The Dark Tower

Tags

A Royal Affair, Cinema, Dallas Buyers Club, Doctor Foster, Film, Film Review, Idris Elba, Luther, Matthew McConaughey, Movie, Movie Review, Nikolaj Arcel, The Dark Tower, Tom Taylor

via youtube.com

“The Dark Tower” is a film adaptation of Stephen King’s series of novels by the same name. It stars respected actors such as Idris Elba (“Luther”) and Matthew McConaughey (“Dallas Buyers Club”), as well as English child actor Tom Taylor (“Doctor Foster”), and was intended to launch a film and television franchise.

“The Dark Tower” is an awkward film to review because although it gets almost everything wrong its inadequacy isn’t offensive. I wasn’t upset or angered by the mistakes that director and co-writer Nikolaj Arcel (“A Royal Affair”) made; I was merely disinterested because his inability to tell an interesting story was clear from the outset.

via joblo.com

This film had potential, but to get the most out of it there was always going to have to be a degree of invention on the part of the director. Unfortunately, this movie is completely devoid of anything resembling an original thought, and any potential that the narrative had was monumentally squandered from the moment the movie began. From the outset the presentation was immensely uninspired, lacking any kind of imagination or personality, and I didn’t feel as though Arcel had any love for the material that he was adapting.

Characters and concepts were thrust at the audience without so much as an inkling as to why we should care about them, and every aspect of the movie felt like a rehash of elements taken from better films. The characters are just there, much like everything else in the film, and there’s nothing special or interesting about them to create a feeling of investment.

The protagonist is an eleven-year-old boy, Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), who for some unknown reason has the ability to see into another world (Mid-World) through his dreams. Due to nothing other than narcissism Jake comes to the conclusion that his dreams have significance, believing that the events taking place in his visions are causing earthquakes in the real world, and we as an audience are expected to believe this.

via variety.com

Jake is immediately dislikeable because the writers don’t give us a reason to sympathise with him when people dismiss his warnings. There’s nothing exceptional about him which dictates that we should believe what he’s saying – other than the fact that we’ve read the film’s synopsis – and his ramblings are consistent with those of a child with an overactive imagination! When reading a book this isn’t overly jarring because you’re constantly confined to one characters’ perspective and you can identify with their situation because you’re explicitly told how they’re feeling, but in a movie you have to make a character likeable before expecting people to care about what’s happening to them.

Jake’s mother, Laurie (Katheryn Winnick), is a much more relatable character than her son because she responds to his hyperactive imaginings in a logical way… by trying to put him in an asylum. Jake is being irrational and he needs help, so when Laurie tries to get him the help that he needs we don’t feel sorry for him or hope that he can somehow make an escape!

The reason that I’m making this point is that the first act ends with Jake running from monsters pretending to be workers from a psychiatric facility, in a scene which should’ve been triumphant for the character. However, because we don’t like or care about Jake we don’t want him to run away; we want him to get caught so that we can enjoy some action in a movie which lacks any kind of emotion.

via theplaylist.net

Herein lies the main problem of “The Dark Tower”, which is that the plot consistently takes the most boring avenue towards its conclusion. The most exciting direction that the plot could’ve taken at this point would’ve been to have Jake wheeled off to the asylum by the monsters because this would’ve created tension and allowed us to get a proper look at the villains of the film, thus giving us a reason to root for the protagonist. Instead, Jake ran from the supposedly threatening monsters and found a way to Mid-World on his own, rather than simply being taken there by the monsters and then escaping their grasps.

These kinds of issues are present throughout the first act, with the set-up of the film asking questions which are never answered. The start of the film could’ve been extended by another 30 minutes and it wouldn’t have suffered as a whole, and I have to ask myself what the writers thought they were achieving by skipping character development in the first act in order to focus on lacklustre action during the second and third acts.

Another issue which arises right at the start of the movie pertains to the titular tower. The tower is nothing more than a McGuffin and it doesn’t feel significant because we have no idea where it is geographically or why it requires a child to destroy it. Who made it? Why is it the key to the universe? Why should I care about it? If I don’t know anything about it and also have no reason to empathise with the film’s protagonist then how am I supposed to become even minimally invested in the narrative?

via collider.com

The Man in Black (the film’s main villain, played by Matthew McConaughey) is also underdeveloped and never feels like a threat because he’s always outside the main story. McConaughey’s performance is fine for what it is, but calling a performance fine in this film isn’t a compliment. I was constantly aware of the fact that I was watching McConaughey play a character, and at no point did I look at him and feel intimidated or enthralled.

The sad thing about “The Dark Tower” is that none of the performances from the main cast are actually awful. They’re definitely bland, but none of the actors are afforded the opportunity to be anything more than that because they’re stunted by a woefully ordinary script!

At the end of the day there’s nothing exceptional or even passable about “The Dark Tower”. It takes liberties with its story, the cinematography is uninspired, and the characters are underdeveloped. The material lends itself to an entertaining film – there’s a road-movie, a fantasy epic, and even a young adult film within this awfully tedious science-fiction western – and any one of those movies would’ve been infinitely better than this one. The only positive thing that I can say about “The Dark Tower” is that it wasn’t compelling enough to frustrate me with its inadequacy, which isn’t exactly a glowing recommendation. Do yourself a favour and don’t bother paying to see this movie – if you’re interested in the material then there are eight books written by a brilliant author that you can read at home.

2/10

A Ghost Story

Tags

A Ghost Story, Casey Affleck, Cinema, David Lowery, Film, Film Review, Ghosts, Manchester by the Sea, Movie, Movie Review, Pete's Dragon, Rooney Mara, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

via images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com

“A Ghost Story” is a haunting supernatural drama film directed by David Lowery (director of 2016’s “Pete’s Dragon”). The film stars two exceptional actors in Rooney Mara (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and Casey Affleck (“Manchester by the Sea”), with the latter wearing a bedsheet for the majority of the movie.

