Stronger

Tags

Biopic, Boston, Cinema, David Gordon Green, Drama, Film, Film Review, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jeff Bauman, Movie, Movie Review, Stronger, Tatiana Maslany

via rogerebert.com

“Stronger” is directed by David Gordon Green and stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Jeff Bauman, a man who lost his legs during the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

This film is as much about acceptance, overcoming adversity, and taking ownership of your responsibilities as it is about Jeff’s recovery from a life-changing injury, and Green does well to frame the entire movie around these themes.

via sbs.com.au

At the start of “Stronger” Jeff is a funny, likeable, care-free man chasing a girl he’s been dating on-and-off for a prolonged period of time. Immediately the idea that Jeff doesn’t show up is planted in the audience’s mind as Erin (played by Tatiana Maslany) cites this as one of the reasons why she recently broke up with him, and it’s this character trait which sparks the conflict of the movie into motion.

In this film just as in real life Jeff goes to the Boston Marathon to cheer Erin on, attempting to displace the aforementioned idea that he isn’t reliable and therefore isn’t a good choice of partner. In doing so his life is altered dramatically as not only does he lose his legs but he also identifies one of the bombers from memory and becomes a local hero in the process.

via 133.242.151.193/pmstudio/images/Stronger3.jpg

This movie works on a number of levels – in one sense it’s a film about coping with a horrific injury and the trauma that comes with that, but in another it’s a story about handling celebrity whilst struggling to keep a stable personal life. It’s a very complex and emotionally affecting drama which is made all the more powerful by two immaculate lead performances from Gyllenhaal and Maslany.

The love story between Jeff and Erin is the thread that ties the film together and it’s worth saying that Maslany is perfect as Erin. Erin is devoted to Jeff throughout the film and loves him sincerely, but before the accident she was tired of putting up with his lack of dependability and although Jeff’s injuries create an obligation for her she’s strong enough to do what’s right for herself regardless of the situation that she’s in.

via s3.amazonaws.com

She’s a very well-realised and relatable character and she certainly isn’t a plot device in this movie. She doesn’t feel as though she’s there to act as a pawn in Jeff’s story and if anything this is as much a film about her as it is about him – as she points out in the movie Jeff’s injury didn’t just happen to him, it happened to all the people that love him and are there for him every day.

To summarise, “Stronger” is a wonderful movie about a painful event in our recent history and a family’s struggle to recover from something that they never could’ve expected. It tackles its subject matter with care and within the ugliness there’s plenty of joy to be found. The visuals are harrowing, the performances are fantastic, and from start to finish I was emotionally invested in what was happening.

8/10

Advertisements

Nocturnal Animals

Tags

A Single Man, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Amy Adams, Armie Hammer, Arrival, Drama, Jake Gyllenhaal, Kick-Ass, Michael Shannon, Movie, Movie Review, Nocturnal Animals, Prisoners, Revenge, Thriller, Tom Ford

via wikipedia.com

“Nocturnal Animals” is a revenge drama from director and fashion designer Tom Ford (“A Single Man”); starring Amy Adams (“Arrival”) and Jake Gyllenhaal (“Prisoners”) in lead roles.

The most striking aspect of the film is its visual style. “Nocturnal Animals” is a joy to watch, giving off an almost dream-like quality as two separate stories meld together, one bathed in light and glamour, the other in darkness and squalor. This is clearly intentional as Susan (Adams) is often sleep deprived, disillusioned by her lot and tired of the superficial nature of her relationship and her job. The majority of the movie takes place from her perspective, as we watch her live out her everyday life whilst imagining events which take place in a book written by her ex-husband, Edward (Gyllenhaal).

via thehollywoodreporter.com

The film splits into two narratives, the aforementioned fiction written by Edward (as imagined by Susan) and the real world events that Susan experiences. The book is dedicated to Susan and as such it’s aptly titled “Nocturnal Animals”, referring to a nickname that Edward used to call her when they were still together. In a letter at the start of the film Edward explains to Susan that she provided the inspiration behind the story, and this is clear throughout the film as the lead character in the book (imagined in Susan’s mind to look exactly the same as Edward) is left shattered by the loss of his wife.

Initially Edward’s tale may appear to be removed entirely from reality; after all, the events taking place in the story never actually happened to either Edward or Susan. However, it’s obvious as the film progresses that scenes are cut together deliberately to show that Susan’s actions were the cause of the pain within the narrative, and that the fiction of the book is merely a dramatised allegory for the real-life events that the pair experienced over the course of their short marriage.

via newstatesman.com

The narrative is made more emotive by its difficult subject matter, and thus Edward is able not only to express the pain that he felt but also to give Susan a taste of it. In Edward’s reality Susan really did evoke these feelings – she took the idea of his wife from him, killing the woman that he loved, and (SPOILER ALERT) from Edward’s perspective she also quite literally killed his child.

By the end of the movie Susan is aware of the purpose behind the book; she’s moved by it and to some degree she feels accountable for Edward’s pain. She realises that what she did wasn’t fair on Edward and wonders whether or not she made a mistake by leaving him for her new husband (Hutton played by Armie Hammer), who she rightly believes is being unfaithful to her.

via tumblr.com

(MORE SPOILERS) Once Susan has finished reading Edward’s book that aspect of the film comes to a close and we are left in the real world with Susan. She arranges to meet up with Edward for a reconciliation of sorts, and he seems glad to have been asked. However, the film closes with Susan alone in a restaurant, glamour all around her, yet undeniably alone. This is a poignant and interesting conclusion – it’s understated but in a way that fits perfectly with what has preceded it, and it gives meaning to the film.

Upon first view I was unsure whether or not I enjoyed the ending – I understood why it was chosen and what it signified, but I couldn’t decide whether or not I liked it. I suppose that I was hoping for something more; perhaps for Edward to show up with a new wife, or for him to triumphantly throw a drink in Susan’s face. But, having had time to think, I’d say that the conclusion of the film actually tied everything together impeccably. Edward had his revenge; he’d proven Susan wrong by writing something about himself that was meaningful and soulful, and he’d had this tale validated by the fact that it moved Susan enough to want to see him again. He used the book to turn the tables on his ex-wife by leaving her alone in the life that she chose over him; he made her feel everything he had felt, and then he abandoned her just as she had done to him.

