High-Rise

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

‘Where are those happy days, they seem so hard to find.”

41 years after its publication, J. G. Ballad’s High-Rise proves itself to be scarily accurate in its predictions of the then-future and our now-present. The film adaptation is equally brutal and dark, tinted with the blackest of humours. Deciding to set it in the time period in which it was written, director Ben Wheatley succeeds in using Ballad’s bleak hypothesises of societal hierarchy to transform the big screen into a mirror reflecting our darkest innermost fears. This review comes from the preview screening and Q&A session I attended at the British Library (Hello to Galia, Alison and Alex…)

London. 1975. Dr Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston), a psychologist, movies into a high-rise building having been seduced by the lifestyle it would bring with it. The building itself is isolated from the rest of London and is so self-contained with a supermarket, gym and swimming pool that, aside from work, there is little reason for the residents to leave. They are cut off from the rest of society in their luxury tower block. The higher your floor the higher your status – Laing takes up residence on floor 25, his new friend Charlotte Melville (Sienna Miller) is on floor 26 and the architect of the building, Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) and his wife Ann (Keeley Hawes), take up the entire top floor. Laing also comes into contact with a family relegated to the second floor, BBC documentary-maker Richard Wilder (Luke Evans), his heavily pregnant wife Helen (Elisabeth Moss) and their two children. When Wilder becomes so embittered by the social hierarchy he decides it will be the focus of his next project. A dangerous situation develops causing a domino effect which leads to the fragmentation of the residents and formulation of violent tribes.

Where to start when reviewing this film? It’s excellent, terrific and truly haunting in equal measures. Like many of Ben Wheatley’s films High-Rise is of the ‘well-that-escalated-quickly’ genre. However, this film does not require a suspension of belief for the dissention into madness. Whilst accelerated the resulting horrors stems from social resentment that has been apparent since time immemorial. History showcases time and time again society’s that form then self-destruct that little exposition is required in High-Rise to explain why things get so bad so quickly (not that I can really imagine Wheatley wanting to spoon-feed us in this way). The script is bitterly funny, laden with comments that are iceberg-en in terms of depth. Social commentary is rarely this sharp-tongued, appalling yet absurdly funny.

Wheatley doesn’t waste a shot in the telling of this story; countless viewings would be required to access even half of the detail and imagery it possesses. And practically every shot could be printed out as a still and put on a wall, for the cinematography and mise-en-scene is otherworldly in its beauty. There’s the generic, unbranded supermarket made of quadrilaterals in primary colours, the kaleidoscopic parties of the various factions, the riding of a white house across the luminescent greenery of the rooftop garden and the seemingly innocent shades of grey of a certain floor 25.The blend of lighting and framing makes for sequences that are fraught, depraved and agitating. This is only exasperated by the incredible soundtrack, with two appearances of ABBA’s ‘S.O.S’ (hence the subheading of this review) that bring chills in way that one would never have though possible. At one point the BAFTA award makes a cameo, which Wheatley later explained he chose to include as it ‘would be the closest he’d ever get to an actual BAFTA’. It would be an utter travesty if for visuals and soundtrack alone High-Rise is not recognised and justifiably awarded.

Speaking of awards, there’s then the performances of the cast. Hiddelston as Dr.Laing, a self-contained possessor of wide-eyed optimism and underlying volcanic rage, is a match made in heaven. Wheatley spoke of his having Hiddelston’s ‘photo on the fridge’ during pre-production and casting as they (they being Wheatley and wife Amy Jump who wrote the script) viewed him as the perfect candidate. But, whilst Moss, Miller, Hawes and Irons are all good in equal measure it is Luke Evans performance that is stand-out to that of Hiddelston’s. If Laing is untapped rage cloaked in a suit, then Evans as Wilder is the untamed man. Evans must have come close to the edge in making this film, for his character is a powerhouse of bitterness and injustice whose raging against the machine is awash with inevitable destruction.

With so many reasons to see High-Rise; the performances, the script, the visuals are just three broad reasons which should justify you’re purchasing a ticket upon the film’s release next week.

Go see it and be haunted for days afterwards.

Hail, Caesar!

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

All Hail Hollywood!  And, all Hail the Coen Brothers!

1951 was a bit of strange time for Hollywood. The studio system was starting to shift and the oligarchic owners were starting to lose power. Rather understandably its stars were getting fed up of being owned by the studios. The studios got to decide what they would be starring in, who they would be working with, what they looked like and even who they were dating. The post-world war two boom had begun to grow to a standstill and film-makers weren’t quite sure what the people wanted. Some classic films were made that year (A Street Car Named Desire, Alice In Wonderland and The African Queen, to name but three) as were a lot of terrible movies from every genre and hybrid-genre you could possibly think of. If the people don’t know what they want, adopt a ‘throw-everything-at-them-and-see-what-sticks policy’. It’s these issues that make the era a perfect setting for a movie. It’s also the reason that the Coen brothers are the perfect men for the job.

