The Last Witch Hunter

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

Lightweight, idiotic and trashy – but not in a good way…

First with the positives; I got to walk on a red carpet last night! After picking up the tickets to the premiere from a tent just off Leicester Square Gardens, then seeing the hundred-odd people surrounding the red carpet, I then got to walk it! It was a pretty incredible experience. Although it was brief, and unsurprisingly no-one knew/cared who I was, it was a bit like walking on air. Perhaps more of a case of floating along than walking the red carpet. There was a brief Q&A before the actual screening of the film – with three of the main stars (Vin Diesel, Michael Caine and Rose Leslie) and director (Breck Eisner) which was also exciting – primarily as I can now say I was sat less than 20 feet away from Michael Caine. Now onto the less positive stuff; i.e. the film itself…

800-years-ago Kaulder (Vin Diesel) lost his wife and daughter to murdering witches. Determined for revenge/justice he joins a raid to destroy the Queen of the witches. Many of his peers die, but Kaulder does not. Kaulder is the last man standing in a face-off with the Queen, one which results in both of their apparent deaths. However, the Queen curses Kaulder in her last breaths to remain immortal – never to love and never to find peace. Now living in present day New York, Kaulder works with a religious sect to combat the thread of witchcraft. His liaison, Dolan 36 (Michael Caine), is one of his closest friends and about to retire leaving Dolan 37 (Elijah Wood) as his replacement. But when tragedy strikes, and Kaulder realises the Queen is returning, he must rely on help from the unlikeliest of people – a witch called Chloe (Rose Leslie).

Oh dear. Just, oh dear. This film is as good as its trailers (i.e a shambles). Again, as I have done with previous reviews, I will rely on bullet points to make my rant somewhat comprehensible.

  • The Plot – Derivative and out-dated. During the Q&A the director boasted of the film’s originality; proud of the fact it is not based on a comic book/tv series etc. After watching the film, this appears to be a flawed statement. The narrative is far from ambitious or new. The plot twist is immensely vanilla. All of the dialogue is just exposition, telling the audience what has happened/what will happen next. The scene with Max in the bakery, and the conversation between Kaulder and Dolan 37 exemplifies this, with Kaulder actually saying to 37, ‘Did you understand any of that?’ This is purely for the ‘benefit’ of the audience, who are clearly being presumed to be of minimal intellect. Kaulder then ‘kindly’ explains it to 37/us. The actual mission Kaulder is on is both absurd and poorly-paced, drifting from one set piece to the next. The story itself is messy, and how it is told it unbearably flat.
  • Gender roles – Who doesn’t love a casual bit of misogyny in their cinema? In a year that saw our silver screens graced with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) in Mad Max: Fury Road we have a film that returns us to the woman-as-sidekick/pretty face. Considering how fierce her turn as Ygritte in Game Of Thrones was, Leslie is ill-served here. Her character is a witch, dressed in black and with loads of jewellery (another tick for the lack of originality box). The character could have been given any career but no, Chloe works as a bartender. [Spoiler alert!] it gets burnt down at some point and she spends a good chunk of time blaming Kaulder, moaning that the bar was all she had. Clearly she had forgotten just how big her Central New York apartment is (a problematic feature of tv/film is giving broke characters unrealistically fabulous apartments – a topic for another time). She then spends much of the time in emotional turmoil and needing to be rescued. Her witch powers are the kind that requite her to sit still and go into people’s minds – disappointing considering she could have been scripted to instead kick ass with her powers or even be able to defend herself without his help. The fact Vin Diesel himself must be almost twice Leslie’s age, and his character about 775 years older, a suggested romantic subplot is both ridiculous and patronising. Why not hire an older actress if so insistent on partnering them off? The fact that her accent wavers from cut-glass to eardrum-slicing really doesn’t help her characters attempts at appeal.
  • Vin Diesel – Kaulder is sad (blank expression and monotonal voice). Kaulder is being sardonic (blank expression and monotonal voice). Kaulder is being brave (blank expression and monotonal voice). Vin Diesel crosses the line from being hilariously bad in this role to being depressingly bad. His attempts at quips and banter fall flat without intonation and emotion. Vin Diesel in person has a great deal of charm but is so unconvincing in this with an incredibly wooden performance. Coincidentally you’ll spend the whole film waiting to boom the line, ‘I am…’ Character traits for Kaulder are heavy-handed added on – his predilection for watches to show that he’s deep and reflects of time because he’s immortal. He drives a fast sports car because he can afford one as he’s lived forever. He only sleeps with air hostess as he has a fear of commitment. All of these attempts at providing depth instead reveal how transparent the plot and its characters are.
  • Direction – The special effects are so bland and unspectacular, almost sludgy in presentation. Even without advertising (which has a separate budget) this film cost $90 million to make. Where did it all go?