At the end of the movie Susan needs Edward, but he doesn’t need her – Edward has moved on from despair whilst Susan has wallowed in it. Susan has got what she thought she wanted but she’s found that it’s hollow; whereas after losing everything he thought he wanted Edward has ultimately found his voice through pain. This is the essence of the movie, and it’s a message which is perfectly realised through the sombre yet triumphant final scene of the film.

via thehollywoodreporter.com

The performances of Jake Gyllenhaal and Amy Adams make the nuances of the story much more clear and emotional, and together they make the film better than it would’ve been in less capable hands. The same can be said for Tom Ford who directs the film with confidence, giving both narratives a distinct visual style whilst maintaining a consistent tone throughout. I should also mention that this is Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s best performance since “Kick-Ass”, and that he makes for a very entertaining (but slightly cartoonish) villain.

Overall, I felt that “Nocturnal Animals” was a captivating and beautiful experience, and it worked perfectly as a whole. It’s a wonderfully realised revenge film on two fronts, as Edward’s book is a tale of revenge in itself but there’s also a calculated act of vengeance taking place in the real world as Edward uses his story to emotionally torment Susan, and thus it works incredibly well.

8.5/10

The Girl on the Train

Tags

Book, Cinema, Crime, Crime Drama, Drama, Emily Blunt, Film, Film Review, Luke Evans, Megan Hipwell, Movie, Movie Review, Murder, Mystery Novel, Novel, Paula Hawkins, The Girl on the Train, Thriller

via controllercompaniesdotcom.files.wordpress.com

Paula Hawkins’ “The Girl on the Train” was an excellent book. It had everything that a good murder mystery novel should have; complex characters, an unreliable narrator, and an array of suspects that all felt viable. It was interesting and intelligent even though the conclusion was a little lacklustre, and there was no reason that this film couldn’t replicate its success.

However, upon the film’s release I was worried by a collection of mixed reviews. Nobody went as far as to crucify the movie, but a lot of people said that it didn’t live up to expectations, with its saving grace being Emily Blunt’s lead performance. Having seen it, I can say that I agree in part. “The Girl on the Train” wasn’t as compelling on the screen as it was on the page, and this was mainly due to a lack of intrigue caused by a questionable structure, but it wasn’t a bad movie. In fact, I’d say that it was pretty good.

I enjoyed my time in the cinema and I thought that the majority of the cast did a commendable job of realising their characters as established in the book. Haley Bennett was fantastic as Megan Hipwell, perfectly embodying the character as I imagined her and also giving an emotionally charged performance, and Luke Evans was an ideal fit for Scott. Still, I had my reservations about Emily Blunt playing Rachel from the start, and I think I was right to have those doubts. She gave a powerful and committed performance, but she wasn’t the right choice for the character.

via pinimg.com

Blunt’s performance was a good one, but she turned the character into something that she wasn’t meant to be, and it didn’t work for me as a whole. This appeared to be an intentional effort to cast an actress who could make Rachel a believable suspect, but it changed the tone of the film to an almost unrecognisable degree, making it a jarring experience to begin with. As the film progressed the decision made more sense to me, and eventually I came around to the revised version of Rachel, so much so that the book version of the character left my mind and I was able to enjoy the movie. Nevertheless, I feel that changing the nature of the character represents a missed opportunity, because this film would’ve been great rather than good had it been adapted more faithfully.

To make Rachel the prime suspect for Megan’s murder the writers had to take a few liberties, omitting important aspects of the story from the book which in turn changed the characters involved. (SPOILER ALERT) In the book Scott was the most obvious candidate to have murdered Megan – he had a motive given that she was cheating on him, and he was established as a jealous and physically imposing spouse. He clearly loved Megan, but this didn’t make it any less likely for him to have killed her in a fit of passionate rage. This was only enhanced when Scott slept with Rachel just after Megan’s disappearance, an action not particularly fitting of a grieving husband.

Whether or not you read this as the act of a lonely and desperate man responding to the needs of a woman that he believed to be helping him, or that of a murderer only concerned with his own interests, was entirely up to you as the reader, which made the experience incredibly compelling.

via atrix.co.uk

Sadly, this scene didn’t appear in the film. Scott didn’t sleep with Rachel, nor did he attack her with the same viciousness that he did in the book when he finally found out that she was lying to him, so when he was proposed as the killer by Rachel it seemed entirely implausible. He didn’t feel like a murderer, if anything his actions were wholly justified by the situation that he found himself in, so it was hard to believe that anyone other than Rachel could be the killer… but at the same time you knew that she wasn’t.

There wouldn’t have been half as much hype surrounding the book if the most obvious candidate for killing Megan was in fact the killer, so anyone watching the film should’ve known that someone largely ignored committed the crime.

via businessinsider.com

Having read the book already it was pretty apparent to me who that person was; by which I mean that he stuck out like a sore thumb in the context of the film. This was a shame because in the book I didn’t figure out what was going on till very late on, even though I had ruled out all the other suspects. For some reason I hadn’t realised the clear motive that the killer had for doing what he did, even though it fit perfectly with the themes of the book and also humanised all the misdeeds of the main character, which made me appreciate the writing even more than I already had done. This same appreciation wasn’t evoked by the way that the film was written, which for me represents the biggest criticism that I can pose to “The Girl on the Train”, and also explains why I would class it as a missed opportunity even though I enjoyed it.

Ultimately, “The Girl on the Train” is decent but could’ve been exceptional. There’s nothing particularly bad about it, but given the fact that the source material was so great it’s hard not to feel like it should’ve been better. Whether or not the writers tinkered with the story or the film was altered due to editing is unclear, but this film’s structure hampered it from the start as mystery was forsaken in service of positioning Rachel as the prime suspect for Megan’s murder. I liked the film, but I loved the book, and I feel that with a few better choices this movie could’ve lived up to its potential.

7/10

Better Call Saul: Season Two

Tags

Better Call Saul, Bob Odenkirk, Breaking Bad, Chuck McGill, Comedy, Drama, Giancarlo Esposito, Gustavo Fring, Hector Salamanca, HHM, Jimmy McGill, Jonathan Banks, Mark Margolis, Michael McKean, Mike Ehrmantraut, No Half Measures, Review, Rhea Seehorn, Saul Goodman, Television, Television Review, TV, TV Review, Vince Gilligan

This review contains spoilers for the second season of “Better Call Saul”.

This season of “Better Call Saul” has been a little bit disappointing. Whilst the performances of Bob Odenkirk and Michael McKean as Jimmy and Chuck were great, the season itself lacked considerably in entertainment. You can only review a season of television based on its merits, so despite the fact that I firmly believe that this season of “Better Call Saul” will eventually play a part in a brilliant series, I don’t think that it was good in itself. I have a lot of issues with it, and I can’t pretend that I actually enjoyed any one episode in its entirety, so my overriding feeling is one of frustration.