The life of the head of production at Capitol Pictures is not an easy one. In 27 hours Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) must handle one drama after another. First there’s the lead of his series of synchronised swimming epics (Scarlett Johansson) who’s both pregnant and unmarried. Then there’s the all-singing and little-talking cowboy(Alden Ehrenreich) who is forcibly being made to transition from Westerns into thespian drama, much to the bitter frustration of his new luvvie director (Ralph Fiennes) followed up by a check-in on the latest musical starring multi-talented (Channing Tatum), dodging the four preying eyes of gossip columnist twins (both played by Tilda Swinton) and most importantly finding his A-list star (George Clooney) who has disappeared from set. Maybe his job offer from the aviation industry isn’t that unappealing after all…

First I want to state that this is not a perfect movie. Its pacing is off, and the entire film feels like a series of rather delightful misadventures as opposed to one overarching narrative. That fact will put some people off (although that doesn’t really explain/justify the 16 people who walked out of the screening I attended). But for others, including myself, this fundamental flaw is in fact another reason to cherish the movie as surely that rhythm or tone of chaotic mayhem is how life working in the dwindling studio system would have been. What is also allows the Coen brothers to do is duel-handily poke fun at the farce-like-ness of this period of time, and also lovingly embrace it.

Each set-piece is beyond stunning. Every single costume is stunning, with every single character feeling like a tribute to a by-gone era. The synchronised swimming sequence featuring a giant, mechanical whale reinforces the notion that this is THE Dream Factory. The loving pastiche theme continues with Channing Tatum’s ludicrously inventive tap dance and singing number, where he and a dozen sailor lament their going on door as ‘We Ain’t Gonna See No Dames.” However, speaking from personal preference, it’s Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle the Cowboy-turned-actor who totally steals the show. When considering the talent (ahem, Brolin, Johansson, Finnes and Cloonney!) this is truly no mean feat. Doyle is the perfect blend of dim but charming. His attempts at ‘serious’ acting are utterly charming but it’s his date with Carlotta Valdez (cheeky nod to Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’ there!) , an up-and-coming Latina actress that will win the hearts of the nation. His accidental wooing of her is pinch-his-cheeks and say ‘nawww’ levels of adorability. He is definitely one to watch.

Although the ‘star of the show’ may not actually steal the spotlight (as hopefully outlined and justified above) it’s Clooney’s storyline that solidifies the fact that this film is not throughway fluff. His ‘journey’ whilst held hostage provides much reflection on the nature of Hollywood ideology, a subliminal critique of the industry by reflecting on the very nature of entertainment, the ugly work that goes into creating what we view as such beauty…but that’s a discussion for another day, (ideally in a pub, with a drink in hand!)

For now, I’ll leave you with this. For those of us who are nostalgic for a time we never lived (I’m including myself in this category) there’s escapism and incredible tributes to the past. For cinephilles there’s subtle reflection on the ugly/beautiful process of cinema-making. There’s also romance, lots of humour and Channing Tatum signing (who knew he had the voice of an angel!?!)

If you’ve got a spare hour and forty minutes this is a film well-worth your money. Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

A Bigger Splash

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

A rockstar, a record producer, a documentary-maker and a recently discovered illegitimate daughter go on holiday…

The hardest thing I suspect I will find about writing this review is overusing the adjective ‘beautiful’ and its various synonyms, because that is what A Bigger Splash is. Beautiful. Beautiful cast in beautiful scenery that is beautifully shot and with a story that is beautifully told.

Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton) is a rockstar of arena-like proportions. After surgery on her throat and vocal chords renders her mute for several weeks (as part of her post-operative recovery) she decides to go into reclusion with her partner Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts). They are staying on the remote Italian island of Pantelleria when their weeks of nudity and nookie are interrupted by the arrival of her ex-producer and ex-lover Harry (Ralph Fiennes), who has brought with him Penelope (Dakota Johnson) who recently discovered that Harry is her father. What follows will test the ties of fraternity, paternity and sexuality with catastrophic consequences.

The events of the film play out in a way that is unpredictable, sweaty and bitterly humorous. This is Swindon and Fiennes at the top of their respective games. Due to her character’s temporary muteness Swindon has little dialogue; the few lines she does say are husky and barely audible. Instead she says entire monologues on matters of the heart with her facial expressions – bitter rage, frustration, mortification, adoration and admiration shown through looks. A less-skilled actress would be constricted by her characters damaged vocal chords; instead what could be a limitation showcases the true skill Swindon possesses. The grace and manner of her movements and expressions, along her facial expressions, bring Marianne Lake: Rock Star to life. Both when painted in David Bowie-esque costume and make-up and when wearing nothing at all, it feels like you are watching the life of a real, if fatally flawed, person.