It’s very easy to explain the basic premise of “A Ghost Story” – a man, played by Casey Affleck, dies at the start of the film and we watch him live the lonely life of a ghost. It’s a simple idea but David Lowery gets the most out of it by capturing the implicit horror of such an isolated existence. The conditions of the man’s existence after death are never fully explained – we don’t see his face because he’s covered by a sheet, we don’t know if time moves at the same speed for him as it does for us, and we don’t know if by the end of the movie he even remembers who he is or why he’s still here – and that’s part of the film’s charm.

via theedgesusu.co.uk

“A Ghost Story” doesn’t pretend to know any more about the afterlife than we do – it doesn’t present a viable possibility, it simply explores what life as a ghost would be like. The existence that this film portrays is a miserable one, and although Casey Affleck doesn’t have much opportunity to emote under his sheet you feel the man’s pain throughout. If anything the fact that the man is covered by the sheet actually adds emotion to the film, because it highlights his inability to interact meaningfully with the world around him and accentuates the hopelessness of his situation. Every time the man slumps down or is on his knees the sheet crumples with him and his movements are deliberate as it sways behind him when he moves. It’s astoundingly effective despite its simplicity and it gives the film more gravitas than it would’ve had if the man had existed in the same physical state as he did before he died.

This film is visually fantastic throughout and this together with the score makes the whole experience quite emotional. The start of the movie was exceedingly smart because the way that the relationship between the man and the woman was depicted was much more honest than the norm. Throughout the film scenes are allowed to drag on – we don’t cut away when the point of a scene is revealed; instead we act as voyeurs, invading the private moments of people who are struggling to exist. The two most powerful scenes of the movie for me would be completely disregarded in a less intelligent film, but in this one they’re allowed to linger on screen and in the audience’s memory.

via pixel.nymag.com

The first of these scenes occurs before the man loses his life and it goes a long way to creating a degree of investment in the relationship that the film revolves around. The woman (Rooney Mara) and the man (Casey Affleck) wake in the middle of the night after they hear something bang on their piano. They get up but there’s nothing there – no one has broken in and nothing seems to have fallen to cause the noise. We as the audience suspect that the noise was made by a ghost because we know what the film is called, but the couple isn’t in the know so they go back to bed and embrace. They’re tired and shaken so they take comfort in one another, and we’re afforded the chance to watch them kiss for what seems like minutes. When watching this scene you really do feel invasive, but once it’s done you know all that you need to know about the couple to be invested.

The second scene comes shortly after the man’s death and focuses on the woman as she tries to cope with her grief. It’s not an eventful scene but it’s incredibly poignant – the woman sits on the floor of her kitchen eating a pie which a friend has made for her, clearly loathing every bite. She manages to eat most of it as she sniffles and sighs, before putting it down and running to the toilet to be sick. I think the effective thing about this scene is not merely that it occupies the screen for a very long time but also that it accurately depicts what it’s like to go on living when you lose someone you love. The woman doesn’t want to eat but at the same time she doesn’t know what else to do; she’s absent from the moment, going through the motions, but at the same time she’s trying to feel something other than sadness which for me rings true when it comes to coping with loss.

via collider.com

The power that these scenes have wouldn’t be possible if it wasn’t for two outstanding performances from Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck. Neither actor is actually present on screen for a great deal of time but their performances are sincere and without this the movie wouldn’t work. They bring emotion to a film which otherwise would’ve been pretentious and they become their characters almost immediately.

Before concluding this review I have to admit that one scene did disappoint me quite a bit, and although it didn’t ruin the experience it brought the film down in my estimation. This scene failed because it fell into the trap that the rest of the movie managed to avoid, which is that it turned to the audience and told them what they were supposed to feel. it was a hollow and unnecessary scene which felt completely out of place in such a thoughtful piece of cinema, and when watching it I couldn’t help but think that it was the director’s way of saying ‘look how clever I am’ to the audience.

via cloudfront.net

The scene that I’m talking about is the most dialogue heavy moment in the movie, as a nameless character essentially delivers exposition regarding the film’s message and sets up what’s to come in the third act. It frustrated me that this scene wasn’t cut during the editing process because it seemed so obviously superfluous, and the only way to explain its presence in the film is to say that the director didn’t trust all members of the audience to understand the point of the narrative. In telling the audience what they’re supposed to feel you devalue the experience because you’re expressing a lack of confidence in their intelligence and your ability to convey meaning, and in this case it’s impossible to disregard the purpose of the scene because it directly opposes everything that the movie did well up until that point.

This criticism may seem slightly excessive when talking about such a technically sound film but once the scene had finished I spent the next ten minutes questioning how it made it into the final product, and thus my immersion was broken. Thankfully the film quickly transitioned back to being brilliant again so I was able to continue enjoying it once I let my irritation dissipate, but if this scene had been omitted “A Ghost Story” would’ve been close to a perfect film.

via wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Nevertheless, one bad scene doesn’t extinguish everything that this movie does well. Of all the films that I’ve seen this year “A Ghost Story” is the most interesting and perhaps the most complex, not simply in concept but in how Lowery tackles that concept. The more I think about it the more infatuated I am with it, and I will definitely buy it on DVD when it’s released later this year/early next year.

8.5/10

The Big Sick

Tags

Cinema, Comedy, Film, Film Review, Kumail Nanjiani, Movie, Movie Review, Rom-Com, Silicon Valley, The Big Sick, Zoe Kazan

via bleedingcool.com

“The Big Sick” is a romantic comedy produced by Judd Apatow (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin”) and co-written by Emily V. Gordon (writer for “The Carmichael Show”) and Kumail Nanjiani (“Silicon Valley”). The film loosely tells the real-life story of how Gordon and Nanjiani met and fell in love – with Nanjiani playing a version of himself – and the title refers to an illness which left Emily (played by Zoe Kazan) in a coma after a rocky spell in the pair’s relationship.

