The Big Short

Tags

Academy Awards, Adam McKay, America, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Brad Pitt, CDO, Christian Bale, Cinema, Film, Jared Vennett, Mad Max Fury Road, Margot Robbie, Mark Baum, Movie Review, Ryan Gosling, Selena Gomez, Steve Carell, The Big Short, The Martian, The Oscars, The Revenant, Tom Hardy

via blog.independent.org

“The Big Short” is one of eight nominees for this year’s Best Picture Academy Award, facing off against movies such as “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “The Revenant”, and “The Martian”. If you’ve been keeping up with my reviews over the past few months then you will know that I didn’t particularly love any of “The Big Short’s” aforementioned competition, because in my opinion none of those films were anything more than average – they all have their positive aspects, but I don’t personally feel that there is anything special about them. I haven’t seen the rest of the movies that have been nominated for Best Picture yet, so prior to seeing this film I wasn’t ready to champion any film leading into awards season. This has now changed, as I can say with confidence that I loved “The Big Short”, due to its solid performances, quirky humour, and so-crazy-it-must-be-true story.

From the trailer it may appear that “The Big Short” is about a group of businessmen who discover that the banks of America have been fraudulently exploiting the system and subsequently attempt to save the day. However, whilst this movie definitely highlights the sordid practices of big banks in America, it isn’t about a crazy plan on the part of the protagonists to try and stop them. “The Big Short” is actually a true story about a group of people who realised that the American economy was on the verge of collapse and thus bet against the American housing market that it was propped up on – because the housing market seemed so strong these businessmen were able to make ridiculous profits on their investments, as banks believed that they were getting free money and were therefore happy to offer millions of dollars of payment if the businessmen were correct in their predictions.

via elle.com

Now, the subject matter that this film tackles is actually quite complicated, because as Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) explains at the start of the film, rich people love to use complicated words so that we get confused and leave them to their own devices. This may put potential audience members off, after all the main reason that we enjoy going to the cinema is to be entertained and get away from the stresses of everyday life, not to be lectured on the dangers of corruption.

However, the way in which this movie addresses its material is actually one of the best things about it. In “The Big Short” Adam McKay uses famous people to present complex information, breaking the fourth wall and essentially teaching the audience the information that is critical to the plot of the film. Stars such as Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez pop up out of the blue to explain what’s going on, making potentially boring moments funny whilst also pulling the audience in at what would’ve otherwise been disengaging points. When you leave the theatre you genuinely feel as though you’ve learnt things that you didn’t know, and you feel as though you have a better grasp on a crisis that has affected us all in one way or another.

via bustle.com

The performances in this film are superb across the board; in fact, I don’t think there’s a weak one to be found. It’s just a shame that there isn’t one actor who could be considered to be the lead, because I actually think that Steve Carell and Christian Bale do enough work in this film to be nominated.

I know that Bale is nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and I think that’s a fair nomination given that his character was probably the quirkiest of the bunch, but I think that the performances in this film deserve more recognition than they will end up getting. When you look at other nominations in the Supporting Actor category, such as Tom Hardy, I think that it’s criminal that people like Carell haven’t been nominated – he does so much more than Hardy did in “The Revenant” and his performance is so much more considered. He has a great handle on his character in this movie, and he provides the audience with a real protagonist due to his frustration at the way the world works.

via nytimes.com

The fact that the cast of “The Big Short” is so large helps the film in a lot of ways, because to watch one type of person attempt to exploit the broken system that was the American housing market might’ve been boring after a while – there’s only so many times one person can explain what a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) is without it becoming tedious. However, having a lot of people from different backgrounds attack the same problem from different angles made the whole film that bit more interesting and kept the subject matter exciting.

“The Big Short” is an engaging and well-conceived film about important events in our recent history. It takes on potentially frustrating subject matter like greed and corruption and puts a comedic face on them, making the bastards of this world look like the idiots that they are – as Mark Baum (Steve Carell) says towards the end of the movie, fraud just doesn’t work. It’s a fantastic piece of cinema on every level, telling an incredible story in a confident and assured way. With fantastic performances and exquisite direction from Adam McKay, “The Big Short” is a brilliant film.