At 52, with countless film and theatre credits which demonstrate his mastery, it is incredibly impressive that Fiennes can still surprise. His Harry Hawkes is a bundle of raw energy, a magnetic charisma who dominates each scene. Along with providing the funniest moments of the film (and a dance sequence to The Rolling Stones that I challenge you to be able to watch without averting your eyes in bewildered embarrassment) he demonstrates the mythical fine line between comedy and tragedy. Harry Hawkes is a man who uses his charisma, uniqueness, nerve and talent to mask much inner-darkness. His self-destructive descent into hedonism is (dance sequence aside) utterly enthralling.

It’s a pleasure to see Schoenaerts on the big screen again, roughly 10 months since the release of Far from the Madding Crowd and his enamouring take on loyal and noble Gabriel Oak. His character here, Paul, is one who initially appears to have fewer layers than his romantic partner and love rival, but this proves that appearances can be deceptive. He is currently one of the most interesting and underappreciated supporting actors in cinema at the moment, and I greatly look forward to seeing more of his (admittedly rather beautiful) self.

And then there’s Dakota Johnson, of 50 Shades of Grey infamy. What A Bigger Splash succeeds in doing is adding another reason for why Shades is such a mediocre movie, as A Bigger Splash proves that not only can Johnson act but she is mighty fine at it. In fact, she well and truly holds her on with her fellow leads. Penelope is an intriguing character, made even more so by Johnson’s acting ability. Penelope is a character who almost defies description (in a complimentary way), suffice to say she is a product of her father in the best/worst of ways.

 There is one more crucial player in A Bigger Splash – Pantelleria itself. Located 100km southwest of Sicily (fact found courtesy of Google) it is a place I had not heard of prior to the film and is of such unrivalled beauty that I cannot escape mentally from the mysticism of it. Few places, when on the screen, are displayed in such heart-stopping and breath-taking beauty. The events of A Bigger Splash, when splayed out in a review such as this could seem almost borderline-soap opera. It’s the scenery, and the skill through which it is shown, that prevents this. Yes some sequences possess a degree of melodrama, but setting it in such a beautiful (alluring, dazzling, exquisite, stunning, and wonderful) landscape only elevates the emotional response of the subsequent events. However, it’s the slightly oddball, quirky tone of these events that makes the film truly memorable. Though the pacing is slightly stilled on minor occasions, with one or two plot points that drag, there is a humour tinged by darkness that makes the plot haunting and ultimately cataclysmic.

A sun-kissed soap opera told with class and comedy with an abundance of tragedy. A must-see.

 

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

45% Pride and 45% Prejudice and 10% Zombies

In 2004 Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright created a new hybrid genre called Zombie-Romantic-Comedy (ZomRomCom) with Shaun of the Dead. In 2007 an American author took this one step further and wrote a parody novel of Jane Austen’s classic Pride and Prejudice by adding in zombies. Nearly 10 years later, after years of development hell (heh, that term has rarely been so apt) we have the film adaptation.  It may not be the most haunting (heh) Austen adaptation, nor will it give others a run for their money (heh, running from zombies) but it is more than entertaining and worth a watch. My main criticism, as you may have noticed from the subtitle is that the zombies make up a small proportion of the film, a too small proportion to really make the most of the high concept.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. – Elizabeth Bennett. In a world that has been overrun by zombies for almost a hundred years, young women have more than enough to worry about than finding a husband. At least that is what Elizabeth Bennett (Lily James) thinks, and her four sisters agree to varying extents. Their mother Mrs Bennett (Sally Phillips), however, believes otherwise. Mr Bennett (Charles Dance) disagrees with his wife wholeheartedly, which is why he had his girls spend much of their childhood in China, training in the arts of killing zombies, moulding them into fearsome zombie-killing army. When Mr Bingley (Douglas Booth) reopens a residence nearby, he hosts an introductory ball to which the Bennetts are invited. It’s there that Elizabeth meets Colonel Fitzwilliam Darcy (Sam Riley) , a haughty monster-hunter renowned and feared for his zombie-killing skills. When the ball is invaded by zombies the Bennett sisters dazzle Darcy and Bingley with their skills, affection and admiration begins. But will the course of love ever run smooth whilst the undead stalk the Earth?

Overall, the film really succeeds for the first fifteen minutes. The concept feels fresh and funny, the zombie/romance balance is level (something I fear I will never get to write again…) and it’s a pleasurable novelty to see the key events of Austen’s novel enhanced by zombie tropes. There’s also a truly beautiful animated story-book style opening sequence, voiced by the legend that is Charles Dance, that informs us of how the zombies came to be. Unfortunately, the remaining 80-odd minutes of the film are not as pleasurable. The ZomRom balance (I’m going to copyright that phrase) does not really warrant the ‘and’ of the title. Maybe it should be Pride and Prejudice and a few zombies and lots of talking about zombies  (though perhaps that is not as catchy). When the zombies are actually on-screen it provides some of the best moments, producing a couple of jumps and a fair few laughs. But there is too much talking about strategies for dealing with zombies as opposed to fighting them.

