Get Out

Tags

Allison Williams, Black Mirror, Catherine Keener, Cinema, Comedy, Daniel Kaluuya, Don't Breathe, Film, Film Review, Get Out, Girls, Horror, Horror Film, It Follows, Jordan Peele, Movie, Movie Review, The Babadook, The Witch

via dailyflix.files.wordpress.com

“Get Out” is a film that deserves to be seen. I’m not saying that it’s perfect, far from it actually, but it’s the latest in a string of horror movies that show what can be done within the confines of the genre. In recent times films like “It Follows”, “Don’t Breathe”, “The Witch”, and “The Babadook” have each renewed my love for horror by championing their concepts above all else and using them to explore themes such as sexuality, grief, religion, and mental health. “Get Out” is similar in that it uses a simple premise to examine its theme, racism in the modern world, whilst intelligently allowing one to inform the other and vice versa.

Jordan Peele (the film’s director) introduces tension immediately, setting the stakes for what’s to come with an eerie opening scene in which a young man is kidnapped by a masked assailant. This scene doesn’t necessarily give the audience any further information than that which could’ve been deduced from the film’s trailer, but it does its job by creating an unsettling tone and eliminating any inclination to believe that strange moments in the story are the result of coincidence. It lets you know conclusively that something sordid is going on behind the scenes, thus establishing a sense of intrigue and giving you the satisfying feeling that you know something that the protagonist does not.

via trailers.apple.com

Peele then turns his attention to said protagonist, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), fleshing out his basic motivations and establishing his relationship with his girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams). From here it’s all about creating a mood, something which is crucial in any horror movie but especially when there’s an element of comedy involved as well. It’s fair to say that this is where “Get Out” shines as the mood which is produced fits the film perfectly and permeates every scene. There’s a hypnotic feel to “Get Out” which gives the experience a dreamlike quality, something which is clearly intentional as hypnosis is a key plot device in the film. There’s also a sense of voyeurism about the film, as oftentimes it feels as though you’re watching something that you really shouldn’t be – something private and alien.

Still, whilst “Get Out” is unsettling in many ways there’s also something surreally funny about it, even in its darker moments, with the eccentricity of the antagonists making the situation almost too bizarre to be taken seriously. This again feels completely intentional, not only because this film has been marketed as a comedy-horror hybrid, but also because it plays on the absurdity which is inherent in the situation that Chris is placed in.

via flixster.com

The film’s initial tension is built upon the notion that there’s some sort of problem with a white woman bringing a black man home to meet her parents, so it makes sense to present the situation as peculiar given that a normal person wouldn’t hold that belief. Peele is careful to ensure that social commentary isn’t the film’s primary focus, cleverly framing it within an outlandish narrative in order to show just how laughable the problem is to begin with, whilst also making that narrative interesting enough to hold the audience’s attention regardless of whether or not the commentary was there at all.

The form of racism that “Get Out” considers is commonplace and often unintentional; the kind that’s implicit in the efforts that we make to portray ourselves as free from any and all prejudices. In trying to convince the world that we believe in equality it often happens that we display the opposite, as in virtue of that fact that we’re making a special effort to accommodate a certain race of people we inadvertently acknowledge that race plays a role in the judgements that we are making.

Peele’s way of examining this issue is through extreme scenarios given the story that he’s telling, so it’s pretty easy to pick up on if you’re willing to look for it but also easy to ignore if you’d prefer to turn your brain off. The most obvious scene in which Peele presents this type of racism is at a party in which a guest notes that ‘black is in’. This comment is insulting and degrading for Chris as the guest is comparing his skin colour to a fashion accessory, thus devaluing his humanity, but the guest views it as a compliment made to build rapport.

via filmblerg.com

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this scene is that whilst it’s clear that Chris is offended by the comment he decides not to speak out. He stays silent to avoid embarrassing himself and others, to avoid conflict, and to make a good impression in front of his girlfriend’s family, just as we feign ignorance on a daily basis when we see people act in ways that we don’t agree with.