9/10

The Revenant

Tags

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Birdman, Captain Henry, Cinema, Domhnall Gleeson, Film, Forrest Goodluck, Gladiator, Hugh Glass, Jim Bridger, John Fitzgerald, Leonardo DiCaprio, Movie Review, Revenge, Ridley Scott, The Departed, The Oscars, The Revenant, The Wolf of Wall Street, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter

“The Revenant” is the latest film from Alejandro G. Iñárritu, the mastermind behind last year’s Oscar Winning “Birdman”. Like “Birdman”, Iñárritu’s “The Revenant” has been nominated for Best Picture, and for my money it has as good a chance as any to take that prize (given the average competition that it faces). Iñárritu himself could also win back-to-back personal accolades for Best Director if the Academy decides that he’s worthy of such recognition, so there’s a lot riding on the quality of this movie.

The plot of “The Revenant” is pretty clear from the trailer, but I will sketch it out quickly in case anyone hasn’t seen it yet. A group of hunters led by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) are roaming the wilderness in 1823 when they are attacked by Native American Arikara Indians; the hunting party is surprised by the attack and in the panic they lose many of their men. The group flee downstream on a raft, but knowing that the Arikara are still on their tail they decide to take a safer route on land, following advice from a member of the group who is familiar with the area – Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio).

As they attempt to put distance between themselves and the Arikara, the hunters face another set-back – Glass is attacked by a grizzly bear and left on the verge of death. The group try to care for him as best they can; carrying his weight quite literally until doing so is no longer a viable option. At this point, Captain Henry tells the group that there is a $100 reward for any man who will stay behind and care for Glass until his death; Glass’ son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), stays back but doesn’t wish to receive any payment, and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter), a member of the group loyal to Glass, agrees to do the same. This then prompts the selfish John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) to offer his services in caring for Glass, if it is agreed that he can have the reward money that would’ve been owed to Hawk and Bridger.

A deal is struck, but when Fitzgerald becomes wary that too much time has been spent caring for Glass he becomes agitated and attempts to speed up the process. Hawk catches him in the act of suffocating Glass, which leads Fitzgerald to kill the boy and hide the body. Fitzgerald then lies to Bridger who had been collecting water during the earlier commotion, saying that he doesn’t know where Hawk has gone and that there are 20 Arikara on their way. Out of fear and desperation Bridger agrees to abandon Glass to escape the Arikara, leaving his supposedly dying friend in a shallow grave.

From then on the story follows Glass, who survives the ordeal and sets out on a perilous journey to avenge his son’s death.

The story does take a little time to fully explain, because the details behind who does what at the start of the film are important given that Glass’ pain is the heart of the film. However, in reality the bulk of the film is quite dull and simplistic – the audience watches Glass as he crawls, limps, and finally walks through the snow, with nothing really happening in between. It’s all fairly standard, and there’s very little to sink your teeth into when you know that for the film to have any pay-off Glass has to survive, at least until he is face-to-face with Fitzgerald.

via foxmovies.com

“The Revenant” plays out a lot like Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” when you consider its form – the hero is betrayed and loses everything, the hero triumphs against adversity, and then the hero gets revenge on his betrayer – there’s not much more to it than that; the bits in between obviously differ in the details, but you get the point I’m making. This isn’t necessarily an issue for me, but I don’t think that anybody should walk into the cinema and expect to have a unique experience.

I suppose if I have one significant gripe about the story it isn’t so much that it’s straightforward, although it definitely is, but rather that Fitzgerald’s elaborate lie doesn’t make a lot of sense when you really think about it. From my perspective it seems as though Fitzgerald should’ve finished Glass off once he killed Hawk, because his plan to pretend that Glass had died of natural causes was still achievable and to his benefit. It just doesn’t follow that Fitzgerald didn’t murder Glass when that was his plan before he killed Hawk, because his motivation was self-preservation and this would’ve been achieved by killing the only witness. He even would’ve had a better excuse for Hawk’s absence than the one he gave to Bridger in the film, because he could’ve said that Hawk walked off in a fit of grief having seen his father die! This, at least in my view, is a substantial hole in the story that many critics have either failed to recognise, or failed to bring up.