However, it’s not all bad. The cast for this film is so good, and so well suited for their roles, that you actually wish this was just a straight-forward adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Lily James, who shone in War & Peace last year’s Cinderella, is superb as a feisty and witty Elizabeth. She manages to make Elizabeth’s progression into a trained warrior seem almost plausible. She has great chemistry with Sam Riley’s Darcy, providing a degree of sexual tension previously unseen in adaptations of this work. Austen would have approved I suspect. However, as Parson Collins, Matt Smith steals every scene he is in. It’s great to see Smith in another comedic role (aside from his marmite take as The Doctor). Here his timing is brilliant and his ability to make a relatively small role stand out speaks volumes about his ability. Another wonderful surprise is Lena Headey as the one-eyed-eye-patch-wearing Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who snarls her way through her too-few-scenes. 

To conclude, this is a more than fine way to while away two hours. The cast is superb, the script has enough charm, and the novelty just great enough to entertain. Whilst easy to bemoan the minimal zombie presence, this is an excellent attempt at a twist on a classic with a fantastic cast who prevent it from being a forgettable B-movie.

Action, romance and zombies. Something for everyone with this film.

Deadpool

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

The Merc with a Mouth has a big heart, and an excellent first film.

Few films produce the level of antici…pation that Deadpool had prior to release. Even fewer films meet, let alone exceed, the eager expectation of its future audience. Deadpool is, thankfully, on of those films. It even led to a reshuffle of my top five Marvel-related films (as of 14/02/16: 1) Guardians of the Galaxy, 2) Deadpool, 3) Winter Soldier, 4) Ant Man and 5) Thor). The film is filthy, frantic and feverish. I can see (if I squint and put on my reflective hat) that those three reasons for why I love it so much are the same three reasons why a small minority may hate it (if you are in the later category I will *try* not to judge). However, the film is exactly my kind of humour and, heck, it’s my name in the blog title (chica chica!) Even my overuse of brackets in this paragraph (sorry, no sorry!) would indicate the fourth wall breaks/sidebars of the film. Anyway, I’ve rambled on enough here… let’s get cracking!

The film opens with a truly hilarious montage of Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) in an overturned car with some villains (soundtracked to ‘Angel Of The Morning’ by Juice Newton). Through an array of flashbacks and flashforwards we learn about the past and present of the man behind the mask. Wade Wilson was a bad guy who was paid to hurt even badder guys. He was definitely *not* a hero. One night, after a successful job, he meets Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). They have simillar senses of humour and the connection between them is electric. One date leds to one year of happiness – a year than ends with Wade being diagnosed with terminal cancer. He’s offered a solution: to join a secret program that will get rid of his cancer and grant him superpowers. Ajax/Francis (Ed Skrein) is the man running the program and injects Wade with a secret serum, teaming up with Angel Dust (Gina Carano) to torture Wade for weeks on end in an effort to trigger a mutation. One torture in successful in triggering the mutation, providing with the power of healing that is so great he is essentially immortal,  but in the process leads to Wade being totally disfigured. Once escaped Wade seeks out the man who destroyed his life, desperate for revenge and a cure. 

Where to begin with reasons for why I love this film so greatly, without turning this review into a stream of consciousness? Ryan Reynolds is utterly fantastic in this role, creating a character who is nuanced and full of depth whilst also making cock jokes. Reynolds has not been given the opportunity to  show of his funny bone for so long, and having spent ten years getting this show on the road, the fact it is a clear passion product for him really illuminates just how good he is.

Often with superhero films the mask is a barrier between the ‘hero’ and the audience. In this case the barrier is shattered literally by having Deadpool talk directly to the audience (just like in the comic books)  and through his use of facial expressions. Even with the red mask on we can see the facial expressions, the eyebrow raises, glaring, moments of surprise and amusement. With regards the jokes, not every joke lands but there are so many that when one does fall flat there will be two more in the next 30 seconds to get you laughing again.

His take on Deadpool is also the required level of sexy. I don’t just mean fanciable (though, yes.) But his interactions with Vanessa are sparky, sweet yet erotic. When you really think about it, how many superheros in film adaptations are given that side to their character? Batman is rather caste and crippled by his past, Superman looks great but is too noble for that, Captain America too innocent and Ironman is implied – all talk and no action (though admittedly Stark’s conquests occur in films rated 12/12A). Wade Wilson has a fully-functioning relationship with Vanessa , raunchy  yet founded-in love. Which sums up the whole films ethos really – it may parody the entire genre but is done so with love and thus still honouring it. One way of doing this is with the treatment of its big baddie.

Skrein makes a fantastic villain, reaching towards (though no equal to) the heights of Tom Hiddleston’s Loki. Ajax/Francis is a nasty man, who ‘enjoys’ causing others man and misery yet he’s so charming in the process. We want Wade to get the vengeance he is so desperately wants, which means we get to see more Ajax/Francis in the process (a total win-win). His cool, calm borderline-psychopath-at-the-core sit he perfect contrast to the maniac ‘talker’ that is Wade Wilson. Their onscreen rapport brings the best out of both characters.