In this film the way that Chris rationalises strange behaviour works perfectly because it allows Peele to justify typical examples of horror movie logic without relying on the stupidity of his characters. Instead of relying on coincidence or the suspension of disbelief Peele uses the fact that Chris is in some sense desensitised to being treated differently to explain why he disregards strange behaviour and continues to surround himself with ignorance, thus making the character relatable and making his fate seem inevitable given that he’s also desperately trying to make a good impression.

Still, having heaped praise on “Get Out” and placing it alongside other modern horror triumphs like “It Follows” and “Don’t Breathe” I should concede that it inherits some of their issues as well. Whilst both of the aforementioned films live long in the memory and have some excellent moments their universes are populated with inconsistent rules and narrative oversights. “Get Out” is no different in either respect, as although bizarre behaviour is explained for the most part there are moments when characters act irrationally simply in to progress the plot.

via womenwriteaboutcomics.com

(SPOILER ALERT) The best example of this occurred late in the film when Chris freed himself from his restraints by using a pair of makeshift earbuds, ensuring that Rose’s family couldn’t trigger his hypnosis. This in itself was actually a clever scene as it justified the inclusion of Chris’ backstory, but the problem was that he then immediately removed the earbuds before trying to leave the house. This didn’t make sense, as although he might have wanted to be able to hear movements in the house in order to navigate his way to freedom and avoid attacks, he opened himself up to being made unconscious at a moment’s notice! This isn’t a risk that he should’ve been willing to take given that he was fully aware of the consequences, and it seemed as though this decision was made simply to create further tension when he encountered Rose’s mother, Missy (Catherine Keener), who predictably attempted to hypnotise him.

Nevertheless, issues such as this were infrequent, and although they did alter my opinion of the film slightly they didn’t ruin it by any stretch of the imagination. Overall “Get Out” was an engaging and intelligent film with two excellent lead performances from Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams respectively, and it was successful in establishing its mood early on and then capitalising on the creepiness of its premise. It was a beautiful film to watch and the dialogue was sharp, making for an experience which was both satisfying and entertaining.

8.5/10

Advertisements

Free Fire

Tags

Armie Hammer, Ben Wheatley, Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Cinema, Comedy, District 9, Film, Film Review, Free Fire, High-Rise, Jack Reynor, Kill List, Michael Smiley, Movie, Movie Review, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Riley, Sharlto Copley

via pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com

“Free Fire” is the latest film from celebrated director Ben Wheatley, the man behind last year’s “High-Rise” and the critically acclaimed psychological horror “Kill List”. After thoroughly disliking both of those films I was sceptical about this one, particularly because what I found most frustrating about them was that they were over-stylised and self-indulgent. However, “Free Fire” is a much less jarring cinematic experience because it’s localised to one setting and focuses on comedy rather than drama, allowing Wheatley to craft a clear narrative which is complemented by a sharp script.

Initial reviews for this film suggest that it could be divisive, which isn’t too surprising given that critics failed to reach a consensus as to whether “High-Rise” was a well-realised artistic endeavour or an overly ambitious mess. What’s immediately apparent about this film is that there was a conscious effort made by Wheatley and his team to make it more accessible to a wider audience than his previous work. This is something which will obviously effect perceptions depending what your opinions on his movies are, so given that my opinions on said movies are largely negative I was relieved by the shift in focus. The way that characters behave and interact with one another in this film is still off-kilter compared to what mainstream audiences are used to, but it works on this occasion because it’s employed for the sake of comedy and turns a serious situation into something absurdly funny.

via tumblr.com

If there’s one criticism of “Free Fire” that I think holds real weight it’s that the camerawork is surprisingly uninspired. There are points at which characters are moving around in the warehouse (the film’s primary location) amidst a sea of oncoming bullets, trying to reach a briefcase or hunt down an enemy, and you don’t have any sort of clear perception as to where they’ve ended up. They move around quite a bit, crawling from cover to cover like bad A.I. in a video game, but you can’t keep up because the camera seems to spin around almost aimlessly. For the most part this lack of clarity didn’t detract significantly from the experience for me because I felt that it fit with the chaotic tone that the film was going for, but I did find it annoying and I have to question why more wasn’t done to make things visually compelling.