This film is not even entertaining to be ‘so bad it’s good’. It’s just bad. Bad and boring, which is an unforgiveable crime in cinema.  Avoid.

Suffragette

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

‘I’d rather be a rebel than a slave’

Upon reflecting on the important role the suffragettes have in history in their obtaining the right for women to vote, it’s incredibly hard to believe that in the eighty-seven years since all women in Britain over the age of 21 could vote this is the first movie to actually portray the events that provided the catalyst for the 1928 parliamentary decision. It was actually in 1918 that the first women of Britain could actually vote – but they had to be over the age of thirty and meet certain property conditions. Suffragette does not focus on either of those periods of time, but looks at what is perceived as a turning point in the movement – the early 1910s – when social views of the suffragette movement shifted. At the start of the era, like the start of the film, the media and therefore society is fiercely damning of these immoral women. By the end of the film, on the cusp of WW1, things had started to turn. That was through the great sacrifices by many women, and the ultimate sacrifice by one woman. That is the complete narrative arc of the film – whilst an excellent insight into this era it seems an unusual choice for a film which could have instead focused on portraying the actual granting of the vote. Consequently the impact of the film is almost limited, which, considering how much build-up and anticipation there was prior to release, may ultimately frustrate some viewers.

Bethnal Green, 1912. Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan) is a married mother in her early twenties. She works long hours in brutal conditions at a laundry, then goes home and cares for her young son and husband Sonny (Ben Whishaw). She’s aware of the women wanting the vote, but it seems so distant and irrelevant to her that she pays in little attention or mind. However a blossoming friendship with Violet (Anne-Marie Duff) leads to Maud giving a personal statement on her work and living conditions to a committee of MPs. ‘Laundry work is short if you are a woman’, she tells them. Maud’s mother died at work, scolded by a boiling vat of water. Maud has already been badly injured at work, and even faced sexual abuse. Should she have more children, her future-daughters will work there, facing the same risks and dangers. The cycle will continue, unbroken and relentless, unless Maud can do something to make it change. Violet invites Maud to attend a meeting with the East End Suffrage Movement. There she meets Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), Emily Davison (Natalie Press) and later, albeit briefly, Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep). Maud tentatively but swiftly joins their ranks and campaigns for the right for women to vote but with the government, in the form of Inspector Arthur Steed (Brendan Gleeson), desperate to quell any uprising Maud is risking all she has to make a difference.

Perhaps because of the incredibly high expectations placed upon the film, it is not fully the fault of the film-makers that Suffragette does disappoint to some extent. The cast are truly extraordinary, and create characters so heart-breakingly believable that it would be nigh-on-impossible not to engage emotionally with this film. However, it doesn’t quite feel enough. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the creative decision to focus on less than three years is one worthy of debate. It allows a heightened focus on a short but important period of time, yet consequently drags out certain moments for too long. There is then the fact that, although Mulligan is fantastic in her role, Maud did not actually exist. Unlike the majority of other characters, Maud was a fictional creation for the purpose of the film. Though based in testimonies of real women from the era, her character arc is cherry-picked from multiple sources. The purpose of a composite character, as is true of this case, is to serve as a cipher; an ‘Every-Woman’ to act as an entry point and an emotional compass to the events we witness as an audience. For the most part this is successful, yet is at times almost frustrating. There are other characters in the story, real-women who do not get their voice heard as a result. Although the life of Maud is used to articulate the difficulties of life for the working class women, as opposed to the middle-class Mary Poppins suffragette, it feels rather rote. Maud, instead of feeling like a real character, almost feels like a narrative tool used to access the greatest hits of the suffrage. This has not been helped by the misleading advertising surrounding the film – yes Mulligan is our lead and Bonham Carter plays an important role, but Streep’s role is not nearly significant to require the top-billing the promotional material has given her. Although she does deliver a rather inspiring speech, her thirty-seconds of running time seems anti-climactic as a consequence.