Baccarin is good, if slightly underused, as Wilson’s girlfriend. Brianna Hildebrand is awesome as Negasonic Teenage Warhead, the X-Men trainee who is shadowing Stefan Kapicic‘s Colossous. Using such little-known and under-valued X-men was a great idea, bringing out the best from Wade Wilson. Including some of the films stand-out gags… 

This may be the perfect Valentine’s Day film. There’s romance, sex, dirty jokes, lots and lots of killing (think Kick-Ass or Kingsmen level violence) and more dirty jokes.

I’m seeing it for the third time this week. Go see it!

Zoolander No.2

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

Another example of a sequel that is a poor imitation of the original.

In 2001 (15 years ago!) the world was posed a question, a question for the ages, “Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?” Derek Zoolander found the answer by the end of the film (spoiler alert!) with family, friends and a charity project running “The Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Within the first three minutes of the sequel all of that resolution is turned on it head, then burned to the ground and thrown away. If the intent was to then set up the sequel as being completely different, and ‘fresh’ compared to the original, then the fatal flaw in that plan is writing a film that’s funniest (and only) laugh-inducing moments are references to the original…

Justin Bieber is dead. After running away from assassins on motorbikes (having displayed some serious parkour moves) he is shot countless times. In his dying moments he manipulates his face into Blue Steel and takes a selfie, then gives into his fatal injuries. He is the latest in a long line of celebrities to be assassinated, taking a Derek Zoolander-themed selfie before dying. The fashion division of Interpol need his help but no-one knows where he is. Seven years ago, after the death of his wife and losing custody of his child, he decided to become a ‘Hermit Crab’ and go into hiding. Only one man can bring him out of his slump…

From the opening sequence alone you can tell how the rest of the ‘humour’ of the film will play out. An opening sequence is so key to a film, so crucial for setting the tone and level of the rest of the film. In this case? Well, it’s such a pandering sequence – ‘Hey! You average Joe, you hate Justin Bieber right? So we’re going to kill him off to make you laugh. We can make your dreams a reality. Love us!’ It’s a problematic choice for multiple reasons.

1) Hating Justin Bieber seems so last year/s. He’s had a bit of a renaissance in the past 18 months so the hate has become, for most, either ambivalence or embarrassed adoration. Therefore the slightly dated nature of the script becomes apparent. He’s also an easy target, one of many that are used to minimal effect, within a script seemingly tailored from social media circa 2013/4.

2) It’s an overlong sequence. Stretching out the humour becomes a motif of the film. Pacing of jokes never really seemed an issue with the first film (queue my rewatching it ASAP) but it is a real issue here. The ratio between gag build-up and punchline is definitely off.

3) Having Bieber appearing to do parkour, then being shot at least 30 times before taking a selfie before dying demonstrates how overblown and tacky the film will be. Zoolander No.2 presumably has a bigger budget, gladly and gawdly shows this fact off.

4) He is one of the countless celebrities to be shoehorned into an overwrought and clunky script. Though his role in the events of the story is clear (if rather ineffective) many others are not. A few stand out in terms of strange but also strangely funny (I’m looking at you here Benedict Cumberbatch and Kiefer Sutherland) but others are borderline pitiful (Anna Wintour and your crew, you didn’t, to quote Tim Guun, ‘make it work!’) 

Zoolander No.2 is a difficult watching experience for fans of the original. The plot is thin, the jokes humiliate rather than delight and the frivolity leaves the film rather throwaway. Like its eponymous character, Zoolander No.2 is empty and full of air. It may be filled of those who are ‘really really ridiculously good-looking’ but it’s forgotten that there’s more to life than that.

I hope they had more fun making the film that I had watching it. Disappointing.

Triple 9

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

A.K.A what happens when bad movies happen to good actors

Sometimes you will go the cinema and see a film for one actor you particularly like. Occasionally, you are lucky enough to see a film that for two or three of actors who like. It’s rare to find a film that has an entire lead cast that you truly admire. Triple 9 has a cast made up of some truly talented actors (listed with my favourite of their works):

The trailer for the film looked engaging enough, full of twists and deceit. Then, last night at Cineworld’s Unlimited Secret Screening, I got to see Triple 9. The film is a flawed, convoluted and bitterly depressing 116-minute journey. In all honesty, I would have walked out at about 30 minutes in, if it were not for wanting to find out what happened to the characters played by the above actors along with the fact that I wanted to write a fully-informed review about it. My main hope from writing this review is to discover why I instinctively and vehemently did not like this movie.