Nevertheless, from a personal perspective I found “Free Fire” very entertaining – the humour hit its mark much more accurately than the characters hit their targets, and the interactions between characters are a joy for the most part. I found the absurdist nature of the film endearing yet familiar, generating comparisons to Tarantino as the characters faced life-threatening situations yet seemed detached from their own peril, and I felt that the performances went a long way to making the characters believable.

via denofgeek.com

Sharlto Copley (“District 9”) was particularly funny as cowardly arms dealer Vernon, making the character as loveable as he was despicable, and his performance was nicely offset by the straight-talking Chris (Cillian Murphy) who was the de facto protagonist in a film filled with horrible people. Every actor in the film did a great job, from Oscar winner Brie Larson to Michael Smiley who frequently collaborates with Wheatley, and I can’t think of one person who let the movie down.

Overall I felt that “Free Fire” was genuinely funny, with an array of entertaining performances and a strong premise which forced Ben Wheatley to tone down some of his more frustrating directorial tendencies. It’s a much more straightforward and thus less messy film than his previous work, but it still feels like a thoughtful and inventive take on a simple concept. It’s my favourite Wheatley film so far and I’d recommend it to almost anyone, which is testament to how he has adapted his style to something more widely accessible following the mixed reception he received for the almost unwatchable “High-Rise”.

8/10

Fences

Tags

August Wilson, Cinema, Denzel Washington, Fences, Film, Film Review, Movie, Movie Review, Mykelti Williamson, Theatre, Troy Maxson, Viola Davis

via comingsoon.net

“Fences” is a strange film to watch. For long periods I enjoyed the experience as the performances and the script were admirable, but at the same time I felt slightly underwhelmed when it reached its conclusion. This is partly down to the fact that the film dragged towards the end, but it’s also because it felt as though it belonged on the stage rather than the big screen.

This doesn’t make “Fences” a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a criticism which has been fairly raised in a number of reviews. “Fences” just isn’t the most entertaining of films – it’s strong from a technical standpoint, but it doesn’t demand your attention. For the most part this movie focuses on events taking place in the back garden of the main character’s house; it’s a dialogue-heavy piece and it’s often visually mundane.

Nevertheless, there’s something oddly refreshing about the grounded story that it attempts to tell, and having gone to see it with low expectations I was pleasantly surprised by its overall quality. I appreciated Washington’s performance and I was impressed by his direction as well – it felt like his vision was well-realised, so I respect what he achieved even if I don’t necessarily agree with the direction in which he took the film.

via worldstarhiphop.com

Personally, I think that the film’s story would’ve been better served if things hadn’t been confined to the comfort of Troy Maxson’s (Washington) house, because there’s something jarring about the restriction that the singular setting places on the film as a whole. When it comes to translating something from the stage onto the big screen there are going to be certain limitations, but this is an adaptation and as such there should be room to make changes for the sake of improving the cinematic experience. It makes sense to restrict the setting from a budgetary standpoint, and it does fit thematically with the nature of the film, but by the end I lost interest in what was happening on screen because the movie felt like it wasn’t going anywhere both narratively and geographically.

With this said, I should elaborate on the fact that this film’s narrow focus fit with its themes when it came to the setting. “Fences” is about the fact that these characters are trapped by their commitment to one another and also in their ways, which makes sense of the film’s title as well as its tagline. As such, it’s an intelligent decision to have the audience confined to the world that Troy and Rose (Viola Davis) have built. It gives the film a claustrophobic feel which mirrors the way that the characters are feeling, and it allows the audience to sympathise with Troy even though his attitude is outdated, as we spend a lot of time with him and get an insight into the limitations of his stable but humdrum existence.

via onionstatic.com

I find it surprising that there wasn’t more of a buzz surrounding this film during award season because to me this seems like a movie that The Academy would like. It has the emotional conflict that most good films need and it also boasts an undoubtedly superb lead performance from Denzel Washington, a man who is obviously respected in Hollywood. It’s the most passionate performance I’ve seen from him in a long time and he balanced directing and acting incredibly well, so it’s a bit of a shame that more people aren’t talking about this movie.

