It's very difficult to get me out to a movie that's about a kid coping with his mother's impending death. But apparently if you shove a giant tree monster in it, I'll go for it in a big way. It may not have escaped reader's attention that giant monster movies tend to get my attention a fair bit (if not, reread reviews of "Shin Godzilla", "Colossal" and "Kong: Skull Island"). But that's partially because giant monsters can be fantastic metaphors for all kindsa things - usually a random and chaotic power that strikes out at the world around it. In this case it's also a metaphor for anger and grief and fear of what's happening to you.
It's weird to say this about a film with, as mentioned, a giant tree monster in it, but this is a remarkably honest heartfelt film. Lewis McDougall's performance as Conor, the boy, ask for no sympathy and shows remarkable levels of naked pain, but he's never the less compelling. All of the film is seen through his viewpoint, and it's a tribute to the actor that he's as compelling as he is. Liam Neeson's voicework manages to make the monster terrifying while also wise and strangely unknowable - it takes you some time to work out if the monster is a friend or a foe. Felicity Jones as the mother starts out, perhaps, a little stragely distant - she clearly loves Conor but at the same time she doesn't seem to recognise what pain her son is in - but it becomes clearer as the film progresses that she is indeed quite aware and trying to balance her love for her son with ways to protect him from the truth. Sigourney Weaver's british accent is tentative and a little, perhaps, over-studied, but it helps with the emotional distance between her and Conor that has to be bridged.
As this film ended, I fell utter victim to its emotional spell. It's moving as hell and wildly compelling. Go see it.
Saturday 29 July 2017
Dunkirk
This is Christopher Nolan's first "straight" historical film (Prestige, of course, being somewhat historically inaccurate). It's also one of his best films - largely because it avoids a lot of the things Nolan can be iffy with (basically, dialogue and characterization) and doubles down on the sensation and immersion. The focus is pretty tight on three perspectives on the same historical event - one young man trying to escape from the beach by any means necessary, one little boat getting across the channel to try to save men from the beach, and one pilot trying to shoot down the luftwaffe that may impede the escape. All three are in asynchronous timelines - the escape from the beach covering a week, the boat covering a day, the dogfighing an hour. They're unified by Hans Zimmer's ever-present, ticking clock of a score, and by links that become increasingly less subtle as the film moves on.
Only the middle of these really resembles a conventional telling of this kinda story - the slow boat across the sea allows time for dialogue (it's also, incidentally, basically a version of the plot of the film-within-"Their Finest" from earlier in the year). It's here where there are a couple of too-on-the-nose conversations, with Mark Rylance being the one largely in charge of delivering them (and I do wish film-makers would find a way to use Rylance's flair for comedy - he seems continuously morose on film, and if I hadn't seen him on stage I'd never know he has comic verve and unstoppable energy). But much of the film is on the epic immersive track that reminds me most of "Gravity" from about 5 years ago - like "Gravity", it will probably lose most of its power once it moves to DVD and streaming TV, but in the cinema, it's a compelling experience. As pure sensation, this is astounding. As storytelling, something less.
Only the middle of these really resembles a conventional telling of this kinda story - the slow boat across the sea allows time for dialogue (it's also, incidentally, basically a version of the plot of the film-within-"Their Finest" from earlier in the year). It's here where there are a couple of too-on-the-nose conversations, with Mark Rylance being the one largely in charge of delivering them (and I do wish film-makers would find a way to use Rylance's flair for comedy - he seems continuously morose on film, and if I hadn't seen him on stage I'd never know he has comic verve and unstoppable energy). But much of the film is on the epic immersive track that reminds me most of "Gravity" from about 5 years ago - like "Gravity", it will probably lose most of its power once it moves to DVD and streaming TV, but in the cinema, it's a compelling experience. As pure sensation, this is astounding. As storytelling, something less.
Sunday 23 July 2017
It Comes At Night
Independent horror is undergoing a revival at the moment - with more attention paid to script and mood and less to flashy goriness. This can inevitably disappoint those who are looking for a little more flash in their movie, and, indeed, I've heard many of these kinds of films described as "not really horror"by those who were really looking for a bit more bite in their movie. Such people are probably going to be a bit frustrated by "It Comes At Night", and to be honest, I kinda was a little too.