Michael (Ejiofor) is the head of a criminal crew that is formed of cops and criminals. The film opens with Michael and his crew (Reedus, Mackie, Paul and Clifton Collins Jr.) undertaking a bank robbery. The men are vicious, with an arsenal of tools to threaten. These include guns, explosives and even a portfolio of information about the bank manager’s personal life to adequately blackmail. The crew get what they came for and leave, but their escape is made messy by greed, which leads to the accidental opening of a dye pack which marks all of them. This mistake aside, all appears well and they hand over the item they stole for gangster Irina Vlasov (Winslet). She withholds their payment however, as she wants them to commit an even more high-profile robbery. A robbery that the men think would be impossible. That’s when one of them realises that it would be possible if the gang splits into two. One half would commit the robbery itself, whilst the other half would provide the police with a distraction. The only crime that would distract an entire police force would be  a Triple 9 – the shooting of a fellow officer. The new partner of Marcus (Mackie) would be the ideal target. However Chris (Affleck) is the Sergeant Detective’s (Harleston) nephew, and both men are highly suspicious as to the identities of the crew.  

First and foremost, it is not the cast who are at fault with this movie.Each of the actors brings a great deal to role, not one of them phones in their performance. Each actor uses what little they have been given to great effect. It’s practically everything else that is a problem. The opening sequence is comprised of tight-framing, minimal lighting and dialogue that poses more questions than answers. By starting in media res (mid action) the film trying to engage you what is going on, but does not provide any reason to actually care about the characters who are participating in these events. This is true of the entire film, we are given little-to-no reason to care about any of the characters. The crew are not charismatic or conflicted enough to be anti-heroes, and the ‘heroes’ are too flawed to side with.

The story that then plays out appears cleverer than it actually is, often leaving the audience unsure what is going on but not motivated enough to figure it out. There is little connection between each scene, jumping around between different characters at different times, without any clarity of how much time has passed. It drifts between place, people and time without giving the viewer anything to anchor on. If a point is trying to be created through this technique, some attempt at social-cultural-political commentary, it does not succeed.

Then there’s the music which accompanies each sequence. The entire soundtrack is a lesson on how not-to-be-subtle, and how-to-bulldoze-your-audience. A soundtrack which is effective at building tension should be a mix of soft and loud to truly emphasize the points of tension. It should not be turned up to eleven for Each. And. Every. Single. Dramatic. Moment.

The cinematography is another example of how the film tried to be clever, but instead isolated the audience.  There’s shaky cam, fast-paced editing with a camera that moves too fast to allow the viewer to actually focus on anything. On the Sky Superscreen at the o2 Arena the effect was rather nauseating instead of tension-building.

Finally, for a cast of this skill and range, a director who could reign them in would be key- a key requirement that was clearly forgotten or ignored. At times many of the cast mumble their lines, making dialogue frequently incomprehensible. Perhaps this was a choice of tone, but frustrated audience is perhaps not really a tone. Many of the actors chew the scenery with over-acting and flailing about, always looking so bitter or impassive at what is going on. Then there’s Casey Affleck, not chewing the scenery but chewing gum in every single scene. His manner of chewing gum in this film rivals the mastication skills of a cow, imposing on his dialogue and stealing every scene he’s in just because it is so aggravating. Someone seems to have told him that his character must be channelled through his chewing gum habit, because Affleck seems to put every once of his acting skill into they way he chews that gum. I’ve never seen chewing gum chewed so aggressively or arrogantly outside of the secondary school I work out. He uses it to show the mood of his character, clearly using that instead of acting to provide any semblance of characterisation.

For a film that wants to be the next The Usual Suspects, L.A Confidential or Training Day Triple 9 is a film that is far too hurried (a remarkable feat at two hours long) and far-fetched to be so. For an account of corrupt cops that is completely true, and is far more powerful and gripping, watch Precinct Seven Five.

Spotlight

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

A subtle masterpiece of an exposé cinema

This film is proof, were it truly needed, that to invoke emotion from a viewer you do not needed to forcibly bulldoze them emotionally. You do not need people screaming at each other about how they really care about something and think it’s important; you do not need violence to prove someone’s inner rage; you don’t need monologues that reflect on social injustice. This film will grab you and drain you entirely. You will experience burning anger for those who used their positions for powers for unimaginable crimes; hopelessness at how dire at how things have and continue to still be; and cheeks so sodden with tears even when you hadn’t realised you were crying. All of these responses were generated without needless melodrama. Instead the absence of overwrought sentimentality  puts the events of the movie and the subsequent emotional response in bold, underlined and italics. A truly crucial and powerful movie. The fact that these are true events is the ultimate sucker punch.