There are smart decisions being made throughout, because whilst it does feel very theatrical this is embraced in the way that the movie is shot and Washington often allows the camera to linger in order to get a reaction out of scenes which could’ve fallen flat. Regularly you’ll find that the whole room is in frame when conversations are relaxed and stories are being told, but as tension mounts and tempers flare the camera focuses in on one character and lets them portray their emotions. This is simple cinematography and in most cases it’s the natural way to frame a scene, but it works well in this movie as it plays into the theatrical nature of the film.

In a theatrical production your eyes will be drawn to the person who is speaking when they’re heated or in the middle of a conversation, whereas when things are quiet and a scene is building you’ll survey the stage for smaller details of each actor’s performance, so it makes sense that this film does that work for you given the medium.

via squarespace.com

I have to say that I liked this film quite a lot despite the issues I have with it; the two lead characters were well defined and the performances were superb, and it was a film to be appreciated if not always enjoyed. Viola Davis was excellent and more than deserving of her Oscar win, (although she was definitely playing a lead character in this film and as such shouldn’t have been nominated as a supporting actress), and her performance was definitely my favourite aspect of the film.

The only real qualm I had with “Fences” was that it dragged towards the end, because I felt as though it could’ve been a great film had it shown some restraint. As a theatrical piece the pacing would’ve been more palatable because there would’ve been an intermission in the middle, but without this break the film overstays its welcome. This is a shame because by the end you’re actually waiting for the movie to finish, taking away from a story which is often moving and very much relatable.

This merges into the issue that I mentioned earlier which is that this is an adaptation and should’ve been treated as such. There are scenes and characters in this movie which could’ve and perhaps should’ve been cut out to streamline the experience, not because they weren’t good in isolation, but because the movie as a whole would’ve benefited by being more condensed and having more clarity in how its story was presented.

via indiewire.com

For instance, Troy has a mentally handicapped brother, Gabriel (Mykelti Williamson), who often appears out of nowhere in the middle of a scene when his presence isn’t necessary. He doesn’t ruin any of the scenes he’s in and Williamson’s performance is fine, but the character just feels superfluous. I can see how seeing Troy interact with his brother could humanise him and thus make the movie more effective from a conceptual standpoint, but given the strength of Washington’s performance I really don’t think that this was required. Troy is often presented as the villain of the piece and he undoubtedly makes mistakes, but I could definitely understand his perspective even if he wasn’t always likeable.

So, “Fences” is a good film carried by terrific performances and accomplished direction. Denzel Washington thrives in the lead role and Viola Davis deserved to win the Oscar given that she was placed in the supporting actress category. Unfortunately, I feel that certain choices were made regarding this film’s production which limited its potential, but it’s still a movie that I admire in a lot of ways and would happily watch again.

7.5/10

Logan

Tags

Cinema, Dafne Keen, Film, Film Review, Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables, Logan, Movie, Movie Review, Patrick Stewart, Prisoners, Professor X, The Prestige, Wolverine, X-Men

via empireonline.com

Hugh Jackman made his name by playing Wolverine in the first “X-Men” film; he wasn’t the studio’s first choice for the role and at the time he was far from a household name. Seventeen years on Jackman has become known as a dependable box office draw as well as a talented actor in his own right, with lead roles in films like “The Prestige”, “Prisoners”, and “Les Misérables” solidifying his position as one of Hollywood’s best. With that in mind “Logan” had a lot riding on it; it was always going to be Jackman’s last turn as Wolverine – his last chance to play the character that made him famous – so it really was a career-defining film for him.

Thankfully his performance is filled with heart, soul, emotion, and most importantly a thorough understanding of the character that he helped to create. In this movie we see Hugh Jackman the actor rather than Hugh Jackman the movie star, just as we see Logan rather than Wolverine, and his performance makes it the most powerful film I’ve seen this year.

via variety.com

It’s rare that I leave the cinema completely satisfied; there’s always something that could’ve been better or something that didn’t really work the way that I wanted it to, but in my opinion “Logan” is as good as faultless. It’s not technically perfect because no film ever is, but it’s better than anyone could ever have dreamt it would be, especially given how average the last two standalone Wolverine films were. There’s a sense of clarity in every scene, and there’s a feeling of finality to the whole thing that you can’t help but be captivated by. You want to know what’s going to happen and you don’t want to take your eyes off the screen in case you miss it, which at the end of the day is the art of telling a good story and something that so many filmmakers fail to translate onto the screen.