Now, there are a couple of ways that fans of this film could respond to this criticism. The first is to say that Fitzgerald didn’t really need to kill Glass given that he thought he was dying anyway, and that perhaps his story would seem less suspicious to Bridger with Glass still alive. I’ll admit that it would seem pretty dodgy if Bridger had turned up to find Glass dead and Hawk suddenly missing, especially considering that Fitzgerald was so aggressive towards both men earlier in the film. Still, I don’t feel like this is something that would’ve gone through Fitzgerald’s head, considering the way in which he was set up as a character – from my perspective I think it’s far more likely that the writers simply ignored this plot hole for the sake of their story.

via hollywoodreporter.com

The second response to the issue of Fitzgerald choosing not to kill Glass is to say that he might not have had time to hide Hawk’s body, compose himself, and kill Glass, before Bridger’s return. This is a much better response in my opinion, but I don’t think it does much to save the story from criticism; it might appease a viewer, but it definitely doesn’t deflect criticism from the writers or the director. It is more than possible that Fitzgerald didn’t have time to fully resolve the situation – Bridger was only getting water after all – but if this is a plot point that the audience is meant to pick up then it was very poorly conveyed.

So, after basically revealing that I don’t think much to “The Revenant’s” story, it should be clear that for me this film lives and dies on its technical aspects – cinematography, direction, acting, etc. Luckily “The Revenant” excels in these areas, which explains why the Academy have put it up for Best Picture; the music and the action blend together beautifully, DiCaprio is convincing (if not a little repetitive in his mannerisms), and it’s obvious that there’s a lot of talent behind the camera.

It’s hard not to appreciate just how difficult some of the shots in this film must’ve been to get right; the way that the camera spins around during the chaotic Arikara ambush at the start of the film is fantastic, and the scene in which Glass is attacked by the bear is awesome! There are some genuinely brilliant moments in “The Revenant”, which is why the frequently dull and consistently underwhelming story frustrates me so much – I want to be able to champion this movie and tell everyone how worthy it is of the Oscar, but I just can’t bring myself to do it!

via foxmovies.com

A lot of talk surrounding this movie prior to release revolved around Leonardo DiCaprio and his seemingly endless battle to win the coveted Academy Award for Best Actor, having been snubbed for his work in films such as “The Departed” and “The Wolf of Wall Street”. I think most regular moviegoers would like to see him win an Oscar sooner rather than later, simply because he’s been in so many good movies and he clearly puts a lot of effort into his roles. I’m pleased to report that he does well here, giving a lot of passion and commitment to the role, but personally I don’t feel that this is his best work. He does a lot of crawling around gasping for air, and he’s believable as a man out for revenge, but I really don’t think there’s anything special about his performance. He just doesn’t have that much to do, and I actually think it would be a bit of a shame if this was the movie that won him the award.

Tom Hardy is also up for an Oscar for his performance in this film, and he does what he does in a typically assured and controlled manner. His character is a bit underdeveloped for my liking, but the role is definitely suited to Hardy’s unique brand of menace. He’s a master at playing unhinged characters, good or evil, and he does his thing here perfectly well for the short time that he’s on screen.