In 2001 Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) joined the Boston Globe as its new editor. The fact he is Jewish was viewed as something of a notable scandal, considering the influence of the Catholic church. In his early introductory meetings with his new staff he meets Walter ‘Roddy’ Robinson (Michael Keaton) who is head of  the Spotlight team, a small group of journalists who undertake investigative projects that take months to research and publish.  The rest of the team is made up of Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Matt Carroll (Brian d’Arcy James) and Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams).  In his new editorial role Baron urges the Spotlight team to follow a lead, a lead which suggests that the Archbishop of Boston knew of a priest who was sexually abusing children and doing nothing about it. A small-time lawyer called Micheal Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) is seemingly the only person doing something about it. However Garabedian is on his own against the entire Catholic church, so after his initial reluctance and a lot of persuading he agrees to work along with Spotlight. A terrifying prospect soon becomes clear, this is not just about one priest but is instead about a huge cover-up of far more and dating back longer than can be imagined. But these secrets have been hidden for so long,  and with so many desperate to keep them,  it will be far from an easy journey.

Within all of that, and the remaining 3/4 of the movie, there is only one scene of loud, embittered shouting. Only one scene where one character, haunted by the true horror of what has gone on, lets rip at the hoops he will have to continue to jump and dive through. That one scene is made all the more climatic and devastating as a consequence, packing more potency than the entirety of Joy. The storytelling here is superb, the way each revelation unfolds is shown not told. The information is not forcible spoon-fed, instead delivered with little fanfare or fabrication, and is all the more absorbing for it. The suspense created is unlike much of recent cinema, with an awful sense of inevitability and foreboding that doesn’t take away any viscerality from watching the character’s gradual comprehension of their story’s terrible breadth.

However, the emotional impact of the script would be nowhere near as traumatising were it not for the performances of the cast. ‘Ensemble cast’ is a phrase too easily banded-about, but the cast of Spotlight is a true ensemble. Every actor gives the role their all. ‘All’ does not mean flapping your arms about and saying how angry you are. ‘All’ is, and perhaps should be, a simple look at another person that reveals unobjectionable horror. A gaze into the distance with eyes that expose a haunting that will never be forgotten. The ‘heroes’ of this story are not embellished, nor martyred or hero-worshipped. They are real human beings, forced to comprehend and expose systematic abuse from an institution that had such an intrinsic role in all of their lives.

Though it may have only been released in the first month of the year, this will be one of the greatest films of 2016. A fact-based thriller with a beating heart.

Goosebumps

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

“Viewer beware, you’re in for a scare!”

It’s easy to be a book snob. It’s easy to tell children which books are good to read and which books are bad to read. What constitutes a bad book for children? If it inspires just one child’s imagination,  gives them fears and feels in equal measure,  then surely a book can’t be bad? I’ve read Wilde, Dickens and both Poe. But I’ve also read Rowling, Wilson and Stein. Those six authors, along with countless authors, formulated my literary past and thus set the foundations for books to be read in the present and the future. J.K.Rowling may have figuratively taken me to Hogwarts and made me lament not receiving my letter when I was 11 (obviously during that period the ministry of magic was busy with other matters…), but it was R.L Stein that gave me a taste for ghouls, goblins and gore. Watching ‘Goosebumps’ felt like a risk, either prompting rage from my inner adolescent or transformative nostalgia. I’m very happy to report it’s the latter. Through a blend of live-action and animation the film manages to capture the goosebump-inducing fear of the books whilst also being rather light-hearted and funny.

A year after his dad has died, Zach Cooper (Dylan Minnette) and his vice-principal mother (Amy Ryan) move from New York to Madison, Delware. Though frustrated at his new small-town surroundings he knows that his mother’s new job will good for her, and the change in scenery may be good for both of them. When moving in, and having a box fall apart on him, he meets his new home-schooled neighbour (Odeya Rush). But their brief introduction is halted by Hannah’s grumpy and rather scary father, a man who may or may not be R.L. Stein (Jack Black). Hannah manages to sneak out and spend a day with Zach, but upon getting caught by her father she is punished. When Zach goes to rescue her, bringing along loveable loser sidekick (Ryan Lee), he stumbles across a bookshelf filled with what appear to be manuscripts for every Goosebumps story every written. However, after opening the manuscript of ‘The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena’ [side note: it is in my top ten Goosebumps] the Abominable Snowman itself comes out of the book. After a series of exciting events, manufactured by the Dummy of ‘Night of the Living Dummy [side note: definite top five contender] all of the manuscripts are opened, bringing all the monsters that Stein has ever written to live and bringing havoc among their town. Stein, Zach, Hannah and Champ must get all of them back in their books, where they belong. But things won’t be easy, and not everything is as it appears…

I really like this movie for numerous reasons, and in fact have a rather big soft spot for it. First of all, it brings all the monsters that once haunted my imagination to life. During the big crowd sequences I desperately searched the crowd for the familiar faces of the guests who overstayed their welcome in my nightmares. Going back to my opening point, I think it’s important that child can read books that scare them, and then show them how to defeat these fears. For children, and adults of a nervous disposition, this film does have rather spooky moments. There are one or two jumpy moments, and few monsters that are rather unsettling, but these are well contained moments and are more fun than fearful.