In my opinion, the best moments of the season all came from Mike’s storyline, and I still think that a series based around his character with the title – “No Half Measures” – would’ve been a way better prequel to “Breaking Bad” than “Better Call Saul” has been so far. One of the main reasons that this show appealed to me in the first place was that there was a chance of seeing other key players in the “Breaking Bad” universe again, so the fact that this is now happening on a regular basis as a result of Mike’s story gives me every reason to carry on watching the show.

Mike is the character who’s connecting this series to “Breaking Bad”, and that’s obviously a big reason why his scenes have been more exciting than Jimmy’s, but another reason is that the stakes are so much higher when he’s on screen. He’s up against powerful people, and he’s fighting for something much more noble than Jimmy is – his family. He’s a compelling and layered character who constantly holds your attention, and seeing him face off against Hector Salamanca (Mark Margolis) this season has been fascinating. If I had to review his scenes in isolation then I’d be giving this season at least a 9/10, which shows just how much better I think it has been when he’s been on screen.

This promises to continue into the next season following this year’s finale, which left Mike in the desert holding an ominous note. We don’t yet know who left the note, but things do point to “Breaking Bad’s” most memorable villain – Gustavo Fring (Giancarlo Esposito) – or at least someone working for him. This would make a great deal of sense given that both men hate Hector, and that in “Breaking Bad” Mike was working for Gus and seemed to have a great respect for him. Mike hates the way that Hector goes about his business, a hate which Gus shares, so it’s only a matter of time before their partnership is born.

Still, whilst I’ve enjoyed Mike’s story this year and look forward to its continuation, I have to say that from my perspective Jimmy’s has stalled horribly. I had my doubts about his arc from the moment that the first episode finished, and things have only gone downhill from there. At the end of last season the feeling was that Jimmy was on the verge of becoming the man that we saw in “Breaking Bad”. The man who he saw as a symbol of what he could be, his own brother, turned out to be a villain in his life; he admitted that he had never believed in Jimmy and that he thought that he was and would always be better than him. All the hope that Jimmy had held for his own transformation should’ve died in that moment, and it would’ve been completely understandable if his moral compass had been destroyed forever.

Alas, the very first episode of this season destroyed that notion and since then Jimmy has barely evolved at all. The only dynamic that has actually moved forward over the course of season two is the one between Kim (Rhea Seehorn) and Jimmy, who have finally got together. Kim obviously had a role to play this season, because she was the reason that Jimmy sabotaged HHM’s relationship with Mesa Verde and eventually implicated himself in a significant crime, but this process could’ve been streamlined quite a bit.

I like Kim, and I’m glad that she’s developed as a character this season, but I don’t think that her role in the story is one that anyone can become fully invested in. We know that Jimmy isn’t going to end up with her – the pair aren’t going to run off into the sunset together because Jimmy becomes Saul and loses everything when “Breaking Bad” ends. So, to become invested in her character we have to believe that Jimmy’s losing her will cause his transition to Saul Goodman, something I just don’t buy.

Jimmy cares about Kim and she is capable of making him happy, but at the end of the day Chuck matters more to him than she does – it’s sad but it’s true. Kim is simply a device to move the plot forward, rather than a catalyst to change the direction of Jimmy’s life. It’s Chuck who really matters in this story, so every moment spent with Kim feels like a moment wasted for me; maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I feel.

Jimmy’s relationship with Kim could’ve been furthered this season without spending so much time on the pair, and again I can’t pretend that I actually enjoyed watching their relationship develop. This has been a symptomatic problem of the series so far, as character development has been drawn out unnecessarily when things have already been established. The whole season has felt exactly like its predecessor, and in fact nothing has happened that didn’t happen last season in a different way.

Another issue that I’ve had with “Better Call Saul” this time around is that Jimmy hasn’t really offered much in the way of comedy. For much of the first season Jimmy was the comic relief on his own show, and this gave the season a light-hearted tone which offset the evolution that was happening with the character. This in turn made moments like Chuck’s rejection of Jimmy’s efforts to become a legitimate lawyer more impactful than they should’ve been, and gave the season a resonance that it simply hasn’t had this year.

Finally, I should say that the season finale was also noticeably lacking in drama. Mike’s scenes were good, but they didn’t result in any immediate pay-off, and Jimmy’s scenes were just boring. Whilst the final scene – in which it was revealed that Chuck had tricked Jimmy into admitting that he had doctored legal documents – was a surprise, I can’t pretend that I really cared. I think that the writers wanted this moment to be one which caused a gasp in the audience; a ‘how could Chuck do this?’ kind of moment leaving everyone desperate to see how he’d use the confession against Jimmy in season three. However, it just wasn’t interesting enough to generate this reaction because Jimmy said what he said to appease his brother, and it’s well known that Jimmy likes to talk his way in and out of bad situations. His confession could easily be framed as a lie told to mollify an increasingly unstable sibling, rather than as a genuine admission of guilt, so as a cliffhanger it felt incredibly lacklustre.

I haven’t enjoyed this season of television. It’s hard to say that it’s been bad, because a lot of the individual components of the show are good, but I personally expected a lot more to happen over the course of the season and I don’t feel that I’ve learned anything new about Jimmy, Mike, or Chuck. I still believe that Vince Gilligan and his team are setting up a series that will turn out to be great, but they’re taking far too long to do so – “Better Call Saul” has had two seasons now and yet within those seasons there have only been three or four brilliant episodes, which simply isn’t good enough. Hopefully there are better things on the horizon, but it remains to be seen.

5.5/10

Anomalisa

Tags

Academy Awards, Adaptation, Animation, Anomalisa, Being John Malkovich, Charlie Kaufman, Cinema, Comedy, David Thewlis, Drama, Duke Johnson, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Film, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kickstarter, Michael Stone, Movie Review, Puppetry, Stop-Motion, Synecdoche New York, Team America, The Fregoli Disorder, The Oscars, Tom Noonan

“Anomalisa” is a stop-motion comedy-drama from the mind of Charlie Kaufman (“Synecdoche, New York” & “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”). Kaufman co-directed the film alongside Duke Johnson, an American director who specialises in stop-motion. “Anomalisa” was initially funded through Kickstarter and was intended to be a short-film, because Kaufman wanted to preserve the nature of the play on which the movie is based, (a play of the same name which he wrote himself), however, after initial backing it became what it is today; a beautiful film with an Academy Award nomination to its name.