However, what holds Hardy back in this film is the fact that we don’t actually see Fitzgerald all that much after the first hour, and when we do he doesn’t come across as particularly evil given the situation he faces. It seems to me that everything that Fitzgerald does makes perfect sense apart from stabbing Hawk, but even that was done hesitantly and for the sake of survival – Fitzgerald didn’t want any nearby Arikara to hear Hawk’s cries for help so he had to do something! He’s a very selfish character with an abrasive demeanour, but he’s a long way short of being the malicious antagonist that this movie requires to make its premise compelling.

via foxmovies.com

It would be easy to put my issues with “The Revenant” down to personal taste, given the fact that from a technical standpoint this is a well-made movie, but I really do believe that “The Revenant” is inherently flawed because of its feeble story. From where I’m standing it seems like there are an abundance of characters that appear in this film for a short time with more interesting things going on in their lives than Glass and Fitzgerald, and yet these characters are ignored so that the story can focus on a fairly standard story about one man getting revenge on another. We watch in anticipation as Glass treks across the snowy landscape, waiting patiently for something to happen, yet nothing ever does!

All in all, “The Revenant” is okay, but I think that expectations should be tempered for anyone who is looking forward to seeing it. “The Revenant” is a prime example of a film that you really have to think about before reviewing, because the impact that watching it in a cinema can have on you is apt to mask the fact that it isn’t actually a magnificent movie. Film is an art form, and it’s clear that Iñárritu and his team know what they’re doing when it comes to pleasing the Academy, but movies are also about compelling stories that are told in new and exciting ways; “The Revenant” falls painfully short in this area. There’s a lot to like about it from a film-lover’s perspective, such as Iñárritu’s eye for a nice shot and DiCaprio’s performance, but I still feel that the paint-by-numbers story will rightfully put mainstream audiences off.

7/10

The Hateful Eight

Tags

Bounty Hunter, Bruce Dern, Channing Tatum, Chris Mannix, Cinema, Daisy Domergue, Dana Gourrier, Demian Bichir, Film, General Sandy Smithers, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Joe Gage, John Ruth, Kill Bill, Kurt Russell, Major Marquis Warren, Michael Madsen, Minnie's Haberdashery, Movie Review, Oswalso Mobray, Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino, Red Rock, Samuel L. Jackson, The Hateful Eight, The Oscars, Tim Roth, Walton Goggins

“The Hateful Eight” is fittingly Quentin Tarantino’s eighth feature length film, and like the movies that have preceded it, it’s pretty damn good. Tarantino has a way of making despicable characters extremely likeable through a blend of witty dialogue and quirky delivery, and there’s a sense of moral neutrality which permeates his films; it’s much the same here, which is necessary because every character is a bit of an arse. Violence plays out on screen in a blunt and destructive manner; heads are blown off, limbs are severed, and manhood’s are splattered all over the floor, yet the audience’s collective reaction is one of laughter. “The Hateful Eight” is actually very funny, even when awful things are happening, and it is this attribute which makes it a great film to watch.

To explain exactly what this movie is about would ruin it for anyone who hasn’t already seen it, because the motivations of the characters involved aren’t fully revealed until the film’s final act. However, I can flesh out the set-up for the bulk of the movie to give you an idea of what the story is about.

As the film opens the camera follows a stagecoach driving through a blizzard towards Red Rock, Wyoming; on this stagecoach are John Ruth (Kurt Russell), a bounty hunter who goes by the name of The Hangman, and his prisoner Daisy Domergue (played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who has received an Oscar nomination for the role), a murderer worth $10,000. Before we meet them the stagecoach stops in front of a traveller with no transportation – this traveller is another bounty hunter who goes by the name of Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson). John Ruth reluctantly allows Warren to travel with him in the stagecoach, due to the fact that the pair have met before, and together they continue towards Red Rock with Domergue.

via businessinsider.com

Along the way they bump into another straggler, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), a racist who claims to be the new sheriff of Red Rock – after a debate he persuades John Ruth to give him a ride on the stagecoach, explaining that he will be the person who pays the bounty on Domergue’s head, and as such it would defeat the purpose of the trip to leave him stranded in the snow.

After a heated argument between Warren and Mannix, the colourful foursome take refuge from the blizzard at a place known as Minnie’s Haberdashery, although Minnie (Dana Gourrier) herself is nowhere to be found. A man named Bob (Demián Bichir) comes out to meet them, and inside there are three more men; Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). There you have “The Hateful Eight” – The Bounty Hunter, The Hangman, The Prisoner, The Sheriff, The Mexican, The Little Man, The Cow Puncher, and The Confederate.