It helps of course that Wolverine as a character has been well treated in the past – we’ve seen him go through hell and back in the previous “X-Men” movies, and even in the films which didn’t hit their mark he was the shining light, so when we see him stripped back we immediately sympathise with him and want him to succeed.

However, this film doesn’t only work because of what has come before it, it works because the story is clear, precise, and directed firmly towards a satisfying conclusion. There are only two options for how the story can end and anyone paying attention knows exactly what they are; either 1) Logan dies a hero; or 2) he gets to live happily ever after. He gets what he wants either way because it’s said throughout the movie that he wants to die, so the only thing left to do as an audience member is to sit back and hope that whichever way the plot goes it does justice to the character – thankfully it does.

via variety.com

The story is magnificent, starting by reducing Logan to a shell of himself and then gradually building him back up into the man that we know he can be. It’s quick to highlight that Logan is still a force to be reckoned with, showing us exactly how vicious he can be and making the most of its R rating in its very first scene, but there’s also a clear indication that he isn’t a well man.

In “X-Men” Logan explains to Rogue (Anna Paquin) that it hurts every time his claws come out, and this is graphically displayed to us very early on in this film as the camera pans down to his hands which are covered in blood and puss. The film doesn’t tone itself down at any point; it’s a bleak tale filled with tragedy and pain, pushing the idea that no matter what we achieve in life we’re all heading towards the same destination. For some audience members this won’t mesh neatly with their expectations for what a superhero movie should be, and as such the experience may be slightly jarring for them, but from my perspective the tone that this movie creates makes it feel more significant than any other film in the genre.

via contentful.com

My biggest complaint about the genre as a whole is that the end of the world materialises every other week and the heroes seem more interested in spitting out one-liners than fixing the problem, but “Logan” does away with this. It invites the audience to see what it would really be like to be a killer with metal cutting through your hands every time you lose your temper – spoiler alert, it wouldn’t be very nice.

In my opinion “Logan” should be a benchmark rather than an outlier; this is what can be achieved in the superhero genre if filmmakers aren’t held back by studios looking to market towards a pre-teen demographic, and as such it’s not just a great film but an important one as well. You can take a larger-than-life idea and turn it into something real, something that can move people and entertain them without the need to lower the tone, you just have to be brave and make decisions which enhance the movie rather than the contents of your wallet.

Of course, you can have the best intentions in the world but if your film isn’t well made then those intentions are irrelevant. With that in mind, what makes “Logan” great are its lead performances; those of Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, and Dafne Keen respectively.

via slashfilm.com

I’ve touched on Jackman already, but it’s worth reiterating that he is fantastic in this film. He knows the character so well and he’s able to express his emotions without ever overacting – he just does everything right from start to finish. Stewart is a brilliant actor and there’s not a lot more to say about him that people don’t already know. In this film he’s given more to work with than he was in the previous “X-Men” films which allows him to make the character seem worthy of the adoration that Logan has for him. He draws every ounce of emotion from the lines that he’s given, and he’s able to create some much needed comic relief in the middle of the film when things become a little overwhelming.

Then there’s Keen in her feature film debut. This was a make or break role, because if Keen had been your typical example of a child actor nervously delivering her lines then “Logan” would’ve fell apart. No matter how good the script or the other actors were the film rested squarely on her diminutive shoulders, because the film is as much about her character (Laura) as it is about Logan. She held her own with two of the best actors alive today and she stole a number of scenes without even needing to speak. Her performance was assured and aggressive, fitting her character perfectly, and she deserves just as much praise as Jackman.

via gamerfocus.co

After gushing about the performances and the narrative it should be pretty obvious what I think of this film. It’s exceptional from start to finish and I was enthralled throughout. The ending was perfect, Jackman was incredible, and I really wouldn’t change a thing about it.

10/10