“The Big Sick” could’ve easily been another average comedy destined for the bargain bin but honest performances and a strong script elevate it to a level which is rarely achieved in the genre. The fact that the story was close to the hearts of both Nanjiani and Gordon undoubtedly helped on this front as there’s a sincerity to Nanjiani’s performance and also to the script. In the film none of the characters are perfect but they’re all decidedly human and their mistakes stem from intentions that we can all relate to and understand which in turn makes them extremely likeable.

via rogerebert.com

Kumail and Emily are a couple that you can invest in and you can understand their motivations enough to route for them. The performances of Nanjiani and Kazan go a long way to achieving this because they seem to have genuine chemistry on screen and their relationship doesn’t feel forced or contrived. The first half of the film belongs to Kazan and you’re always on Emily’s side from the moment that she’s introduced, but she’s in a coma for most of the second half which allows Nanjiani to come into his own.

Narratively this film doesn’t shock or surprise you but you’re always worried that it will. You want the stars to align for Kumail and Emily and you’re concerned by every moment of adversity that they face. The likeability of both characters creates tension without the need to take the story to a place that feels unrealistic or manufactured which in itself makes the film better than most romantic comedies.

via thr.com

What I enjoyed most about this film was that it didn’t overdo anything, because there are plenty of opportunities to focus too heavily on Nanjiani’s Pakistani roots or his stand-up comedy. We do get a flavour of both of these things and they’re important to the film’s narrative, but they’re there to service Nanjiani as a character and they aren’t overwhelming.

The only issue that I had with “The Big Sick” was that the ending was slightly predictable. I completely understand and accept this because at the end of the day the reality of the story has to shine through, but part of me would’ve preferred a “La La Land” style ending rather than the traditional one that the writers went for. The ending still worked but I left the theatre wondering what could’ve been if the film wasn’t beholden to what happened in the real world.

via tvovermind.com

It’s hard to talk excessively about “The Big Sick” because there’s nothing to focus on narratively that sets it apart from any other rom-com. However, the performances make the characters incredibly loveable and because of this you find yourself enjoying the experience and caring about what happens to them. The script is solid and the jokes hit most of the time which makes for an entertaining movie. I can’t fault any particular aspect of the film because for me there was nothing wrong with it that could’ve been fixed without ruining what made it great. I’ve mentioned that the story is predictable but it’s based on Nanjiani and Gordon’s real-life experiences and it’s the honesty that stems from this which makes the film exceptional, so to change it would be nonsensical. The fact that it’s a rom-com which doesn’t break the mould makes it difficult for me to give it a perfect score, and it isn’t my favourite film of the year, but it’s about as good as it possibly could’ve been.

9.5/10

Atomic Blonde

Tags

Action, Atomic Blonde, Baby Driver, Charlize Theron, Cinema, David Leitch, Film, Film Review, Guardians of the Galaxy, James McAvoy, John Goodman, John Wick, Movie, Movie Review, Sofia Boutella, The Coldest City, Thriller, Toby Jones

via squarespace.com

“Atomic Blonde” is set in November 1989, at a time when the Cold War was coming to an end and the fall of the Berlin Wall was imminent. This backdrop creates a tense atmosphere to complement the film’s espionage centric plot, but as the opening credits explain the political landscape isn’t essential to the narrative. The film is directed by David Leitch, co-director of “John Wick”, and is based on the 2012 graphic novel “The Coldest City”.

The McGuffin of the film is a microfilm containing the names of every active field agent in the Soviet Union; codenamed ‘the list’. This plot device is unfortunately generic and derivative, as you would expect given its insipid codename, and although the film is technically sound it is unquestionably held down by an uninspired premise. This is then compounded by the fact that the plot proceeds in a convoluted and unnecessarily obtuse fashion.

via ewedit.files.wordpress.com

With the plot framed as a battle between East and West you might expect there to be a strong Russian antagonist at the heart of the conflict, but curiously this isn’t the case. The film is, for the most part, devoid of a central villain; Lorraine (Charlize Theron), an MI6 spy and the film’s main character, gets into scuffles with a number of nameless henchmen working for KGB associate Comrade Bremovych (Roland Møller), but he’s nothing more than a background figure. The absence of a traditional antagonist could be forgiven if it felt as though there was a faceless threat behind the scenes, but this isn’t the case, and in fact the lack of a genuine villain does nothing but lessen the impact of an important twist late in the film.

Nevertheless, the narrative constraints of “Atomic Blonde” are not wholly damning. It’s not unheard of for a film in the action genre to lack substance and there are certainly ways to make a movie of this ilk entertaining despite an unconvincing story. Much like “John Wick” this film boasts a strong lead performance, good fight choreography and a distinct visual aesthetic, and these aspects go some way to compensating for a fairly dull story.

via ewedit.files.wordpress.com

Visually “Atomic Blonde” is engaging, flitting back-and-forth from a bleak colour palette of grey and black to flashes of neon, and this duplicity carries over to the movie’s tone which sways between pulpy action flick and serious spy drama. The fact that Leitch doesn’t commit to a singular approach admittedly creates a jarring experience, but this meshes adequately with the genre and doesn’t completely derail the experience.

The choice to use music frequently in the film gave it a playful feel and helped to create a cool factor which otherwise would’ve been lacking, but at the same time it didn’t feel as though enough effort had gone into choosing the tracks. The soundtrack was predominantly made up of songs from the 80’s which were either intact or covered. Some of these songs fit their scenes perfectly and complemented the tone of the movie, but others felt like they were present because they had to be rather than because they belonged. This made it difficult to overlook the fact that recent releases such as “Baby Driver” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” have used music in a similar but more successful way.

via cnet4.cbsistatic.com

The best thing about “Atomic Blonde” was the acting of the two leads; Charlize Theron and James McAvoy. Theron plays leading lady Lorraine with confidence, showcasing vulnerability and physicality in equal measure. She holds the film together and delivers rudimentary dialogue with enthusiasm, elevating the material to a level that it has no right to reach. McAvoy is equally good as a detestable but charismatic British agent who has become jaded after serving 10 years in Berlin, and although his performance was slightly over-the-top he controlled the screen whenever he appeared.