Although Suffragette does offer some clear insight into the era, from the hunger strikes and force-feeding to the police brutality and social ostracisation that came with being a suffragette, it does not feel enough. Whilst it is a no-frills look into a momentous period of history, at times it feels more like a dry history lesson than the visceral and powerful movie these women deserve.

Crimson Peak

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

A film review/love letter for Guillermo Del Toro’s macabre masterpiece.

Finally. Six months in and 40 reviews written this film comes along. A Neo-Gothic epic. This is my kind of movie. The Gothic is arguably one of cinemas most underappreciated genres. This is a huge error as the tropes of the Gothic allow itself to become the truest articulation of the psychological state. Guillermo Del Toro knows this. He’s made a career of it. And this film could be his mainstream opus. The intent and scope of Crimson Peak is worthy of the highest praise: the end product astonishingly beautiful.

As an aspiring author Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) revels in Romantic turmoil.  Her father Carter (Jim Beaver) is devoted to her and her literary exploits; having lost his wife when Edith was ten he is all too aware of the loss and pain that love can bring. His protective paternal instincts kick in when a mysterious stranger arrives into town. Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) intent is to persuade self-industrialist Carter to invest in his machinery – it’s the last hope for he and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain) to restore their family estate. Carter takes an instant dislike to the Sharpe siblings; upon observing Thomas’s intent towards his daughter he becomes determined to drive them apart. However, when tragedy strikes, Edith and Thomas are pushed further together – they marry and brings her to England. Upon arrival at Allerdale Hall, observing the decrepit building and the red clay-tainted oil that desecrates the landscape, Edith realises that she must try and escape the ghosts of the past and the threats in her future.

It is impossible to over-appreciate what Del Toro has achieved here. He has utilised the motifs of the genre – the double, the spiral staircase, the brooding stranger and the desperate maiden clasping at a candle which represents her life – to create a gloriously grotesque tribute to the original 1940s Gothics whilst utilising contemporaneous cinematic creativity. The Gothic triumphed in literature during the early 1800s, and peaked in cinema during the 1940s. Though set in the same era the filmic versions of the Gothic reflected the fears of the then-present. Women were leaving the household and entering the workplace; then forced back into the home when they returned from war. Unsurprisingly there was a flux of marriages; women agreeing to marry men they had just meet believing they would not return from war. Yet so of them did, and these women realised the once-romantic gesture had in fact resulted in their being married to strangers. Films like Rebecca, The Spiral Staircase, Secret Beyond The Door and Sleep, My Love utilised this intrinsic, yet utterly understandable fear to great effect. What united them thematically was a narrative that echoed Charles Perrault’s folktale Bluebeard – what is essentially a fable warning women against marrying alluring strangers. Why this is all relevant is because few new films, one that are not reliant on being literary adaptions, even attempt to make a film in this style – let alone join the canon.

An unholy union is made between set, music, cinematography and mise-en-scene. The sets in particular are astonishing and breath-taking – with so much to see it becomes almost overwhelming, echoing the confusion of our maiden in distress.  Crimson Peak is a product of passion. Every aspect has clearly been carefully chosen and with love, which pays off ten-fold in the film’s visceral emotive impact. Combined Wasikowska, Hiddleston and Chastain make a character triangle which entraps the viewer – ensnaring them in this house of fear. This is a world where ghosts breathe and houses bleed. Melodramatic? Yes. Unashamedly and unabashedly so. Whether the film ultimately gets lost at this point, with a third act that becomes overwhelmed by pastiche, is up for personal debate. Ultimately this film is delightfully creepy – with sumptuous sets, creepy casts and unforgettable visuals – it’s an archaic yet inviting film that demands watching.

