddy cop structure for another period piece comedy. Adding to his list of A list actors to his film, he has opted for Ryan Gosling for the depressed, alcoholic, private detective single dad. And Russel Crowe for the aimless, struggling alcoholic, angry enforcer.

For Shane Black fans, or people who are aware of his work, it is difficult not to compare the film to his past work as a reference point for how good The Nice Guys is. Given that here the standard hasn’t lapsed as well as the formula and tone, it is largely down to personal preference which film remains as Blacks best. As The Nice Guys is another shinning example of Blacks ability to construct brilliant (and funny) set action pieces, wit and blunt humour of the script and a diluted plot that serves a chaotic backdrop of our duo.

Gosling and Crowe work brilliantly together, but given Blacks record with creating the perfect on screen duo, this is to be expected. This makes you wonder whether its down the actors chemistry, or that is just a by product of Blacks script writing process. For the duo dynamic, what might be felt for some is a slight lapse in quality from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, due to these characters being less original than KKBB. But this isn’t down to Ryan and Russel’s effort, by any means. Neither one of them shines more than the other, as both actors approach the film with the perfect amount of character commitment and professional playfulness to bring both the verbal and non-verbal humour jumping of the screen.

Flaws with the film are limited, due to the fact that it is contains such an infectious amount of energy and wit that Black always brings.But some hypercritical could argue that it is a rehash of past buddy cop films or that down to personal taste it doesn’t hit their funny bone. This is a very niche audience thou, as The Nice Guys is a huge fan and general audience pleaser.

Verdict : A film that’s a irresistible comedic treat, with a period piece set that is a great move for Black.

Verdict : 4/5

 

Hail, Caesar! Review

A Serious Mannix 

Released : March 4th 2016

Certificate : 12A

Director : Ethan Cohen, Joel Cohen

Cast : Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Ralph Fiennes

Plot : In 1950’s America, Capitol Pictures is one of the largest production companies in the world, and at the centre of its running is Eddie Mannix (Brolin). While working on the company’s biggest release of the year, Hail, Caesar! the lead actor, Baird Whitlock (Clooney) is kidnapped and held for $100,000.

Another Coen brothers come around, this time the duo share the directing load, an emerging pattern, as Ethan has been only officially credited with co-directing Inside Llewyn  Davis, A Serious Man, Burn After Reading, No Country for Old Men and The Ladykillers. Returning to lead their film is Josh Brolin and creating a hatrick for Clooney with the Coen Brothers. To use Coen terminology, Hail, Caesar! is definitely a toned down Burn After Reading as far as tone or vibe is concerned. So expect quirky humour in abundnace, as for this film the Coens have really let their hair down to fool around with their comedy still, retaining the surreal but losing the blunt violent nature they can pack. And along they way they pay homage to the 50’s cinematic scene, bursting with reference to the golden days of Hollywood that only the biggest of cinema geeks will notice all, but some are plainly there. So we interrupt this review to present the list of all reference that you can see in the trailer (to avoid spoilers), remember on what source you check these results may vary, but here are the references for those who didn’t pick up on them or are curious before seeing the film. Only the names will be given, allowing you to do your own research, and if the character’s name is the same as the real life person, they will not feature (e.g. Tilda Swinton and Josh Brolin character).

Hail, Caesar! (the fictions film within this film) is Ben-Hur. Scarlet Johansson’s character is an on screen (and possible off) impersonation of Esther Williams, with a scene from the film Million Dollar Mermaid recreated but from the view of shooting it. Tatum alike Johansson’s recreates Gene Kelly, specifically within On The Town, not as scene for scene as MDM. Ralph Fiennes plays George Cukor, who struggles with a Roy Rogers alike character played by Ehrenreich. George Clooney’s character has more debate around, but many seem to think its a summary of numerous actors of that time, but Charlton Heston and Cary Grant stand out. And the mighty capital pictures are MGM productions.

Straight away from the presence of such obscure, apart from Ben-Hur, reference’s within the film can give an insight as to the vibe of the rest of the film, which is essentially that the Coens do not care or make films for a large audience. As such the humour, and overall story line may either go straight over the heads of audience members or not be fully grounded.