All in all, “Atomic Blonde” was an entertaining but somewhat hollow action thriller. There’s a lot to be admired in the fight choreography, with one standout sequence on a staircase providing value for money in and of itself, but it’s impossible to ignore the limitations of the script. It’s a stylish and visually stimulating film with committed performances and competent direction, but the end product is undoubtedly style over substance.

6/10

Hounds of Love

Tags

Ashleigh Cummings, Ben Young, Cinema, Emma Booth, Film, Film Review, Hounds of Love, Movie, Movie Review, Stephen Curry

via downrightcreepy.com

“Hounds of Love” is an Australian crime-drama which stars Ashleigh Cummings as a schoolgirl, Vicki, who is kidnapped and subsequently abused by a serial killer couple.

The first thing that I will say about this film is that it isn’t for the feint-hearted. The majority of “Hounds of Love” takes place in the house where Vicki is being restrained; depicting psychological torture, implied physical torture, and Vicki’s various attempts to escape. However, in all fairness the worst of what happens isn’t shown on screen. Director Ben Young does his best to lock the audience into Vicki’s perspective to make the experience as uncomfortable as possible, but he doesn’t force you to watch every second of anguish that Vicki endures. The meat of the film revolves around the aftermath of horrible moments rather than the moments themselves, and it’s deliberate pacing rather than brutal on-screen violence which makes this movie incredibly hard to watch.

via cdn1.thr.com

My favourite thing about “Hounds of Love” is that it isn’t a manipulative film. At no point does it seem like the purpose of the movie is to shock the audience, despite the fact that the material lends itself to this approach. It feels as though Ben Young’s goal was to convey the futility of the situation and try to give the audience a glimpse of how such an ordeal would feel for the person experiencing it, rather than to make people squirm in their seats. I appreciate this because unfortunately there are people in real life who are kidnapped, beaten, and then raped on a daily basis for unfathomable periods of time – in my opinion, if you’re going to make a movie which portrays this then you should do so with honesty. There’s no need to be excessive in what you show but there’s also no need to shy away from the subject matter; after all, real people who are trapped in these situations don’t get to look away.

There are a number of sequences in this film which Young gets the absolute most out of by allowing them to develop naturally. Nothing that happens in this movie feels contrived or cheap which means that immersion is never broken and you’re able to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation. The best example of this is the scene in which Vicki is actually kidnapped. In a worse film Vicki would come across as overly trusting or naïve and Evelyn (Emma Booth) and John (Stephen Curry) would come across as one-dimensional monsters, but that’s not the case in “Hounds of Love”. Vicki is suspicious from the moment she gets in her captor’s car and although the pair don’t come across as completely innocent they also don’t immediately seem evil. They feel like actual people, which might sound idiotic, but this isn’t always the case with antagonists in horror movies/psychological thrillers.

via wixstatic.com

The kidnapping sequence is riveting from start to finish because although we know that the situation is going to go wrong fast the moment itself is still surprising. When Vicki realises what’s about to happen it’s truly devastating – she isn’t knocked out or too groggy to understand her fate, she’s fully aware of what’s going on and has no way of combating it. She’s helpless and it really is horrific to watch, much more so than any cliché horror monster could ever be. She screams and struggles and cries, but ultimately she’s tied to a bed by her wrists and no one even knows that she’s there. It’s one of the scariest scenes I’ve seen this year and captures exactly what this sort of situation would feel like; it doesn’t happen quickly and Vicki can’t escape – she’s trapped, bound, and at the mercy of a couple that begin having sex in front of her straight after tying her to a bed. That’s about as terrifying as it gets.

Of course none of the tension that this film elicits would be possible if it wasn’t for the superb acting of the three leads. Ashleigh Cummings is brilliant as Vicki, giving a truly believable performance by conveying the desperation that the character would be feeling. Stephen Curry is also great in his role despite the fact that he’s playing the most one-dimensional of the three main characters. He’s genuinely detestable and as frightening as he needs to be even though he’s diminutive in stature.

via battleroyalewithcheese.com

However, it’s Emma Booth who really steals the show by playing the surprisingly well-developed Evelyn. Evelyn is John’s partner and she does the bulk of the work in luring Vicki into a false sense of security, persuading her to enter both the car and the house in which she’s eventually imprisoned. Her role in the film is essentially to give Vicki an opportunity to escape, because although she’s complicit in both the kidnapping and the torture she doesn’t do it because she wants to. It’s clear throughout that Evelyn is trying to appease John and facilitate his needs so she never feels like she’s fully on-board with what’s happening, and the general animosity between the pair is only enhanced by Vicki’s presence in the house.

It isn’t exactly clear what makes Vicki special compared to the girls that Evelyn and John have abused in the past, which is a slight issue, but the tension between the couple still feels believable because there are outside factors putting pressure on their relationship. Throughout the film it’s referenced that Evelyn can’t have children in the house because of John’s behaviour; this causes friction between the couple because in the back of Evelyn’s mind there’s a choice to be made between John and her child, and it’s clear that although Evelyn loves her partner she’s having second thoughts about their relationship.

via frightday.com

For the most part the writers did a good job of explaining character motivations in this way, but I must admit that there were a couple of moments when I was screaming at the screen internally, pleading with both the lead character and Evelyn to do something about their situations. I think that the main reason for this was that the writers wanted to make the final scene as compelling as possible and thus created a few nearly moments to keep the audience guessing, but whether or not the behaviour of either character was completely plausible is questionable.