The film chronicles one self-absorbed man’s stay in a Cincinnati hotel. Michael Stone (David Thewlis) is a self-help author who specialises in customer service, but whilst he is respected by many, he himself is incapable of love. He’s married with a child, but ultimately he is unhappy and doesn’t feel anything more for his family than he does for the rest of humanity.

via theatlantic.com

The hotel he’s staying at is called the Fregoli, which is a reference to the Fregoli delusion – a disorder which causes the person effected to believe that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise. This little Easter egg gives insight into the nature of the story and of Michael himself, as he sees everyone identically, each with the same face and voice (the voice of Tom Noonan). This problem leaves Michael cold and detached, until he hears an unfamiliar voice coming from the hallway outside of his temporary bedroom. He rushes to meet it, and finds Lisa (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who he believes to be an anomaly.

What surprised me about “Anomalisa” was that it was very funny, which might surprise you as well after reading my plot summary. Nothing about the trailer or the story suggests that it should be side-splitting, but there’s something incredibly endearing about how these puppets mimic human mannerisms.

Michael and Lisa are awkward and insecure, stuttering and stumbling through conversation like a pair of weird schoolkids, but you never feel as though you should look away. Usually when a film goes for the awkward angle it becomes embarrassing or cringe-worthy, but that’s simply not the case in “Anomalisa” – it feels real, as though you’re watching something private and intimate, but there’s no shame attached to watching it because it’s framed to make these moments seem natural. A sex scene orchestrated through puppetry should be uncomfortable to watch, (think “Team America”), but Kaufman and Johnson manage to make it feel completely ordinary.

Johnson wanted to create an experience whereby the audience weren’t conscious of the fact that they were watching animation, and it’s definitely the case that that level of realism was achieved from a technical standpoint. However, I have to say that it was pretty difficult to forget about the animation style when the comedy aspect of the film largely came from the novelty of the stop-motion, along with the way that the bluntness of Michael contrasted with the amiability of those around him.

via filmcomment.com

The only aspect of the movie that I felt let “Anomalisa” down was the speech that Michael gave towards the end. Although this moment was funny, I found it a little disappointing given the quality of the movie before that point. Michael was clearly unstable and in the middle of a crisis of self, but his behaviour didn’t seem to indicate a full-on break down, at least not one that he wasn’t already having on a daily basis. The speech also wasn’t particularly poignant, which was a shame as there was the opportunity to have the film end on a memorable line, something which I felt was lacking throughout.

Nevertheless, “Anomalisa” is an intelligent, insightful, and honest film. It’s amazing that a movie which is so meticulously crafted can feel so natural, and that the characters feel completely and utterly human. It delves into the nature of love and who we really are, and although Michael may not be a blank-slate character who everyone can empathise with, I think that most people could identify with his cynicism to some degree.

9/10

The Oscars 2016 Predictions

Tags

45 Years, Academy Awards, Adam McKay, Alejandro G. Inarritu, Alicia Vikander, Anchorman, Animation, Anomalisa, Artificial Intelligence, Batman, Best Actor, Best Actor In A Leading Role, Best Actress In A Leading Role, Best Animated Film, Best Director, Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Big Hero 6, Birdman, Boy & the World, Bridge of Spies, Brie Larson, Brooklyn, Bryan Cranston, Carol, Cate Blanchett, Charlie Kaufman, Charlotte Rampling, Christian Bale, Cinema, Cinematography, Comedy, Concussion, Corey Hawkins, Creed, Dexter, Disney, Diversity, Dr. Dre, Drama, Eddie Redmayne, Editing, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Ex Machina, Film, Fox, George Miller, Her, Horror, Inside Out, J. J. Abrams, Jacob Tremblay, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jennifer Lawrence, Jim Carrey, Journalism, Joy, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Lady Macbeth, Lenny Abrahamson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Macbeth, Mad Max, Mad Max Fury Road, Marion Cotillard, Mark Ruffalo, Mark Rylance, Matt Damon, Michael Fassbender, Michael Keaton, Movie Review, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Pixar, Pulitzer Prize, Quentin Tarantino, Rachel McAdams, Rambo, Rap, Ridley Scott, Rocky, Rocky Balboa, Room, Rooney Mara, Saoirse Ronan, Sci-Fi, Shaun the Sheep, Shaun the Sheep Movie, Side Effects, Sky, Sky Anytime, Sound Mixing, Space, Special Effects, Spotlight, Star Wars, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Steve Jobs, Stop-Motion, Straight Outta Compton, Sylvester Stallone, The Big Short, The Danish Girl, The Gift, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Hateful Eight, The Martian, The Oscars, The Oscars 2016, The Revenant, Thriller, Tom Hanks, Tom Hardy, Tom McCarthy, True Detective, Trumbo, UK, USA, When Marnie Was There, William Shakespeare

This year’s Oscars is a controversial affair. A lot of the talk surrounding the award ceremony has centred on a lack of diversity in both the films chosen and the voting panel, as films like “Creed”, “Concussion”, and “Straight Outta Compton” have been overlooked despite commercial and critical success. I’m not about to lose my temper over that issue or dwell on it too much, (although I do think that it’s slightly ridiculous that the Academy is predominantly made up of elderly white men), but at the same time I have to say that this is a very weak year.

Similarly to last year, I’m not going to waste time analysing every single category. I don’t have enough knowledge of things like editing or sound mixing to give an educated opinion, so to offer one would be both pointless and arrogant. Instead, I’m going to focus on the big awards that end up on the front of DVD boxes, and probably offer a cynical view or two.

Best Picture

Let’s kick things off with what I believe is one of the weakest categories at this year’s Academy Awards. Eight movies have been nominated for Best Picture this year, and in my opinion, only three of them deserve the recognition. “Room”, “The Big Short”, and “Spotlight” are all films that have a level of artistic quality worthy of the Oscars, whilst also being entertaining enough to interest mainstream audiences, which is why they deserve their place at the ceremony in my opinion.

My favourite of the three is “Room”, which I think is a wonderful movie, but I’d be happy if any of them won. The same can’t be said of the other five, although in the interest of fairness I should admit that I haven’t seen “Bridge of Spies” or “Brooklyn”.

From my perspective, “The Revenant” is ridiculously overrated, but the cinematography and the direction are top notch. Alejandro G. Iñárritu certainly knows what he’s doing, and the cast at his disposal is very impressive, so it isn’t exactly a surprise that “The Revenant” impressed what is a very predictable panel. I expect it to take home the award, but I have to say that I will be incredibly disappointed if it does.