As to direct the direction of the film (leaving the substance of the film for last due to its polysemic nature) is pitch perfect in accompanying the mood of each scene they are trying to achieve, making for great comedy directing that isn’t present much recently in the genre, which is the director doing hardly anything outside of relying on dialogue or on screen action codes, making directing creativeness less of a priority. It was refreshing excellent to see the Coen’s do the very opposite of this genre stagnation, as they did in Burn After Reading, however, due to the quirky nature of the humour, the directing ‘play’ that is present may be lost in audiences and possible critics disappointment as to nature of humour in comparisons to previous works. These directing techniques are in a way alike the scenes from previous films that are recreated, in the sense that they are conventionally reminiscent. Most obviously with the revealing of the villains obscured shot through a door from high angle and shadows used to blot our a character face. As well as this their own brilliant presentation of the quirky scenes, which are impeccable personified to create character driven humour. Joined with this is the entertainment recreation of obscure, all be it brilliant past film scenes.

As for the acting of the film, either by the Coen’s advice giving, or the actors own intuition, each actor presents his character with the correct degree of satire. Again to use Coen’s terminology, the character are more Fargo than No Country for Old Men, meaning that any depth or realism that the characters have is done so humorously, these are characters made to serve the vibe of the story and period place. Just as like the minor characters of Fargo all are cookie cut to help build the stereotypical polite Canadian representation. The characters of Hail, Casear! may not be quiet the comedic quality of Fargo, but there is a point where quantity overcomes quality, as the number of crazy Hollywood stooges in the film make it full enough of comically flawed characters. This helps with both the humour of the film and also for the recreation of past films. To pick out favourites would have to be Alden Ehrenreich for his portrayal of dimwitted low quality western actor in over his head in a serious drama and George Clooney for his third embodiment of a Coen comedic character which expertly captures the atmosphere that the Coens are going for, making him a truly valuable and cemented collaborator.

Overall, for the final use of Coen terminology, Hail,Caesar! is most similar to A Serious Man, in both undeniable odd nature and humour style. As A Serious Man, was a Marmite film among both critics and audiences (with some even calling ASM a modern classic) this film will likely do the same, not quiet to the same level as it lacking in the hidden meaning that ASM did. But for all the critical and high brow attention and expectation that may come with a new Coen Brothers release, this is another outing of them having silly fun, but hell it is fun.

Verdict : Its will be a hit and miss among fans of the Coens, critics and causal cinema goers alike. But the humour that is attempted to be created here is done perfectly and creatively, while many may not get all the jokes. And the reconstructions are a nice treat too.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “Would that it were so simple.”

Mini review: Deadpool

Year: 2016

Certificate: 15

Director: Tim Miller

Screenwriters: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, TJ Miller, Gina Carano, Karan Soni, Brianna Hildebrand, Stefan Kapicic

Ryan Reynolds finally finds his metier as Wade Wilson, a smart-mouthed thug for hire turned superhuman on the hunt for revenge against the man who tortured and disfigured him. Fast-paced, sharp and hyperbolically violent, Deadpool explodes out of the gate with a slow-mo car-crash fight sequence set to the strains of Juice Newton’s Angel of the Morning, and proceeds to flash back, forwards and sideways to fill in the recent history of its vengeful protagonist. Reynolds- who, despite his considerable aptitude as an actor, has heretofore been pushed from pillar to post in Hollywood- is a revelation here, his physicality and voice acting adding up to a magnetic performance underneath Deadpool’s bright red and black mask. Director Tim Miller does an admirable job of keeping a firm hand on the tiller while driving the action forward at such a pace that it’s easy not to notice until afterwards how generic the story actually is. Disappointingly, despite Deadpool’s eagerness to poke fun at the foibles of superhero movies (quips about green spandex and the straight-lacedness of the X-Men abound), it makes little effort to subvert that genre’s underlying tropes. A case in point is Wade’s girlfriend Vanessa (Morenna Baccarin), whose ‘dream girl/ damsel in distress/ prize for the hero’ story arc couldn’t be more clichéd, a fact not quite remedied by her sharp tongue and Baccarin’s admittedly strong performance.

Verdict: 4/5

Image credit: foxmovies.com