I do think that the writers did enough to reference the psychological damage of being in captivity in order to alleviate frustration on the part of Vicki, and they also conveyed the fact that on some level Evelyn was stuck in a psychologically abusive relationship which made her subservient to John’s desires, but I think that in certain moments the characters should’ve reacted differently than they did. This isn’t a big issue for me at all because the character development was excellent on the whole, and my annoyance may just be a reflection of my general frustration when it comes to human behaviour rather than a failure to accurately depict said behaviour, but I was left irritated on a couple of occasions in the movie.

via variety.com

My biggest issue with “Hounds of Love” was definitely its ending. I think that this might be a surprise for some people because again there’s nothing obviously wrong with it – it isn’t terrible by any means – but it simply wasn’t as powerful as I expected it to be given how hooked I was for the majority of the film’s runtime. To me the ending felt a little too basic for what had happened up to that point, and personally I would’ve preferred a less predictable approach. The writers built towards a specific conclusion so it made sense that they committed to it, but at the same time I thought that a more inventive approach could’ve been taken to fit with the film’s overall quality.

Nonetheless, on the whole “Hounds of Love” was an assured and brutal piece of cinema with fantastic performances and confident direction. How you feel about it will ultimately depend on whether or not you can cope with a narrative which is utterly devoid of joy, but personally I thought this was a smart and poignant film.

8.5/10

Dunkirk

Tags

Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Cinema, Dunkirk, Film, Film Review, Hans Zimmer, Harry Styles, Inception, Interstellar, Mark Rylance, Memento, Movie, Movie Review, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Tom Hardy

via youtube.com

“Dunkirk” is the latest film from acclaimed director Christopher Nolan; the man behind “The Dark Knight Trilogy”, “Memento”, “The Prestige”, “Inception”, and “Interstellar”. All of these films are visually and conceptually brilliant, so when I heard that Nolan was going to make a movie about a group of allied soldiers stranded in France I was surprised. War lends itself to film from a cinematography standpoint but to take on a true event in human history isn’t really Nolan’s style. His films, generally speaking, either belong to the sphere of science-fiction or have some kind of gimmick, whether it’s in their structure or their narrative.

As such, I went into “Dunkirk” with a degree of scepticism. Having seen the trailer I thought that it looked as though it could’ve been made by anyone, which was a problem for me because Nolan’s involvement was the only reason that I wanted to see the film. Fortunately, the final product oozes class as the cinematography and sound design create a tense and captivating experience which sensitively conveys the horror of war. It has its limits, in my opinion, because character development plays second fiddle to style, but it’s exceedingly well-made.

via screenrant.com

Nolan captures scenes from multiple angles, transitioning from stunning wide shots to claustrophobic close-ups in order to highlight the gravity of the situation both individually and collectively. The scale of the operation is clear as the camera pans over the beach and we see thousands of men awaiting their fate, and the fact that we don’t have one omnipotent protagonist means that we can appreciate the fact that everyone on that beach is vulnerable. They aren’t heroes who righteously fight an evil force as so many war films would have us believe; they’re frightened, tired, wounded men who simply want to go home.

One avenue for criticism in this film is its structure. I mentioned at the start of this review that Nolan’s films usually have a gimmick, so it was predictable that he took such an abstract approach to telling a human story. “Dunkirk” takes place on land (‘The Mole’), at sea (‘The Sea’), and in the air (‘The Air’), with different time periods being shown for each. Personally I was okay with this and I found it interesting to see Nolan return to a less linear narrative, but practically speaking it didn’t add to the tension in the film or provide as much clarity as a more standard structure would have.

via trailers.apple.com

This leads to another problem with “Dunkirk”, which is that the characters aren’t fully developed. This isn’t a damning criticism of the film because it’s not about any one character; the point is that a collective effort was made to get the soldiers home. It’s a story of survival and it’s important that the scale of situation is clear in order to make that story worthwhile. However, I feel that it would’ve been more emotionally resonant had it given us a sense of who the characters being saved were, because at the end of the film I didn’t know them any better than I did after watching the trailer. I can’t remember any of their names and I didn’t care what happened to them when I was watching, which is obviously a problem when the film is about an important event in human history.

Still, in a way this parallels the relationships which are built in war, and I think it’s slightly unfair to condemn a film for failing to do something that it didn’t intend on doing. You can criticise the decision to focus on style over substance and suggest an alternative, but whether or not this movie would’ve been better if it had concentrated on character development rather than cinematography is debateable.

Personally I would have enjoyed the film more if there had been a better balance between the two approaches, but to criticise “Dunkirk” because it isn’t character-driven is a bit like criticising a footballer for not scoring enough goals. If the player is a striker then the criticism is valid, but if the player plays in defence then the criticism misunderstands his primary purpose. Would he be a better player if he scored more goals? Probably. Would “Dunkirk” be a better movie if it had more developed characters? Yes. But being imperfect isn’t the same as being bad.

via variety.com

In “Dunkirk” there were only two sequences that I didn’t like; a sequence involving a grounded fishing trawler and the sequence which led up to the final scene. The reason that I didn’t like the fishing trawler sequence was that I thought it was less realistic than the rest of the film and also lacklustre in its execution, and the reason that I didn’t enjoy the sequence leading up to the final scene was that I thought it was overly emotional. Other than those two sequences I enjoyed the entire movie, even if it could’ve been better with a few careful tweaks.

So, as a study in filmmaking “Dunkirk” is superb. It’s hard to excessively praise the performances because it doesn’t focus on its characters, but at the same time no one stands out for the wrong reasons. Surprisingly, Harry Styles is fine and if you didn’t know that it was him you probably wouldn’t realise he was a pop star trying his hand at acting. The structure of the film was questionable and the characters weren’t fully developed, but the cinematography was gorgeous and Hans Zimmer’s score heightened the tension as the tempo built in the background. It’s technically strong, respects its audience, and for my money it’s one of the most assured movies of the summer so far. I highly recommend it.