It’s a long first act, but this is a long movie, and to Tarantino’s credit he manages to flesh out the characters of Ruth, Domergue, Warren, and Mannix quickly and with minimal fuss. Before the rest of the eight were even introduced I felt as though I had a handle on the nature of these four characters, which made the film that bit more entertaining when things began to spiral out of control, as I had to decide whether or not I believed what they had previously been saying.

A lot of the history revealed in the opening moments is later reintroduced in order to create conflict, so you need to pay attention – there’s a lot of groundwork being done right under your nose through what appears to be idle conversation. Tarantino really is a master at conveying exposition without making it obvious to the audience; his unique dialogue, coupled with the strange way in which it is delivered, means that you can never be sure which statements are important and which are plain nonsense, and thus you never feel as though you are being force-fed information.

via telegraph.co.uk

One of the best things about “The Hateful Eight”, at least in my opinion, is that it manages to be constantly funny despite having some very dark moments. There’s racism, murder, and even the suggestion that one character may have forced another to perform oral sex against their will, yet I personally never felt uncomfortable. Now, I know that my tolerance for these things is probably higher than most people’s, but I found myself not only accepting these moments, but physically laughing. Tarantino’s characters are so cartoonish and brutal that it’s hard to take them at all seriously, which could be seen as a criticism if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s so clearly intentional. People often say that Tarantino’s movies are too violent, but from my perspective it’s this excessiveness that makes the violence seem completely normal and actually quite endearing, especially given the fact that the characters performing the actions are obviously inclined towards being sadistic and deranged.

From what I’ve said so far it’s probably apparent that I’m a fan of Tarantino’s style, but even so, if the cast didn’t perform in the right off-kilter way then “The Hateful Eight” wouldn’t have worked. Lucky for Tarantino then that the performances are almost all spot on. Long-time collaborator with Tarantino, Samuel L. Jackson, is at his best in this film, which is great to see because he hasn’t really shone in a lead role for a while. He’s typically crass and over-the-top, but he also portrays the fact that Major Warren has seen it all in his life, and that it is his experiences which have lead him to become the cold-hearted son-of-a-bitch that we see in this film. Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Kurt Russell also show that they know how to pull off performing to Tarantino’s liking, with Russell giving a commanding yet comical performance as John Ruth.

via indiewire.com

Still, perhaps the best performance of the film comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh as Daisy Domergue. She brings a sense of fun to “The Hateful Eight” that really makes the film what it is, because in reality she’s the main character. She’s violent and deranged, laughing as she gets hurt, and there’s also a sense of detachment in her which is quite frightening considering the fact that she faces death. However, what really makes Domergue a memorable character is the fact that she’s so playful and frankly mad; she seems to love tormenting the other characters, especially John Ruth, and she’s just incredibly entertaining to watch. Of all the characters in “The Hateful Eight” Domergue has the most depth, which is in no small part down to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s performance.

Nevertheless, I felt that Channing Tatum’s casting was a bit of a distraction, especially given that his performance wasn’t very good. I’ve got nothing against Channing Tatum, but for my money he doesn’t have the acting chops to fit into a Tarantino film, and I believe that he proved that every time he appeared on screen. From the moment that the opening credits rolled I was wondering when he was going to appear, because he’s quite a big name to not have a lead role. This was accentuated by the fact that the movie opened with a long shot of the stagecoach wading through the snow, giving me time to find out who was going to appear in the film – when Channing Tatum hadn’t turned up by the middle of it I was acutely aware that he was going to have a large role to play, which obviously had an effect on my experience of the film. Any sense of immersion or intrigue that might’ve been building prior to that point was completely killed until he appeared, which was a real shame because a lot of hard work had gone into keeping character agendas hidden.

via bfi.org.uk

I also felt that while the story wasn’t bad, the way in which the bulk of the movie was contained within Minnie’s Haberdashery took away from the experience as a whole, given that this is a three hour long movie with an interval in the middle (yes, there’s an actual interval). It’s hard to think exactly how this problem could’ve been avoided, because the whole film revolves around the eight characters that are stuck in the haberdashery, but it still took away from the impact of the film. It would’ve been difficult to follow any of the characters closely before they arrived at the haberdashery because their motivations are intentionally opaque and they supposedly come from different places, but I still think that this containment issue is one reason why I didn’t enjoy “The Hateful Eight” as much as some of Tarantino’s other films.