I actually think that it would be a shame if “The Revenant” won Best Picture, because a lot of people will rate it on that basis and take for granted that it’s a great film, when in actual fact there’s a lot wrong with it. I haven’t met anyone who thought that it was exceptional, and in the group of people that I refer to when I say ‘anyone’ there’s a lot of variety. I’m talking about casual cinemagoers and extremely intelligent fans of film alike, so I really don’t like the fact that the Academy is speaking for what the rest of the world will believe is the majority by calling this film the best. It just isn’t; pure and simple.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” earns its spot for very similar reasons, because whilst I didn’t think it was an exceptional film, the cinematography, direction, and special effects were all pretty admirable. I do think that it’s a polarising film, with a lot of people loving it for its action and its quirkiness, and others just not getting it. I’m somewhere in between, because although I enjoyed how the movie was filmed, I really wasn’t that enamoured by the story. I thought that the positive aspects definitely could’ve been preserved whilst making the story a lot more exciting, but on the whole I did enjoy the experience, and I think it’s good that this kind of film can be nominated.

“The Martian” isn’t bad, but it didn’t deserve to be nominated, because we’ve seen this film ten times before but with more capable actors and a more interesting story. I suppose that the direction was good, as was the cinematography, but that’s about it. The fact that the Academy think that this movie deserves to be acknowledged after ignoring “Straight Outta Compton”, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, “Ex Machina”, “Macbeth”, “The Gift”, and “The Hateful Eight”, is an absolute disgrace. I don’t want to be overdramatic, but I honestly believe that there are filmmakers out there who deserve acknowledgement much more than the people involved in making this lacklustre movie.

With that out of the way, I’d like to take a moment to relax and imagine a world where the nominations for Best Picture are; “The Big Short”, “The Hateful Eight”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “Room”, “Spotlight”, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, “Straight Outta Compton”, and maybe “The Revenant”. A nice variety which celebrates quirky filmmakers like Tarantino, a wonderful franchise set in space, and the legacy of an influential rap group; whilst also enlightening the public about an earth-shattering Pulitzer prize winning journalistic investigation and America’s failing economy back in 2008/09. With “Mad Max” and “The Revenant” thrown in there too because the people behind the cameras did a good job, and everyone likes DiCaprio and Hardy. Peace in the world.

Nominees – The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, Spotlight.

What I Think Will Win – The Revenant.

What I Want To Win – Room.

Directing

For me, this is probably the fairest category at this year’s awards. If I have one gripe it would be that J. J. Abrams didn’t get a nomination, because although “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” wasn’t really expected to win any Oscars, he did an incredible job in making it accessible to a wider audience whilst still pleasing die-hard fans. He also managed to maintain continuity, and create several avenues for the sequel, so in my opinion he deserved recognition.

I think that last year’s winner, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, did another great job with “The Revenant”. That might sound crazy because I don’t really like the film, but the performances, cinematography, sound, etc., are all good, and the director oversees those aspects.

I also think that Lenny Abrahamson did an incredible job with “Room” – I absolutely loved that movie, and he did a wonderful job of getting the best out of child-actor Jacob Tremblay. In my opinion, it should be between those two.

Nominees – Adam McKay (The Big Short), Alejandro G. Iñárritu (The Revenant), George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road), Lenny Abrahamson (Room), Tom McCarthy (Spotlight).

Who I Think Will Win – Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Who I Want To Win – Lenny Abrahamson.

Actor In A Leading Role

This, for me, is by far the most frustrating category. In my mind none of the nominees actually deserve their nominations, which is a crazy thing to be able to say.

Leonardo DiCaprio does better work than the competition, and I want him to win the award as much as the next person, but he doesn’t really do a lot. He crawls about a bit, wheezes, and whispers, but I’d back most actors to do what he did in “The Revenant”. He deserves to win an Oscar at some point, even if it ends up being the Lifetime Achievement award, because he is a great actor with a string of brilliant performances to his name, but I think it would be a real shame for him to win the award for what is one of his least memorable performances. It’s not that he’s bad in “The Revenant”, but he didn’t give the best performance of the year by a leading man.

Other actors nominated include Michael Fassbender and Matt Damon. Fassbender is an actor I really like, but in my opinion he’s been nominated for a performance that isn’t even his best this year! He’s fantastic in “Macbeth”, conveying an array of emotions and displaying an understanding of his character’s motivations, yet he’s been nominated for his performance in “Steve Jobs”; a film which most cinemagoers forgot immediately after leaving the theatre. I know that biopics are the voter’s favourite type of film, but surely they like Shakespeare too? I’d have thought that they would’ve nominated him for “Macbeth” on the basis of the trailer alone!

Damon is another actor who everybody knows can act, but it feels like he’s been nominated this year simply for turning up on set! Excuse my sarcasm, but he barely does anything in “The Martian”, and no one could ever convince me that he deserved a nomination. There are plenty of actors who I felt gave better performances than him this year, but because of his reputation and the fact that “The Martian” was directed by Ridley Scott, he got the nod!

Every lead actor in “Straight Outta Compton” had more to do and performed better than Damon did in “The Martian”, with O’Shea Jackson Jr. and Corey Hawkins really excelling as Ice Cube and Dr. Dre respectively. This is one of the big issues I have with the Academy and the aforementioned diversity issue, because I struggle to believe that a group of elderly white men can truly appreciate a movie about a rap group fighting against the system – mostly because it is a system that they were a part of! It’s crazy that a movie that was as brilliant as “Straight Outta Compton” was overlooked in so many categories, when it seems as though the panel was scraping the bottom of a very dull barrel.

I also feel that Jacob Tremblay should’ve been nominated, and that he should’ve won, because his performance is utterly outstanding considering his age and the issues that “Room” tackles. It’s very rare that a child-actor performs to an acceptable standard, so for Tremblay to be as likeable and considered as he is in “Room” is a revelation that should’ve been celebrated, rather than ignored.

So, it’s fair to say that I’m not a fan of the Academy’s nominations in this category, but if I had to choose the best of a bad bunch then I’d probably pick DiCaprio; although the cynical side of me has a suspicion that the category was made intentionally weak so that he could finally win… but don’t be quoting me if you have a conspiracy theory!

Nominees – Bryan Cranston (Trumbo), Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl), Matt Damon (The Martian), Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs), Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant).

Who I Think Will Win – Leonardo DiCaprio.

Who I Want To Win – Leonardo DiCaprio.

Actress In A Leading Role

I’ve already admitted that I haven’t seen “Brooklyn”, the film for which Saoirse Ronan has been nominated, and I’m going to be honest here… I haven’t seen “Carol”. Neither “Carol” nor “Brooklyn” really appealed to me, and I actually thought that “Brooklyn” looked pretty terrible, so I’m not off to a good start in my predictions for this one.