7.5/10

The Beguiled (2017)

Tags

A Painted Devil, Cinema, Clint Eastwood, Colin Farrell, Elle Fanning, Fargo, Film, Film Review, Geraldine Page, John McBurney, Kirsten Dunst, Lost In Translation, Movie, Movie Review, Nicole Kidman, Sofia Coppola, The Beguiled, The Lobster, Thomas Cullinan

via stagebuddy.com

“The Beguiled” is the second film adaptation of Thomas Cullinan’s novel (originally titled “A Painted Devil”), following the 1971 film of the same name which starred Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. In this film Colin Farrell plays John McBurney, an injured Union Corporal who finds shelter in a girls’ boarding school. Both the students and the teachers are drawn to the deserter, hiding his presence from Confederate soldiers and tending to his wounds. Sexual tension soon builds between McBurney and the residents, causing rifts between the women and leading to altercations which are far more amusing than they ought to be.

The main source of entertainment in this film comes from trying to decipher McBurney’s blurred motives. McBurney plays the women off one another constantly, letting each of them believe that they are in fact his favourite, but why he does this is never made completely clear. Is he trying to ensure that they don’t make him leave? Or does he just enjoy the thrill of the chase? We don’t know, and it’s this ambiguity which makes the film surprisingly watchable.

via teaser-trailer.com

I didn’t know exactly what to expect going into this film because although I liked the cast I didn’t think that the plot sounded all that interesting. Still, Sofia Coppola directed “Lost in Translation” which is one of my favourite films, and she also won the award for Best Director at Cannes Film Festival this year for this movie, so I was willing to give it a chance.

After seeing it I still feel unsure, because although I thought that some of the shots were nice and I had a fun time watching it I’m not sure I liked it for the right reasons. Coppola seemed to want this film to feel claustrophobic and tense, yet I watched it like I would a dark comedy. I was laughing almost all of the time and I’m not talking about laughing due to discomfort or nervousness; I’m talking about the kind of laughter where you’re desperately holding in giggles and tears are hanging from your eyelashes. I genuinely thought that the actors’ delivery in this movie was hilarious, especially when they were at their most volatile, and I found the situation absurdly comical.

via media.tenor.com

It’s unclear whether or not this was the response that Coppola was aiming for when she made this film – I’d have to ask her to find out and I don’t think that that’s going to happen anytime soon – but I can’t find anything online to suggest that my experience of the film aligned with her intentions.

I find it perplexing that actors like Kirsten Dunst and Colin Farrell were cast if Coppola didn’t want the audience to find this film amusing because they’ve both recently performed in roles where this kind of tone was desired. They both have large bodies of work of course, but Dunst’s performance in “Fargo” and Farrell’s turn in “The Lobster” show that they both know how to deliver comedic dialogue as characters who aren’t in on the joke.

It’s hard for me to know exactly what to say beyond this point because “The Beguiled” lives or dies depending on whether or not my reaction to its content was anticipated by the director, but I will say that Colin Farrell put in a good performance regardless of my response to the film. His character was very direct and forward throughout the movie and I think this suits Farrell as an actor; he’s at his best when he’s playing characters who aren’t particularly likeable because he’s still able to endear them to an audience and he certainly did that here.

via tumblr.com

I also enjoyed how the writers didn’t directly tell the audience who they were supposed to route for, because although McBurney was a bit of an arse he wasn’t exactly evil. He could’ve easily been a one-dimensional character had the writers approached the subject matter in a more straightforward way, but they did their best to make his motives ambiguous and give him a degree of believability. I appreciate this kind of approach because it puts you in the same mind-set as the characters you’re watching on screen and lets you share their experiences. The women in the boarding school didn’t know anything about McBurney other than what he told them and what they could pick up from his actions, so I think it’s only natural that we as audience members should be put in the same situation and come to our own conclusions, especially in a film which is linear and set in one location.

Some audience members will want to know more about both McBurney and the women in the house, but personally I can respect a film which doesn’t hold the audience’s hand and respects their intelligence, particularly after sitting through “War for the Planet of the Apes” this week.

via denofgeek.com

I would concede that the female characters in the film could’ve had more personality because most of them had one dominant trait which informed their actions, but I think that in order to develop their characters further Coppola would’ve had to include more scenes where they were all together and this would’ve hurt the overall experience. The characters needed to be isolated with McBurney in one-on-one situations and to be easily swayed in order to progress the plot, so it’s hard to think of a way to give them more depth without hurting the narrative. Of course, I’m sure that with time and effort this could’ve been done, but as I write this review I don’t have the perfect solution which makes it harder to criticise Coppola’s approach.

To summarise, “The Beguiled” is a film which boasts a talented cast (Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning, etc.) and is helmed by an acclaimed director, but the pieces don’t come together to make a cohesive whole. I had a great time watching it at the cinema but I don’t believe that what I took from the experience meshed with Sofia Coppola’s intentions. From a filmmaking perspective this is a good looking movie with a couple of standout scenes and some decent performances, but it isn’t exceptional in any way. I enjoyed it and I will watch it again when it’s released on DVD, but I wouldn’t recommend it to casual moviegoers.

6.5/10

War for the Planet of the Apes

Tags

Andy Serkis, Caesar, Cinema, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Film, Film Review, Koba, Matt Reeves, Movie, Movie Review, Planet of the Apes, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, War for the Planet of the Apes, Woody Harrelson

via denofgeek.com

“War for the Planet of the Apes” has received mixed to positive reviews since its release earlier this month, with the majority of reviewers calling it the best film of the series so far. I had high hopes having enjoyed both of the previous films and I genuinely believed that “War” would be a great movie.

Sadly, it just isn’t. It fell short of my expectations in almost every area and left me feeling more than a tinge of disappointment. The visual effects were amazing once again and both Andy Serkis and Woody Harrelson gave decent performances, but that doesn’t save it from an awful script.

via giphy.com

From a storytelling perspective this film is incredibly clichéd and lazy, with every narrative string feeling contrived and uninspired. The writing was atrocious with almost every line of dialogue being used as exposition, and the subtitles that were used to explain the apes’ sign-language verged on ridiculous.