Despite a couple of small issues, I thoroughly enjoyed “The Hateful Eight”. If you aren’t a fan of Tarantino’s unique brand of filmmaking, then at three hours and seven minutes long “The Hateful Eight” might not be for you; I certainly don’t think that it’s Tarantino’s best work, considering films like “Kill Bill” and “Pulp Fiction” grace his filmography, and I don’t think that it’s the right stop for a newcomer to jump onto the bandwagon. However, for a fan like me it’s yet another admirable and entertaining effort from a very talented director, and an early contender for my favourite film of 2016.

8/10

In the Heart of the Sea

Tags

Ben Whishaw, Brendan Gleeson, Chris Hemsworth, Cinema, Film, Herman Melville, In the Heart of the Sea, Life of Pi, Moby Dick, Movie Review, Ron Howard, Room, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hateful Eight, Whaling

“In the Heart of the Sea” is a half-decent film. In essence it tells the story of Moby Dick, or rather one of the characters in the movie (Thomas Nickerson played by Brendan Gleeson) tells the story to another character, Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw). Structurally it plays out a bit like “Life of Pi”, as one character pries into another’s history for the sake of both intellectual curiosity and inspiration; this history then plays out on screen and makes up the bulk of the movie.

My biggest concern going into “In the Heart of the Sea” was whether or not a well-known tale about whaling could capture my interest, considering that in this day-and-age we’re used to extraordinary stories involving superheroes and robots. To my surprise, the scale of the story really wasn’t an issue – the whaling aspect is interesting for what it’s worth, because having to kill massive creatures on voyages that could take multiple years, for the sake of oil, is quite a strange concept to grasp. On top of that, the idea of nature balancing itself out and fighting back at humanity in the form of a huge white whale is fun and novel.

via collider.com

Nevertheless, the story does end up letting the movie down because there just isn’t enough depth to it. From the moment that Nickerson begins telling his far-fetched yarn we as the audience know what direction the film is going to take, because we know that he survives whatever complications arise, that these complications are severe enough to haunt him, and that a huge whale is going to turn up and cause problems (because “In the Heart of the Sea” is based on Moby Dick after all). There’s nothing to get excited about, because although we see the characters killing a whale and keeping things ‘ship-shape’ (pun intended) we know that they aren’t going to return home with 2,000 barrels of blubber – things have to go wrong or there’d be no reason for Nickerson’s reluctance to tell the tale, or for Melville to be interested in what Nickerson has to say.

I feel as though restrictions placed on the movie, such as its age certificate, meant that it couldn’t do the things that would’ve made it interesting; for example, “In the Heart of the Sea” touches on atrocities like cannibalism and being stranded at sea, but it can’t do anything with these problems because it can’t show you the true reality of the situation.

via collider.com

Another reason why the story lets itself down is that we as an audience aren’t afforded enough time to become connected to the characters, or those character’s relationships with one another. The interactions that the characters have with one another are superficial and short, and although the reasons behind their actions are touched upon, they’re never delved into with care and consideration. Perhaps certain members of the audience might’ve felt a connection to Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) given the fact that we see his wife at the start of the tale, and we are also told that he has a baby on the way, but to someone like me this is a red flag; a cheap trick used by filmmakers to force the audience into feeling invested.