A true auteur can provide the audience a return journey to another realm. It may not be a realm we would chose to escape to – as is this case it could be a world of terror and fear – yet it was one we are fully immersed in and find the greatest beauty within. Then we are returned – shaken, frightened, bleary-eyed yet grinning. Go watch Crimson Peak and experience it for yourself.

Pan

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

A Truly Magical Disappointment of a Film

The best way to describe the experience of watching this film is to rely on an analogy using The Great British Bake Off (or another cooking/baking show of your preference). Have you ever watched GBBO and observed someone producing a glorious looking cake that everyone talks about, so decide to have a go yourself? So you include all the ingredients they used; having added them at the same time and the same way, you then place it in the oven. However, when you open the oven to take out the cake you made it looks nothing like the cake you saw on the show. In fact your cake looks flat, plain and tastes nowhere as good as the cake appeared on TV. Now – replace the ‘you’ with ‘the production team of Pan’; the ingredients being the script, mise-en-scene, cast etc and the cake with Pan. That is what watching this film is like. Everything is there. It should work. It’s worked for so many other people. It just doesn’t work here.

It’s the middle of World War Two. Peter (Levi Miller) was abandoned by his mother (Amanda Seyfried) when he was only a baby. Left on the door steps of an orphanage he has lived his entire life there.  It is all he knows. The orphanage is managed by a tyrannical nun (Kathy Burke) who Peter suspects is making and hoarding a profit, leaving the boys in her charge eating gruel and wearing rags. Peter and his sidekick decide to investigate, and find a hoard both of food and gold. He also finds his personal record, including a letter from his mother who promises they’ll meet again, ‘In this world or another.’ They are found and punished; with Mother Superior ripping the note into pieces. Later that night they find out where the gold has come from, when a pirate ship comes to forcibly collect the young boys. After a scuffle with some fighter aircrafts, the pirate ship crosses the barriers of time and space to arrive in Neverland. In Neverland he will find fun and friendships, in the form of James Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), and together they will have to rise against the monstrous regime of Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Peter will discover his destiny and begin to become the future legend that is Peter Pan.

That plot summary makes the film sound exciting, right? That is ultimately what makes the film so disappointing, on paper it sounds good and on screen it looks good yet it doesn’t quite land. The audience are left watching sequences of increasing splendour and yet will remain impassive and disengaged with the events. The film becomes a case study in a failed attempt at Magical Realism. Upon analysis, there are a plethora of reasons as to why this is the case, though I shall just focus on the main two.

Cast: The cast were truly ill-advised on how to portray their characters. Jackman, as Blackbeard, spends all of his screen time dialled up to 11.  He’s almost like a pantomime dame chewing at the scenery. In a way this makes sense, as the film attempts to pitch an overly theatrical approach, yet it does little favours for Jackman who we have seen far better in so much more. If only he had some quieter moments, allowing for development of beats and nuances, it would have made for a more interesting performance. If acting is all about finding a balance between lights and shades, Jackman’s acting here is so bright it’ll blind. Then we’ve got Hedlund as Hook, played as a Southern gent cowboy-type. The clear intent was to make him an endearing character, shown to care about his friends and loyalties and make the audience wonder how he and Peter became such great enemies later on. It would have been a nice enough take on the character if Hedlund did not spend 2/3 of his lines hunched over, squinting them and barking them at his fellow cast. We get it, you’re stereotypically Southern – just please stop shouting! Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily starts high then gradually disappoints. She’s set up to be a great warrior, but little of this is actually shown. When announced that she was starring in this many were surprised, as Mara’s roles utilise her maudlin persona to great effect. The result in Pan is that she spends the entire film looking as if she doesn’t really want to be there. Which is hardly surprising considering how much source material the sequences with her and her tribe will provide for critics and theorists of cultural appropriation will provide. The only good thing to say about the film is that 13-year-old Levi Miller is a promising new talent who does a great job of carrying the heavy burden of this film.

Script: The need for prequels is a matter of personal opinion. The need for a decent script in prequel is not. This review should serve as a warning to those who want to write a prequel – do not do as this film does. It’s all fine and dandy to include references to the pre-existing film, cheeky lines acknowledging past references for the audience which hint at future inevitable events for the characters. But please, for the love of God, do not write them like they are in the screenplay for Pan. There are so many here, which are shoehorned in so poorly and recited by the actors so stiffly that I genuinely suspect they were written in the actual script like this:

Tiger Lily: What? Are you scared of CROCODILES?