Just like in the previous film the apes make small hand gestures which are then inexplicably accompanied by complex sentences in bright yellow text at the bottom of the screen. The information that the apes are trying to convey isn’t as complicated as these subtitles would have us believe, and the subtitles themselves are distracting to the point that you really have to question what the director was thinking by including them. The first thirty minutes of the movie would’ve worked just as well without any subtitles because the gestures that the apes made combined with their facial expressions were enough to convey their emotions to the audience.

via comingsoon.net

The fact that the choice was made to leave the subtitles in speaks to a larger issue, which is that the writers and director Matt Reeves simply don’t respect their audience. The emotional moments in “War” are manipulative and the filmmakers expect the audience to be invested in virtue of the fact that they’ve seen the characters before, and as such they forgo significant character development in service of portraying Caesar (Andy Serkis) as some sort of messiah.

The plot is completely idiotic and filled with holes that are absolutely unforgiveable if you’re paying proper attention. I won’t get into spoilers in this review – partly because I want people who haven’t seen the film to come to their own conclusions and partly because I don’t have the patience to go through each and every issue – but I will say that there are cages with no rooves and guards that may as well be blind.

via vox-cdn.com

There are very few positives to be found within the excessive runtime of “War” and the value of said positives depends entirely on what you want going in. The best thing about the film is its stunning visuals. This film knows how to make the most of CGI and the apes look as close to real as they possibly can, given the limitations of modern technology. We aren’t at the point where they look real, but we’re pretty close. The environments are also beautiful and the barren landscape provides the sense that the world is on the edge of apocalypse. Still, how much this praise is worth is debateable and for me it doesn’t enhance the film anywhere near as much as it needs to.

At the end of the day I can’t say that I liked this movie; if anything I detested it. It wasn’t just the fact that it tarnished two films that I enjoyed or the fact that the writing was laughable; it was the fact that it felt like a film that didn’t believe in its audience. Every plot point was signposted from start to finish, with Reeves beating us over the head with information as though we’re too stupid to understand even the most basic of ideas. The sad thing is that most critics proved him right by praising “War” as ‘the best film in the franchise’ – a title which only serves to devalue “Rise” and “Dawn”. Don’t believe the hype; this film is utterly vacuous.

4/10

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Tags

Adrian Toomes, Birdman, Cinema, Clown, Film, Film Review, Gwyneth Paltrow, Iron Man, Jon Watts, Marvel, MCU, Michael Keaton, Movie, Movie Review, Norman Osborn, Pepper Potts, Peter Parker, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Raimi, Spider-Man, Superheroes, The Impossible, Tobey Maguire, Tom Holland, Tony Stark, Vulture, Willem Dafoe

via wikimedia.org

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is the sixth Spider-Man standalone movie and the seventh time that Spider-Man has appeared on the big screen. “Homecoming” is directed by Jon Watts (“Clown”) and stars Tom Holland (“The Impossible”) as the titular character. Holland is the third person to put on the suit, picking up the mantle from Andrew Garfield after the unfortunate Sony hack of 2014. For me, Tobey Maguire will always be Spider-Man and my favourite Spider-Man movie is still Sam Raimi’s original, but to his credit Holland is both likeable and believable in the role. The fact that he still looks like a teenager certainly helps, but beyond that Holland brings a sense of playfulness to the character which will help him succeed as part of the MCU.

Nevertheless, I don’t think that Holland’s performance makes “Homecoming” an exceptional movie. “Homecoming” isn’t strictly an origin story, and to its credit it doesn’t get bogged down by exposition, but the themes that it plays with have been exhausted in the past. It helps that this movie ties into the wider MCU by featuring characters like Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), but the addition of said characters doesn’t change the fact that we’re still essentially exploring the same concept that Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” explored – ‘with great power comes great responsibility’.

via flixster.com

In “Homecoming” Peter Parker is still coming to terms with what it means to be a superhero; he’s naïve, arrogant, and he doesn’t take his enemies seriously. This kind of behaviour is typical of a teenager and it has its place in the movie, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve explored this side of the character before in movies which are frankly better than this one. The conflict between Peter and Tony goes some way to differentiating this film from its predecessors but anyone paying attention surely has to see that Stark is acting as a surrogate Uncle Ben, simply providing the external motivation for Peter to learn what it means to be Spider-Man.

This isn’t necessarily a criticism depending on your perspective, but it goes some way to explaining my feelings towards the film. “Spider-Man: Homecoming” bored me from start to finish; I didn’t buy into the story, I didn’t care about the characters, and I wasn’t excited by the action sequences. I just couldn’t make myself love it despite the fact that I don’t think it was a bad movie from a filmmaking standpoint.

via giphy.com

One of my biggest problems with “Homecoming” was that I thought it lacked humour, or at the very least the jokes that were there didn’t make me laugh. In order to find this film funny you have to be invested in the characters because a lot of the humour stems from the issues in Peter Parker’s personal life and his struggles at high school. This is fine and I’m sure a lot of people did feel invested and therefore enjoyed the visual humour in the film, but I just couldn’t buy into the relationships or the plot. I find it very difficult to believe that someone with the bone structure of Tom Holland would have trouble fitting in at high school, particularly because he doesn’t act like an awkward teenager; he’s smart, funny, and relaxed so why should I believe that he’s on the outskirts of popularity?

I also thought that this was a visually clumsy movie devoid of interesting special effects. There’s a lot of CGI and most of it is good, but it isn’t very exciting and personally I found that it took me out of the movie more often than it thrilled me. I couldn’t really focus on anything during the action sequences because the lighting wasn’t great, and the way that Spider-Man fought meant that things happened quickly which made it hard to know what I was supposed to be looking at.

via screengeek.net

Still, I did like Michael Keaton as Vulture. It’s amusing to me that he’s gone from “Birdman” to this and his presence on screen helped elevate the movie, but I don’t agree with critics who are claiming that he is a relatable villain. We get a sense of his motivations in the opening scene but we don’t actually know anything substantial about him other than the fact that he feels hard done to. We’re supposed to take it at face value that he has a right feel like that, and many people will, but all we have to go on is the opening scene in which the contractors come across as opportunists rather than as average Americans who deserve a break.