This leads me onto my second point, how surprisingly funny the film is. There are jokes for the children, and then there are jokes that will go over their heads and will crack up the adults in the audience. My three personal favourite jokes, which led to the emittance of loud laughter from many at the screening I attended, were a gag about the suffix –phile, a discussion about Stein verses Stephen King and a joke about domestic sales of books. Those three jokes (which I have intentionally poorly paraphrased) were well written, as are many others within the film.

The characterisation is good, with each character being more than likeable. In quite a nice shift, Hannah is the braver one whereas Zach and Champ are both rather jumpy in comparison. The animation is well-placed, never jarring with how it fits into the live-action, which is rather laudable. The music is never interfering, subtlety and successfully building the tension and fear. The pacing is also good, the 1hr 40mins never dragging and filled with more than enough twists and turns. This film is what family cinema should be. It shouldn’t patronise the younger members of the audience, or pander the humour towards them. It should engage them, spook them a little and excite them, just as Stein’s books did for me all those years ago.

If you’re looking for a light-hearted movie with a bit of bite, or something to entertain your children that won’t melt your brain, this is it. A very pleasant surprise.

The Big Short

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

Proof that reality itself provides the darkest of comedies

I was 16 on Monday the 15th of September 2008. I was watching the news while getting ready for my second week of college (yes, I was *that* kind of teen). The main headline, which kept being repeated at 15 minute intervals, was that a bank called Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy.  I had no idea what this meant, but from the tone of the news reporter and from the footage of people in suits standing outside a fancy-looking building and crying, I could tell this was bad. ‘Bad’, as it turns out was an understatement. In the 8 years since the consequences have, and continue to be, devastating world-wide. But I can admit in full honesty, I had never understood how or why it happened. In fact I wasn’t quite sure what ‘it’ was. That’s where ‘The Big Short’ comes in. This film, set in the three years prior to the financial crisis, takes that serious and complicated sequence of events and turns into a scathing critique that can be understood by all. It forces you to confront the truth, whilst snorting at the true facts – the unfathomable stupidity caused by greed.

In 2005 hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale) discovered that the American economy would be due to crash in late 2007. Why? Because the housing market was incredibly unstable, built on poor foundations of high risk subprime loans. Loans were being given out by banks to people who would never be able to pay them back, which would result in them having to default on their payments. For millions of the American public this would mean losing their homes and having to file for bankruptcy. By predicting this collapse Burry realised he could profit by betting against the banks who refused to believe it.

  Trader Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) hears of Burry’s actions and the prediction it is found upon and discovers it’s all true. A misplaced phone call to a wrong number leads him to hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell). Baum invited Venett to a meeting, also attending by Baum’s three cynical partners. It is then that Venett reveals the level of greed that has occurred, and the inevitable dire consequences the level of fraudulence will have for the general public. 

Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) are two young friends and business partners, who have their own independent investment company. Having had some good fortune they have move to New York to play with the big leagues in New York. They are refused meetings with most of the big companies, and laughed at by those who agree to meet them. That’s when they hear of Vennett’s findings and ask for their help of old friend and retired banker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to profit from the impending economic collapse. 

It’s incredible really that this domino effect (from Burry finding out the truth, Vennett hearing of it and pushing Baum to invest, with Geller and Shipley hearing of this and making their own investments) lead to his small group making an insane amount of money. What turns this incredibility into incredulity (or impassioned rage at the injustice and insanity) is that these few men saw something thousands of others in simillar jobs/positions couldn’t see or refused to see. That blind ignorance led to millions, maybe even billions, losing their jobs, homes and any possible chance of ever achieving financial stability. Four trillion dollars just disappeared – with no consequences for those whose actions led to it.

The film explores these dark crevices with a whip-smart script that provides a degree understanding that is almost a public service. It’s sardonic and full of wit, yet exposes the true woe of an ultimately depressing story. Somehow the film is wildly entertaining yet immensely informative. It’s perfect Friday night movie entertainment, yet allows for immense reflection. The editing is superb – using breaking of the fourth wall for great effect. Using stars like Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez  in cut-aways to explain key concepts is an incredible use of cultural commentary –  the banks wanted us to be distracted, ignorant of what was going on, so allowed us to focus on trivialities. Voice Over narration analyse the warped  ‘logic’ of a system that was not even understood by the bankers who used it.

The film doesn’t focuses on the suffering of the millions, but instead of the ‘outsiders’ at the centre of the storm. Each actor provides an incredible character performance – from Bale’s eccentric and tortured loner, to Carell’s pessimistic and embittered moral crusader. It’s these characters and those they interact with that make the film so entertaining. The interactions they have are farcical and beyond belief, based on incompetence and corruption – the kicker is that they are all true.

‘The Big Short’ is a contemporaneous disaster movie. We want our ‘heroes’ to succeed, knowing their success spells devastation for the entire nation. The punch-line? We watch it in hindsight, knowing what happens next. That’s the saddest’ joke’ of it all.