Hook: NO! Now excuse me while I stick my HAND in the CROCODILE-INFESTED WATER.

Peter: Great. Now we’re lost!

Hook: Yes. We’re LOST BOYS!

Peter: Well we better think HAPPY THOUGHTS.

Peter: We’ll always be FRIENDS won’t we Hook?

Hook: Of course! What could ever happen to CHANGE that?

Mother: You’re my Peter. My PETER PAN.

Now, I may not have used exact phrasing there (I think my brain has tried to delete some of the film in a type of self-protection manoeuvre) but those references are as subtle stated as they are above. In fact, the only way they could have been made less subtle is by having the cast recite them turning to the camera with a raised eyebrow and nudging with their elbow. The intention of including these lines (though perhaps not in a manner as poorly as done here) is to establish a clear link between this film and the far far far superior 1953 animation and the 1911 novel. However, this has a counteractive effect, reminding the audience of how much they love either of the original products. Save the money of a cinema ticket and dig out your copy of the book or film.

This leads us to an ultimate conclusion, was this film really necessary? I’ve written in past reviews (Ant-Man and Fantastic Four are the first two that spring to mind) about the difficulties of origin stories. Did we really need to know what made Peter Pan into the Peter Pan? If they really thought people would care about the backstory between Hook and Pan why not show it instead of ending the movie with a heavy-handed sequence that signposted for a sequel – which may not be so inevitable considering Pan has royally bombed at the box office. To be so over-dependent on continuing the story on, instead of giving a satisfying if albeit temporary conclusion, is lazy storytelling.

This film overestimates how good or necessary it is. It manages to make the magical mundane and dreary – an unforgivable crime of cinema.

Sicario

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

The Closest We’ll get to Cinematic Masterpiece this year?

This film is unlike any other. It’s intelligent, provocative and deeply haunting. Shot and told with expert precision whilst feeding on audience paranoia and helplessness – this is not a film for the faint of heart. There are few films that have been, or that will be, released this year that will end with you leaving the cinema drained and exhausted (in a good way at least…)

Idealistic FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) leads a kidnapping raid in Chandler, Arizona that results in a discovery far bigger and much more gruesome than was expected. Her findings cause Kate’s boss (Victor Garber) to recommend her to an elected government task force which has a sole focus of the ever-escalating war against drugs on either side of the US – Mexico border. After a brief interview Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) offers her the position, using her emotional ties to her previous case as reasoning to join his team. His team promises results far greater than those she can achieve in her current position, plus a chance to find and punish those involved in the tragedy she unintentionally unearthed. She accepts immediately.  Kate’s FBI partner Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) is instantly distrustful of Matt and fearful for his partner’s well-being. Kate squashes his concerns, but when she arrives for her first day of work she realises how little she know and how little Matt will actually want to tell her. The unexplained arrival of mysterious Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) furthers these worries, as does their preceding to fly with her to a different destination than the one declared to her and concealing their purpose for being there. Was Reggie right to have been so worried for Kate? Will Kate get to make the difference she wanted to? Will she even make it out alive? 

What truly makes this film enter the threshold into ‘great’ is the components that make it so taut, tense and thrilling. The acting is masterful – Blunt is understatedly brilliant as the at-times frustrating but always sympathetic Kate, Brolin’s Matt oozes charm with dark undertones and Del Toro lurks on the outskirts so intriguingly that his gradually revealed character arc is utterly enthralling. The music, and the superbly well-chosen moments when it is absent, frame each sequences with an eerie sense of both danger and inevitability. Not a shot or piece of dialogue is wasted – everything either contributes to the plot or the power of it. Aerial shots revel not in the landscape, but instead reveal the depth of the poverty and crime and the sheer vastness of it.