There is one standout scene in the movie involving Vulture and Spider-Man, but to go into that scene in detail would be to spoil the film’s main twist and I don’t think that this would be fair to people who haven’t seen it yet. It’s a smart scene which shows the vulnerability of Peter Parker and humanises Adrian Toomes (Vulture), making him seem like a real character rather than a plot device. I liked it a lot and the five minute sequence definitely enhanced my opinion of the movie as whole, although I have to say that it felt slightly derivative because it reminded me of the dynamic between Peter Parker and Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe) in Raimi’s “Spider-Man”.

via denofgeek.com

Overall I wouldn’t say that “Spider-Man: Homecoming” was a great movie but I wouldn’t call it terrible either. It plays on familiar themes and its action sequences are forgettable, but it also features two good performances and this Spider-Man genuinely feels like a friendly neighbourhood version of the character. I would encourage Marvel fans to give this film a chance and come to their own conclusions, but personally I found it to be an uninspired experience.

6/10

It Comes at Night

Tags

Christopher Abbott, Cinema, Film, Film Review, Horror, It Comes at Night, Joel Edgerton, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Krisha, Movie, Movie Review, Psychological Horror, Riley Keough, The Gift, Trey Edward Shults

“It Comes at Night” is a psychological horror film directed by Trey Edward Shults (“Krisha”) and starring Joel Edgerton (“The Gift”), one of my favourite actors working today. It’s a movie which displays technical prowess, a strong handle on its tone, believable performances and assured direction, but it also fails to entertain for long periods of time.

The first thing to address regarding this film is that its marketing campaign was grossly misleading. Anyone who has seen both the trailers and the finished product knows that what was advertised was completely misrepresentative of the content of the movie. In this film nothing comes at night. There’s no big bad chasing our protagonists, instead the antagonist of the film is a virus which has left the world desolate and without order.

via ign.com

“It Comes at Night” is one of the worst movie titles that I’ve seen in a long time, and although this doesn’t bare any real significance when it comes to the overall quality of the movie it does go some way to explaining why there’s been such a disconnect between the critical reception of the film and the opinion of casual moviegoers. My expectations were tempered going in because I’d read about the movie’s deceptive marketing, but for members of the audience who had seen the trailers and were looking for a simple horror experience I can see how this movie could’ve been frustrating.

Personally I think that “It Comes at Night” is a very solid movie; the individual elements that most critics look for when assessing a film are there and the cinematography, acting, and direction are all great. However, this is not a film that I would recommend nor is it a film that needs to be seen at the cinema.

via tumblr.com

“It Comes at Night” is a dark movie both in terms of tone and visuals – the lighting is great and it helps to build the sense that the world that the characters are populating is post-apocalyptic, given that there’s very little in the way of artificial light. This might seem like a small thing but oftentimes horror movies fail to understand that using excessive lighting in places where there wouldn’t be any such lighting breaks the suspension of disbelief, thus taking the audience out of the experience and destroying immersion. It’s crucial that a horror film reels its audience in before it tries to frighten them, so there’s something to be said for this movie’s focus on realism and the fact that it respects its audience’s intelligence.

It’s also a film with a powerful lead performance, as Joel Edgerton is once again intense but understated in a role which requires a degree of restraint. He portrays Paul, a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders who is doing all he can to keep his family safe. He’s distrustful of outside influences and he’s willing to do just about anything to keep his family from harm, but it’s also clear that a part of him wants to stop fighting and to try to live a normal life. He’s an interesting character and Edgerton gives a predictably layered performance, carrying the film despite the fact that he isn’t always the focal point.

via cinapse.co

Nevertheless, these positive aspects don’t lead me to the conclusion that “It Comes at Night” is an amazing movie. I definitely respect the work that went into making it and I think that it’s an assured piece of filmmaking, but there’s nothing special about the plot to tie the individual components together. In my opinion much more could’ve been done to create drama in the narrative once the second family entered the fray, because although attempts were made to develop the characters and their relationships there wasn’t enough conflict given the situation.

I liked the beginning of the film because a tense atmosphere was created and Paul was immediately portrayed to be a morally grey character, but once the first act was over and new characters were thrown into the mix I felt that the movie stagnated when it should’ve excelled. It was clear that whilst the families were getting along they didn’t completely trust each other, and a couple of interesting dynamics were created between Paul and Will (Christopher Abbott) and Kim (Riley Keough) and Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.). However, these relationships weren’t genuine enough to make me care about the characters and they weren’t volatile enough to make the final act truly suspenseful. I feel that we needed to see the characters start to come into their own and trust each other in order to make the conflict seem earned and worthwhile, but the attempts that Shults made to portray this on screen were limited at best.

via imgix.net

This is partly because “It Comes at Night” is a very methodical film, with the main priority being to make the situation seem as realistic and grounded as possible. This is an admirable approach when done well, but when a film is as deliberate as this one it needs to either have a surprising ending or to build towards something inevitable that you really don’t want to see happen. Shults tries to have his cake and eat it on this front, constantly pushing the idea that the two families can’t possibly co-exist whilst also trying to shock you in the final act, but neither the characters nor the story are complex enough to make you believe that anything other than the obvious is going to happen.

Still, the shortcomings of this film’s plot didn’t completely ruin the experience for me. There are issues with “It Comes at Night” that are hard to ignore, but if you appreciate great cinematography and skillful direction then there’s much to be enjoyed. There’s a lot to like about this movie from a technical perspective and there were sequences that I thought were excellent in their execution, but ultimately it’s an unbalanced and slightly laborious cinematic experience which is unlikely to appeal to the majority of mainstream audiences.

6/10