I respect Cate Blanchett as an actress, and I think Saoirse Ronan is pretty good as well, so I believe people when they tell me that their performances are Oscar-worthy, but I still don’t feel inclined to find out for myself. At some point in the future I’ll probably make my own decision on whether or not they deserved to be nominated, (probably when “Carol” and “Brooklyn” appear on Sky Anytime and I have nothing else to watch), but for now I can’t make a case for either one of them.

A woman I can make a case for is Brie Larson, and because I’m a complete fanboy for “Room” I probably should. In my opinion, Larson is fantastic in “Room”. She’s incredibly believable as a damaged woman struggling to cope with freedom after living in captivity for seven years, and her charisma with co-star Jacob Tremblay is really sweet. She doesn’t put a foot wrong at any point in the movie, and she expresses herself in a beautifully sincere yet anguished way. She’s just brilliant, and I’m desperate for her to win!

Sadly, wishes rarely come true, and if I am honest with myself I don’t think she’ll take the award home. Not enough of a fuss has been made of “Room” as a movie, and I think the same can be said for the actors involved; a trend which I think will continue at this year’s Oscars ceremony.

Nevertheless, I’ll accept any winner other than Jennifer Lawrence, because “Joy” is an awful movie and there’s nothing special about her performance. She’s fine because she is a talented actress, but her performance isn’t good enough to save the film from mediocrity – how she has been nominated really is beyond belief.

Nominees – Brie Larson (Room), Cate Blanchett (Carol), Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn).

Who I Think Will Win – Cate Blanchett.

Who I Want To Win – Brie Larson.

Actor In A Supporting Role

I have no massive issues with any of the nominations in this category, (other than Tom Hardy’s because he’s completely forgettable in “The Revenant”), but at the same time I don’t think that any of the actors involved gave an outstanding performance. When I think of an actor winning in this category, I think of someone who stole their film and gave a performance that was better than the leading man’s, but none of the actors nominated for this award achieved in that way.

Christian Bale is good-ish in “The Big Short”, but he isn’t really on screen very often, and the same can be said of Mark Ruffalo in “Spotlight”. Both actors are very capable and they rarely let a film down, but this year their performances weren’t exceptional in any way. They simply turned up and did what they do, but I don’t feel that they went above and beyond expectations.

I can’t really pick a winner from the category – it’s anyone’s game – but I hope that Sylvester Stallone gets the nod; he’s had a great career and he made some of my favourite childhood movies, so it would be nice to see him being acknowledged as a genuinely good actor. I think that the Academy might operate with a similar logic and give him the award, because they’re all at an age where they probably enjoyed “Rocky” and “Rambo”, and none of the other actors in the category really deserve it any more than him.

Nominees – Christian Bale (The Big Short), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight), Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies), Sylvester Stallone (Creed), Tom Hardy (The Revenant).

Who I Think Will Win – Sylvester Stallone.

Who I Want To Win – Sylvester Stallone.

Actress In A Supporting Role

Marion Cotillard should’ve won this award; it’s as simple as that. I count her as a supporting actress in “Macbeth” because that film is inherently about its titular character, and also because Lady Macbeth isn’t on screen very often, but I accept that whether or not she plays a supporting role is questionable. Nonetheless, when she does appear she’s absolutely awesome, giving one of the most haunting and captivating performances of the year. She’s an actress that the Academy really likes, so I am genuinely surprised that she didn’t get a nomination this year, but they didn’t get it right in any other category so I suppose they weren’t going to get it right in this one.

Having said that, I do rate every actress on this list pretty highly, and I’ll be fine with whoever wins the award. Rooney Mara is pretty great in everything I’ve ever seen her in; “Side Effects”, “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”, and even “Her”, despite the fact that she’s only on screen for a few minutes. But, as I’ve said, I haven’t seen “Carol” yet, so I can’t make a case for her.

I thought that Rachel McAdams was pretty decent in “Spotlight”, and I do have a soft spot for her, so I’d be more than happy for her to win, but she doesn’t do any more than the other actresses who have been nominated.

I’m also a fan of Alicia Vikander, although it is early days in her career, and I thought that she was fantastic in “Ex Machina”. She was scarily believable as a robot pretending to be human, which can’t have been easy to pull off, so I think she could win an Oscar in the future. However, “The Danish Girl” wasn’t a film for me, and I don’t think that she deserves to win this award ahead of the other nominees.

Of all the actresses nominated in this category I would personally like Jennifer Jason Leigh to win, simply because she elevated “The Hateful Eight” to another level, which I don’t think the rest of these actresses did for their respective films. Of all the great actors in that film she gave the most memorable performance, which is saying a lot, and she really made the most of the brilliant dialogue that she was given.

Still, I think that Kate Winslet will win the award for Best Supporting Actress… because she’s Kate Winslet. In my opinion the Academy plays favourites, and Winslet is the biggest name on the list.

Nominees – Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Rooney Mara (Carol). 

Who I Think Will Win – Kate Winslet.

Who I Want To Win – Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Best Animated Feature Film

Last, but not least, is the award for Best Animated Film. I have to confess that I’m a lot less invested in this category than I was last year, because in my opinion the films aren’t of the same calibre. I absolutely loved “Big Hero 6”, and I thought it was more than worthy of its Oscar win in 2015, but when I look at the 2016 nominees I just don’t see a movie at that level of quality.

“Anomalisa” is a film that may make me eat my words, because I really want to see it, but sadly it hasn’t been released in the UK yet, (it gets its release on March 11^th), so I don’t know whether or not it deserves to win the award. Charlie Kaufman (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) is at the helm, which makes me think that it probably does, but it would be unfair of me to make that statement when I haven’t even seen the movie yet!

From a personal perspective, I would love to see the “Shaun the Sheep Movie” win an Oscar, because the novelty of that would be hilarious and actually quite heart-warming. In reality I don’t think that it will happen, but I’ve got my fingers crossed anyway.

In my opinion, “Inside Out” is the odds-on favourite to take home this award. I wouldn’t be completely happy with that outcome myself, because I don’t think that it’s as original as people make out, but it’s still a fun idea that’s pretty well executed.

Nominees – Anomalisa, Boy & the World, Inside Out, Shaun the Sheep Movie, When Marnie Was There.

What I Think Will Win – Inside Out.

Who I Want To Win – Shaun the Sheep Movie.

Macbeth

Tags

Banquo, Cinema, Drama, Film, Justin Kurzel, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth, Macduff, Marion Cotillard, Michael Fassbender, Movie Review, Paddy Considine, Sean Harris, Theatre, William Shakespeare

via parabola.org

Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

These are the words that Michael Fassbender’s Macbeth cries in his darkest hour. He curses the framework of the human condition as he holds his wife’s dead body in his arms, realising that the fruits of his unruly ambition are bitter and cruel. His tale is one of tragedy and death, as signified by the first and last moments of Justin Kurzel’s film. When the film begins he is a humble battle-hardened man, loyal to the crown and honest, but by the end he’s a tyrant and a killer, driven by an unquenchable thirst for power.