Despite this film’s issues, the cast is pretty good and they perform their roles well, especially given the fact that the characters they’re playing aren’t fully realised or developed. The direction is also nice; “In the Heart of the Sea” is well shot and the effects are fine, which should be expected given that Ron Howard was in the box seat.  So, when all is said and done, “In the Heart of the Sea” isn’t actually a bad movie. However, it also isn’t a particularly good one. Sadly, there’s just nothing special about it – it’s a pleasant enough experience but it isn’t really worth watching at the cinema when films like “The Hateful Eight”, “Star Wars : The Force Awakens”, and “Room” are out right now.

6.5/10

Joy

Tags

American Hustle, Bradley Cooper, Cinema, David O. Russell, Film, Jennifer Lawrence, Joy, Miracle Mop, Movie Review, Robert Di Nero, Silver Linings Playbook, Soap Operas

Before seeing “Joy” I was cautiously optimistic; David O. Russell has a decent track record, and the last time he worked with Jennifer Lawrence, Robert Di Nero, and Bradley Cooper, he received critical acclaim. However, after sitting through a tepid first half an hour, any optimism I had about the quality of “Joy” dissipated, and things only got worse from there.

The film is about the titular character as she attempts to make the most out of her life and let her creativity shine. She’s a determined young woman with big dreams, and she’s willing to risk a lot of money to make her creation, the miracle mop, a success. The core of the film is Joy’s creation of this mop, and her subsequent effort to sell it to the American public. It might sound like a dull premise, but I could definitely see what the filmmakers were going for, and I think that within the bones of this movie there was an interesting story that could’ve been told.

via dvdizzy.com

However, for me “Joy” falters because it attempts to present its story in a quirky and surreal way, when in fact the appeal of it is the very real human side of things. The film starts like a soap opera, and this is very intentional, but it doesn’t really work. Joy is a woman who has faced a lot of adversity yet still makes the most of every day and tries to make the best of her potential, and she also looks after and loves her family – she’s an exceptional person who keeps getting knocked back, which is what makes the story actually worth telling. This movie touches on Joy’s personality, but there’s never really that heart-warming moment where all her efforts feel worthwhile and appreciated.

The best thing about “Joy” is by far Jennifer Lawrence. She portrays Joy as a loving and determined person who wants to do what’s best for both herself and her family, and obviously that makes you like her. This is so important in a movie like this, because if you don’t like Joy then there’s really no way you could ever get invested in the events that take place on screen. Lawrence brings a sense of purpose and certainty to her character in the first half of the film, which makes the latter half that much more satisfying as Joy’s hopes are repeatedly dashed, re-realised, and dashed again. Lawrence is a genuinely talented and versatile actress, and she elevates this film to a level which the writing and direction don’t really deserve.

via foxmovies.com

All in all, “Joy” is not an exceptional movie, despite what some critics would have you believe. I actually found it really hard to review, because beyond Jennifer Lawrence’s performance there’s very little worth talking about. There’s a message of hard work paying off, not accepting your circumstances, and never giving up at the heart of this film, but I can’t pretend that it hit me in any meaningful way; it might’ve done had “Joy” been executed more carefully, but for me it was hard to take anything that was happening seriously given the tone that was set at the start of the film, and also because Joy’s actions could’ve just as easily led to poverty as they did to success.

5.5/10

Krampus

Tags

Adam Scott, Christmas, Cinema, Father Christmas, Film, Goblins, Horror, Horror Films, Krampus, Michael Dougherty, Monsters, Movie Review, Saint Nicholas, Toni Collette, Troll 2

“Krampus” is a messy and at times frustrating film which attempts to capitalise on the collective cynicism of an audience tired of Christmas and the films which are released to exploit it. As a person who associates the holiday at least in part with consumerism and greed, I can appreciate the novelty of a ghastly creature bringing an army of teddy bears and gingerbread men to wreak havoc on a middle-class American family – there’s definitely a sick satisfaction in it. However, my appreciation of this film’s premise doesn’t mean that I think it is in any way well-executed or worthy of praise, because the narrative it tells simply isn’t that interesting or entertaining.