Where the film builds and retains most of its power is in its message. Whilst easy from trailers and posters to misconstrue as just another social-issue drama or drug-related thriller, Sicario has much more to offer. Few films have tackled the ‘war on drugs’ with such informed perception of the grey area surrounding it. The primary question is of lawlessness – who are the good guys in this war and who can be trusted? Most importantly – when the do the ends stop justifying the means? This is reflected upon in such a spectacularly suspenseful manner; it is rare to find a film that can leave an audience so fantastically haunted.

If you’re looking to spend two-hours in a realm of dread, brutality and nerve-destroying darkness then commit to numb ruminating…you’d best go buy your ticket!

The Martian

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

‘I’ve gotta science the shit out of this!”

The Martian is better than both Interstellar and Gravity. Whilst both of the latter films tried admirably, but failed, in their ambition, Ridley Scott has succeeded in translating Andy Weir’s thrilling, tense and funny novel to the big screen. In fact, this is Ridley Scott’s best movie for years.

Disco-hating Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is part of Ares 3, a manned mission to Mars. On Sol 18 (solar Martian Day 18) a fierce storm hits the base so Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain) tells Watney and the four other crew members to evacuate. However, on the short distance from the Hub to the ship, Watney is impaled by an antenna and separated from the group. Watney’s vital signs indicate that he is dead so the devastated crew leave without him. But Watney in fact wakes up to find himself stranded on Mars – with meagre supplies and no means of contacting anyone he must use his wits, brains and ingenuity to survive.

There are so many features of this film that make it the true success it really is. Firstly, the incredibly talented ensemble cast. Along with Damon and Chastain, there is a who’s who of exceptional skill – Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Chiwetel Ejiofor,  Mackenzie Davis and Donald Glover amongst the most recognisable. Unusually for a cast of this size there are no weak links. In part due to their talent, but also due to the solidity and sharpness of the source material. All of the characters are given their moment to shine and develop; possessing mannerisms and relationships that make them feel real. Of course, in this regard, it is Damon who shines brighter than the rest. He makes Watney so truly likeable it would be impossible not to root for him; this ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances.. It’s easy to imagine that there will be audiences in the States stood in their seats in either tension or cheer, pushing him on. His reactions seem so real – who wouldn’t swear in frustration at the circumstances that are thrown at him? His unflappability (A – Who knew that was even a word?!? and B- It’s an adjective that exactly describes his character) is crucial to this relatability. Unlike many other recent films that are about space or even science fiction in general we are often faced with characters who panic in moments of crisis. Watney, and the other characters, are scientists and leaders of their respective fields so it shouldn’t be surprising that they can come up with solutions (which my favourite physicist-friend advises me were utterly terrifying for him to watch!)

Secondly, there’s the soundtrack. As you, hopefully, identified from the above plot summary, Watney hates disco. And, can you guess what genre of music is the only kind left behind in the Hub..? (If you can’t guess I am judging you massively at the this point). Watney finds himself in such Dire Straits (hah, semi-accidental music pun) that he must subject himself to a disco-themed soundtrack – something he does not do willing or without bitching massively about. Every disco classic is so carefully apt to the moment it plays. So much so that it’ll be hard to listen to ‘Hot Stuff’ by Donna Summer without thinking of Watney’s haphazard handling of plutonium. Thirdly, the pace and storytelling is so skilful that the 140 minute running time doesn’t drag nearly as much as it could have done consequently creating a tone that is both epic yet playful.

The film remains as equally entertaining, appealing and refreshing from start to finish. The next space-themed movie has a lot to beat…

Macbeth (2015)

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

‘Be bold, bloody and resolute.’

The chances are you won’t be scheduling in this film for some light Friday night entertainment (if you are, well fair play. It takes many sorts to make a world.) You want to see Macbeth for its dark brooding plot (check), an examination of fatalism and master-level acting (double check). 2015’s version of Macbeth is quite like anything that has been seen before; becoming something both of our time and times past. Gone are the claustrophobic interior dialogues. They are instead, like the characters, exposed to the elements; then dwarfed and destroyed by them. This Macbeth belongs to the Scottish landscape, here which is cruel and brutal, again, like its characters.