“Macbeth” opens with the burial of the titular character’s infant child. This haunting scene takes place upon the stunning backdrop of foggy Scottish highlands; bleak and grey, they’re the perfect setting for the story that is about to unfold. The tone is set from the very start, as grief and anguish are carried by the whistling wind, caressing the sombre faces of Macbeth and his wife (Marion Cotillard) like a lover with a knife behind her back.

via forum.purseblog.com

A later scene would suggest that it is this very moment which causes Macbeth’s descent into tyranny and insanity, as he battles the trappings of a guilty conscience after killing his king (David Thewlis) and reveals to Lady Macbeth that his mind is “full of scorpions”. As he lets this poignant expression leave his lips in a pained and desperate whimper, he points the tip of a dagger towards his wife’s baron womb, wondering why he has taken the throne for himself if his lineage will never inherit it. It is this realisation which leads Macbeth to have his loyal friend Banquo (Paddy Considine) killed, and this ultimately causes his downfall after a grief-stricken fit of paranoia, which leaves Macduff (Sean Harris) suspicious enough to flee to England.

It’s hard to shake the feeling that if Macbeth’s child had lived he wouldn’t have been so consumed with power, and he also wouldn’t have been so vicious in his attempts to keep it. Of course, it is the prophecy that Macbeth is given at the beginning of the film that truly causes his villainy, but there’s a sense in which that prophecy is self-fulfilling. “All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter”! Macbeth hears the words and takes them straight to heart, perhaps because they foretell a story of great success, but he himself makes sure that they become a reality. If he believed that the words themselves were enough to ensure his ascent to the throne then he wouldn’t have needed to act, he could simply let events take their natural course. Instead, he kills his king and threatens the heir to the throne, thus forcing the hands of destiny.

via tasteofcinema.com

“Macbeth” is a film which evokes many questions, some about its characters and their duality, others about the story itself when the archaic language becomes that bit too obtuse to grasp. Shakespeare’s poetic dialogue is at times impenetrable here, given the brilliance of the cinematography and performances, because when your attention is momentarily captured by something other than the words flowing from the character’s lips you will be noticeably lost. This, of course, is not a criticism of the film, far from it, it simply reflects the fact that “Macbeth” will be more enjoyable on a second watch.

Despite the intricacies of the dialogue and its verbose nature, beauty still shines through. The words spoken are rife with poetry and inference, as Macbeth reveals his innermost feelings and most troubling doubts to the audience through a series of chilling soliloquies. The end product is nothing short of astounding. For every line that flies gracefully over your head there is another which smacks you straight in the face with its magnificence, even when the line itself is made only in passing. A spectacular sense of awe is evoked at various junctures, as you sit back in your seat and realise that one man was responsible for each syllable being uttered.

via cinema.everyeye.it

“Macbeth’s” biggest triumph is the way in which its themes and story are so clear, despite the fact that the language used feels so far removed from the style that we’re accustomed to today. This is in no small part down to the confidence and gravitas that both Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard bring to their respective roles. The duo gave everything they had to the characters of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, with the emotion they displayed feeling more genuine than in any other performance I have seen. Fassbender pulls off the transition from loyal family man to brutal dictator with charisma and focus, portraying the internal battle that Macbeth faces without once flying off the handle. His face is pained, his eyes filled with agony and doubt, yet when the change is made they become lifeless and cold.

Cotillard has a similar transition in character, but of the opposite nature. Lady Macbeth is portrayed as the devil on her husband’s shoulder to begin with – she pleads with him to do his horrid deed and kill the king he serves; she placates his fears with venomous assurances that rain will wash away the blood on his hands. She’s a serpent, hissing orders at a man made vulnerable by the promise of power. Cotillard pulls this off with ease. Still, there’s no sense in which Lady Macbeth is simply an evil woman vying for power – she has more depth than that. She loves her husband and she wants what’s best for him, which could easily have been lost, and she’s determined to achieve this goal at any cost.

When she realises that she’s made a grave error in enticing her husband to take the throne, her distress is truly terrifying, with Cotillard’s acting really coming to the floor. The look of pure horror on her face as she sees Macbeth, a man once thought honest, burning Macduff’s wife and children alive, is perhaps the best moment of the film. She knows that she has created a monster, and she also realises that there’s no way that this can end in her favour – she has brought about her own end. This is chilling acting from a fantastic actress, and it isn’t to be missed.

via wickedhorror.com

On top of the terrific performances; “Macbeth” can also boast a great score, excellent costume design, and some of the best cinematography that cinema has to offer. These features complement each other seamlessly, making for a film which oozes quality and feels epic in scale. The way that the initial battle scene was shot half in slow motion immediately demonstrated the brutality of Macbeth as a character, and also of the film itself, as each slit throat and sliced stomach played out in grim detail. This was complemented by cries of fear and pain on the battlefield, as well as the battle paint splayed on Macbeth’s face. Each decision felt as though it had been made with care and confidence, making for an assured and intelligent film.

I have very few issues with “Macbeth”, aside from the fact that at times I struggled with Shakespeare’s language (which is my fault), as I felt that it was almost perfect from a technical standpoint. The only gripe I can bring up is that during the final fight scene the orange dust covering the screen made it hard to know who was who, but this isn’t a massive issue. It was a little bit jarring, but it wasn’t overly annoying because the fighting itself didn’t last too long, and it gave way to more great acting.

Overall, “Macbeth” is a wonderful example of what you can do with a great story, providing that you take care with the decisions you make. Across the board, from casting, to performances, to costume design, this is a fantastic film. The only reason that I’m not giving it a 10/10 is that perhaps it wasn’t made for someone like me, but I recognise its achievements and appreciate the decisions that were made.

8.5/10

The Gallows

Tags

Cassidy Gifford, CGI, Cinema, Drama, Film, Found Footage, Ghosts, Halloween, Hanging, Horror, Jesse Cross, Movie Review, Paranormal Activity, Pfeifer Brown, Reese Mishler, Ryan Shoos, Scary, School, Scooby Doo, The Gallows, The Mystery Gang, Warner Bros.

via collider.com

“The Gallows” is a found footage horror film distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures with a budget of reportedly $100,000 – I think that figure is very relevant when reviewing this film, because it explains everything that’s wrong with the horror genre. On such a small budget it’s obviously going to be difficult to make a movie that has any real substance, because you can’t really capitalise on CGI and you’re going to have to shoot in a limited number of locations.