The titular character, Krampus, is a monstrous creature taken from Anglo-Bavarian folklore. Krampus is said to bring judgement down on those children who have done wrong, i.e. those who are on Saint Nicholas’ naughty list; if Saint Nicholas is a god-like figure then Krampus is a devil, so he offers a form of balance. Nevertheless, what I personally feel makes Krampus a dull character to explore is that it isn’t clear in the folklore why he should care whether or not children hold the spirit of the season in their hearts; nor is it in any way obvious whether or not his actions are designed to act as a deterrent, or are merely an excuse for his own malicious nature. Horror movies generally have to treat ghost stories and things that go bump in the night as though they were real, but I find this incredibly hard to swallow when the motivation behind a certain monster’s actions are so opaque.

via comingsoon.net

“Krampus” opens with a promising slow motion montage in which shoppers wrestle one another for toys; this immediately acts as an ironic nod to the theme of the movie, and also provides the audience with a clear tone. It’s obvious that whilst “Krampus” was advertised as a horror film, it is in fact a comedy which utilises the tropes of the horror genre. It’s clear that the goal of the movie isn’t actually to shock or scare, but rather to provide some sort of superficial social commentary on Christmas and how we currently treat it, whilst also making the audience laugh at the ridiculousness of their own attitudes towards the holiday. This theme is reinforced throughout the film, albeit through increasingly clunky exposition (much of the dodgy dialogue is intentional, but despite the best efforts of the writers that doesn’t make it more palatable).

This theme could’ve been used to enhance “Krampus”, to elevate it into something which was really worth watching, but instead it tainted the film. At the end of the day this isn’t an intelligent piece of cinema; Michael Dougherty might’ve had the best of intentions, but he wasn’t able to convey his message on screen without cramming it down the audience’s collective throat. By trying to reinforce the message that Christmas is about putting up with your family despite their flaws, and giving rather than receiving, Dougherty takes any sense of fun away from proceedings.

The story of Krampus invading a small town in America is at its very core completely ridiculous and verges on nonsensical, so when any kind of commentary is going on it’s incredibly distracting. You can really tell when certain characters are saying something that is in fact aimed at the audience rather than another character, because most of the time the dialogue is clearly comedic in nature and the acting is consistently (by intention) over the top. When the film’s central message is being conveyed this isn’t the case, and there’s a clear shift as characters suddenly become serious. This, of course, ruins any fleeting sense of immersion or credibility.

I don’t want to waste too much time picking holes in “Krampus”, because it’s incredibly flawed in nearly every aspect, so let me just say that its premise, its formulaic story, and the performances of the main cast, were all poor. There’s not a whole lot to like about it unless you’re like me and enjoy a bit of B-movie nonsense, and it’s a very awkward film to watch. With that said, I’d like to pick out at least one positive feature for the sake of fairness, because I wouldn’t want Krampus to come and get me next Christmas for being too harsh on his biopic!

It’s undeniable that the costume and monster design in “Krampus” is actually very good. Krampus himself looks cool when he’s on screen (although that isn’t very often), and his helpers are similarly striking visually. My favourite villain was definitely the jack-in-the-box, which even in such a silly movie was off-putting, and I also liked the design on the elves. They sort of reminded me of the goblins from “Troll 2”, which may not seem like a compliment, but it is in its own way. I feel like if this movie is ever going to be loved it would have to be in the same way that “Troll 2” is idolised and adored, so any similarities are probably welcome! Sadly that’s all I’ve got in the form of praise… so it isn’t looking good for me next winter.

I can’t help but think that something more could’ve been done with “Krampus” if it had been executed with more care, because the cast isn’t bad at all on paper and the costume design/special effects for the monsters was really quite good. With more nuanced dialogue and a greater focus on horror this could’ve been a half decent attempt at making a memorable Christmas movie. However, as it is “Krampus” is a forgettable, lacklustre, and frankly boring film which spends too much time trying to put across a message about the spirit of Christmas, and not enough time developing its characters.

4/10