The story is still the same: a warrior-noble man is informed of a prophecy that indicates he will become King of Scotland, is then pushed into regicide by this merciless formidable wife before descending into a world of psychotic delusion and pre-emptive murders. For the most part the screenplay is unaltered, with most speeches retained word-for-word. The most fascinating aspect of this new version is the new emphasis it places onto smaller moments of the play. Small beats are given volume louder than any of its filmic predecessors, offered a refreshing take on both story and characters. Gone is what often becomes a pantomime act of the central-duo, leaving behind what often becomes shouting of dialogue and wild gesturing and replacing it with a quieter sharper intensity. Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard) is no femme fatale who squawks and savages her husband’s masculinity. Cotillard plays Lady Macbeth with a commanding vulnerability, a woman who utilises her insecurities for benefit instead of concealing them with rage and anger. Her famous ‘Unsex me here’ monologue, along with her rebuffing of Macbeth’s cowardice, is made all the more sinister by her demurity.  By opening the film with a funeral, that of her young son, (a death which is only referred to briefly in the play) a sympathy is generated for her character, an attempt at a reasoning for what is to come.

This is used to similar effect with Macbeth (Michael Fassbender), and adds a dimension to his friendship with Banquo (Paddy Considine). Banquo has a young son who he is absolutely besotted by and is inseparable from. Whenever Macbeth is shown to be looking at the pair, a degree of jealously is implied, a bitterness of what may have been. Considering the witches’ prophecy declared Banquo’s heirs would later become king, it’s easy to see how Macbeth’s resentment turns into murderous intent. In fact Fassbender’s portrayal of Macbeth is so effective that it makes the majority of his actions more comprehensible than others who have taken the role. His take on ‘Is This A Dagger…’ is indelible, as his ‘Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.’ How he carries the character is also intrinsic to his interpretation. The play refers to Macbeth’s status as a great warrior, but this if often under-played by adaptations. This version shows this and revels in his ferocity on the battlefield; his domination over his opponents successfully alludes to the malice underneath. His subsequent gradual submission into his own world of distraught instability has echoes of what would now diagnose as post-traumatic stress disorder. The childish ease at which he and his wife openly accept the prophecy of the witches seems almost explained by anguish twisted into an embittered for retribution.

The two central performances are cemented by the supreme skill and ability of the supporting cast; Sean Harris’ Macduff is an impassioned ball of rage, David Thewlis a benevolent Duncan and the witches combine to make an omniscient presence that haunts both screen and characters. The editing heightens the emotional tension generated by the cast; slo-mo is carefully and calculatedly integrated to great effect. The final dénouement is intensified with the mise-en-scene; the fire of the woods transplant the final battle into a world that is reminiscent of Hell, replicating the character’s diabolic emotional turmoil. The smoky reds and orange immerse Macbeth and create an unforgettable sequence that is intrinsic in its potency.

A delicate balance between subtlety and artifice results in a compellingly powerful piece of cinema. Fassbender and Cotillard where born to play these characters.

Miss You Already

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

An unsentimental yet sincere depiction of illness and friendship

It may not have a particularly original plot and may be presented in a way that is ultimately wildly manipulative (read as: you will cry) the film itself is admirable in what it, mostly, achieves. It presents a relatively honest depiction of breast cancer; the impact it places upon relationships both platonic and romantic along with the physical toll it takes. Whilst that alone is immensely refreshing, this is furthered by the presentation of a friendship that will resonate with audiences’.

Millie (Toni Collette) and Jess (Drew Barrymore) have been best friends since childhood. They have experienced every first together, everything from first kiss to first child, with their polar opposite personalities allowing them to bring out the best in each other. Whilst Jess is more conservative and stable, Millie is the overconfident and glamourous wild-child yet they are totally and completely inseparable. Both are happily married, yet rather than this separating them their respective husbands (Millie is married to Dominic Cooper’s Kit with Jess married to Paddy Considine’s Jago) and Millie’s two children instead make up one big family. But the family is rocked by Millie’s life-altering diagnosis of breast cancer, just as Jess finds out that she is pregnant with her much-longed for first child, which will put their friendship and their makeshift family to the ultimate test.