However, if the filmmakers are passionate then they should do their best to be inventive with their premise and make the movie fun, using atmospheric lighting, nerve-jangling music and creative jump scares. Alas, “The Gallows” isn’t fun. It isn’t inventive. In fact, it’s barely even a film – it’s more like a home movie you might make on Halloween. It’s just awful, and the worst thing about it is that it has made a really good profit – people have sat through this film and paid the ticket price, encouraging those who made and distributed it to do the same thing again, which they undoubtedly will.

The premise isn’t actually that bad, in fact, it was one of the things that caught my interest and enticed me to see the movie (along with the trailer). The story focuses on a school play at Beatrice High School which shares the movie’s title, taking place twenty years after that same play was performed at the school with tragic consequences. During the original production a fatal accident took place which ended the life of Charlie (Jesse Cross), a student at the school who was playing the leading man but had initially been cast as the hangman.

via avclub.com

In the modern day, Reese Houser (Reese Mishler) is playing the same character that Charlie did in the original play in an effort to impress Pfeifer Ross (Pfeifer Brown), the student playing the female lead. His acting is terrible (both in the fictional play and in reality) so when his best friend and all-round idiot Ryan (Ryan Shoos) suggests that they trash the set after school in order to spare his embarrassment, he gives in and agrees. Ryan’s girlfriend Cassidy (Cassidy Gifford) tags along to act as another viable victim and eye candy, and that’s the foundation of the film.

The plot definitely isn’t as solid as it could’ve been, and it does feel like it has been lazily put together, but there’s potential there. The problem is that Reese doesn’t come across as a horrible person like Ryan, nor does he seem stupid, so why he would go along with the plan is beyond me. I know this is a horror film and logic is usually thrown out of the window, but I don’t believe for a second that Reese would’ve gone with that plan when there were plenty of better options that didn’t lead to vandalism.

Fast forward ten minutes and the trio bump into Pfeifer, who for some godforsaken reason is lurking around in the school, alone, in the dark. Obviously they panic because they’ve been trashing the stage (loudly might I add) and they don’t want to get caught, but only once is her reason for being there questioned.

via collider.com

From the moment I saw her the alarm bells were ringing, because her excuse for being at the school was that she saw Reese’s car outside, but for that excuse to work she had to already be in the surrounding area and get into the school from either the same entrance (without a light, because our protagonists had to use their camera light to navigate the blackened hallways) or have been in the school already. It doesn’t matter which one, but seeing as the school was closed you have to assume that either she hid somewhere to stay in the school (which is a bit odd) or she entered through the same door and was roaming around in the dark for no apparent reason. Either way she’s clearly not all there and it’s time to go home.

Another unrelated problem I had with this scene was that Ryan and Cassidy were fixing the stage in an effort to hide their wrongdoing, which they could probably have done in the space of five minutes, yet they thought that the mess they had made would stop the production the following day. I know that the characters weren’t the school’s best and brightest, but their plan was to trash the stage so that performing the play was out of the question, yet there was a full drama class that would have half a day to fix what two people could in moments. Yes, there was probably more wreckage to come if Pfeifer didn’t show up, but enough to stop the play? Really?

After Pfeiffer joins the Mystery Gang they aimlessly wander the school in search of an exit (because the door they entered through has mysteriously locked itself – how original), only to be chased down by what appears to be the ghost of Charlie, who wants revenge on Reese because his dad was the student who called in sick twenty years before, which led to his playing the leading man and in turn his death. Personally I think this is a pretty dumb reason for a ghost to want to kill someone and I don’t think it’s particularly smart storytelling. Why didn’t Charlie just turn up and kill Reese during drama class? Why did he need privacy to do it? It’s not as if he could be caught and put on trial – why do ghosts always want to get revenge when no one else is looking?

via comingsoon.net

Another problem I have with this story is that during the final scene Charlie’s ghost appears in what I think is a house that is unattached to the school, meaning that his spirit isn’t tied to the place where he died. I’m not complaining about this because I think ghosts have to be confined to one particular place, after all, they’re a work of fiction so they can be tied to whatever laws the writers want them to be. My problem is that if Charlie can go anywhere he wants, he really doesn’t need to wait until Reese comes to the school to kill him. He could just as easily have wandered into the Houser household and killed the person who was the actual source of his frustration. I’d love to hear what the writers have to say about that, because from where I’m standing it seems like a pretty obvious flaw in the narrative, and it’s one clear reason why most people who write horror stories have their supernatural entities tied to one particular object or setting.

If I continue picking holes in the story I will have to reveal every minute detail, because this movie is inherently flawed and I could take issue with every scene, so I’m going to stop now and consider the broader issues the film has.

One of the biggest problems with the film is its found footage nature – I’m not a fan of found footage as I’ve said before, but it can work, just take “Paranormal Activity” as an example. This film’s found footage framing fails because the use of the camera is ridiculous – it makes no sense why Ryan would bring a camera to the school in the first place given that he knew that the plan was to break the law! Why would Ryan film something that he knew could incriminate both himself and his friends? Why didn’t Reese pick up on that problem when he clearly has a few more brain cells than Ryan? The camera at least has a purpose once they are there because it acts as a light, but it should never have been brought in the first place and we don’t really get a sense of why it was being used to film the play either. As is so often the case, the use of found footage in this film is a cheap device used by the filmmakers to make more money, not a way of making the movie more interesting.

via collider.com

The main cast have the same first names as their characters, which at first I thought was quite novel, but having seen the film I have to wonder if this was done because the actors only respond to their own names. The acting was absolutely atrocious – Reese Mishler only had one move, he opened his eyes really wide when something scary was happening and slowly looked off into the distance. None of his reactions were genuine and he showed no real emotion. Ryan Shoos was playing an obnoxious football player and to be fair he pulled off the obnoxious part, but beyond that he was pretty woeful. Pfeifer Brown and Cassidy Gifford were the best of a bad bunch, but they were still awful. It doesn’t help that the dialogue is terrible, and I wonder whether the directors simply said ‘act scared’, because a lot of the things that the characters said were repeated over and over and seemed improvised.

“The Gallows” is one of the worst movies ever made, and one of the most boring horror movies of all time. There are no redeeming qualities to speak of, no genuine scares, and it isn’t even bad in such a way that you can laugh at it. It’s just completely boring, so much so that I nearly fell asleep at one point, and one of the people I was with actually did (bear in mind that it was about 5pm). Please don’t see this movie, it isn’t worth your time or your money and you’re only encouraging the filmmakers to make the same rubbish again.

1/10