Collette does any amazing job (as is to be expected) playing Millie. Her acting, along with the screenplay and the film’s direction avoid what many similar films have done in the past, of making the person suffering from cancer into some sort of saint or martyr. Instead Millie stays the same as it is implied she always was – a mostly well-meaning but often not very nice person. This feature is really the film’s only comparatively unique feature. This, along with the portrayal of her treatment, make the film feel more honest and in a sense more brutal than others of this kind. Millie starts the film loud and vulgar, and although she spends the majority of the film in an oncology unit, she still stays the same person. Cancer doesn’t ‘fix’ her personalities ‘faults’, at times it only exacerbates them, consequently making her more relatable than many other presentations of the disease. It’s a reminder that cancer can, and with the current odds will, affect all of us whether we are good, bad or, like Millie, the grey area in-between.

However, it would be wrong to say this film is truly great or fully lives up to its potential. As we only see Jess and Millie’s friendship through flashback or montage, we are unable to fully latch onto their story. Aside from their respective health concerns, and a few references to a shared love of Wuthering Heights and R.E.M’s Losing My Religion, we aren’t really given enough about what makes them such good friends. The film constantly tells us this, but never shows us quite enough to engage us fully with their bond and ultimately does not earn the empathy it had the potential to do so.

Nevertheless, the ensemble cast, with Collette at the forefront, are all reliable and supply solid performances. Jacqueline Bisset is fantastic as Millie’s actress mother, Frances de la Tour momentarily steals the show in her short appearance as a wig-maker and Tyson Ritter (lead singer of All American Rejects) pops up as a swaggering barman.

From the opening of the film the inevitable outcome is presented, yet it will withhold interest and induce multiple bursts of tears throughout.

Bill

Posted on by Charlotte_Sometimes

William Shakespeare: The Lost Years

Suffice to say, this is not another Bad Education Movie-style television to big screen disappointment of an adaptation. The team behind Horrible Histories have succeeded in translating their unique combination of historical-informed humour and slapstick. In fact Bill, along with Horrible Histories and their fantastical series Yonderland, has secured their place as natural successors to Monty Python and Blackadder.

Bill Shakespeare (Matthew Baynton) is a family man. He lives with his wife, Anne Hathaway (Martha Howe-Douglas), and their three children. Bill plays lute in a band called ‘Mortal Coil’, but after one concert where he tries to steal the spotlight he is told to ‘shuffle on’. It’s not us it’s you, they tell him. So Bill moves onto his next dream, being a playwright. As Stratford-Upon-Avon doesn’t actually have any theatres, he leaves his family to go and achieve his dream. In the process he befriends Christopher Marlowe and becomes embroiled in King Phillip II of Spain’s devious plot to murder Queen Elizabeth at a theatre production she is hosting.

The results are properly hilarious. The gag rate is so high, with most of it landing, that whilst laughing at one joke you may end up missing the next.  Of all the genres it is arguably comedy that is the hardest to do well. Aim too broad and you please no-one, aim too niche and you end up pleasing a minimal market. This irreverent biopic carefully, and to great effect, utilises modern references and a panto-esque tone to keep the audience tittering from start to finish. There are a few that are groan-worthy gags, a couple which are smirk-creating, many that are chuckle-inducing and a good handful of proper belly laughs. The team are not limited by their obligation to educate, as they were with the excellent Horrible Histories, and use that freedom to great effect. Considering we do not know what actually happened to Bill during the years between his abandoning his family in Stratford and emerging as royal playwright William Shakespeare, the events of this film are entirely plausible… well unlikely but possible.

One can only hope that situations such as Shakespeare educating Christopher Marlowe in ‘your mum’ jokes did in fact occur. If only because it leads to an immensely funny recurring gag within the film, that is seconded only by a henchman’s inability to understand the concept of a Trojan Horse. Other highlights include Helen McCory’s toothy and worn portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, some lovely throwaways about funding of the arts and a hilarious reference to ‘clunky exposition’. Baynton is excellent and rather endearing as an idealist and optimistic Shakespeare, as is Howe-Douglas as his under-appreciated wife.

Bill has a relatively taunt and witty script that has a joke for everyone. As expected the chemistry between the cast is electric, the gags reliably brilliant and the timing of them is spot-on. Well worth a watch.