My individual critical whatsit tends to ping that "It Comes at Night" leans far enough over to the "subtle" end of the spectrum that it comes perilously close to not having anything to offer at all. Which is not entirely fair - there is a reasonable amount of tension in this story of a small family, retreating from an infected outside world that appears dangerous and threatening, who encounter another trio when the father of the second family knocks on their door, and about the delicate state of trust that they try to survive with. But there's nothing spectacularly new here - certainly, the acting, led by Joel Edgerton and a cast of virtual unknowns, is fine - but there isn't quite enough substance here to make this more than a reasonable execution of a very familiar premise.
My individual critical whatsit tends to ping that "It Comes at Night" leans far enough over to the "subtle" end of the spectrum that it comes perilously close to not having anything to offer at all. Which is not entirely fair - there is a reasonable amount of tension in this story of a small family, retreating from an infected outside world that appears dangerous and threatening, who encounter another trio when the father of the second family knocks on their door, and about the delicate state of trust that they try to survive with. But there's nothing spectacularly new here - certainly, the acting, led by Joel Edgerton and a cast of virtual unknowns, is fine - but there isn't quite enough substance here to make this more than a reasonable execution of a very familiar premise.
Friday 21 July 2017
Baby Driver
I really like the idea of Edgar Wright. As a human being, he seems really interesting. And I've never utterly hated his film,even this one. But there is a risk with someone who's as much a film-fanboy as Wright obviously is, that their work can become more about other films rather than something that actually expresses anything about the real world. And unfortunately, "Baby Driver" has that problem.
It's not that it's incompetently done. There's a smoothness to the action sequences, the various characters are strongly expressed, and when it comes to editing to music, Wright is a master. But there's a certain feeling that this is an exercise, a "what a good carchase movie should be like" rather than something Wright is actually passionate about. It may come down to the protagonist and his girlfriend, the romantic relationship that is meant to justify and resolve a lot of the action, feels a little thin - it's obligatory while things like the action and the various criminal nemeses are gloried in. This is the first film that Wright has written solo and ... it does miss that little bit of heart and soul to the whole enterprise. It's professionally done, capable work... but it's not breakthrough fantastic stuff that really sticks to me afterwards and makes me eager to rewatch the whole thing. There are certainly sequences that will stick with me, but ... the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
It's not that it's incompetently done. There's a smoothness to the action sequences, the various characters are strongly expressed, and when it comes to editing to music, Wright is a master. But there's a certain feeling that this is an exercise, a "what a good carchase movie should be like" rather than something Wright is actually passionate about. It may come down to the protagonist and his girlfriend, the romantic relationship that is meant to justify and resolve a lot of the action, feels a little thin - it's obligatory while things like the action and the various criminal nemeses are gloried in. This is the first film that Wright has written solo and ... it does miss that little bit of heart and soul to the whole enterprise. It's professionally done, capable work... but it's not breakthrough fantastic stuff that really sticks to me afterwards and makes me eager to rewatch the whole thing. There are certainly sequences that will stick with me, but ... the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
The Beguiled
Sophia Coppola's first remake, and also her first film with an actual plot rather than a succession of moods, "The Beguiled" brings a lone soldier into a house full of isolated women and girls. Coppola can do moody shots for days (the southern mansion where most of the action takes place is quite gorgeous, and always shot through a summery mist) but I'll admit the buildup doesn't always keep my attention - Colin Farrell perhaps strikes me more as the only port in a storm rather than necessarily a figure who inspires instantaneous lust (even with his Irish accent intact). Still, once the rubber hits the road and a succession of events see hostilities emerge, there's an intriguing story going on here of masculine and feminine power. Nicole Kidman brings her usual chilly professionalism as the head of the school, Kirsten Dunst is in good form as the somewhat repressed assistant and Elle Fanning gives a good line in seductive naivete. Oona Lawrence as the young girl who finds the wounded solider also is appealingly direct, both when open hearted at the beginning and later when her intentions change.
This is probably not top-ten material for me (Coppola's love of beauty shots hang a little too heavily over actually-moving-the-plot-forward) but it's an engrossing enough film to keep me involved.
This is probably not top-ten material for me (Coppola's love of beauty shots hang a little too heavily over actually-moving-the-plot-forward) but it's an engrossing enough film to keep me involved.
Saturday 15 July 2017
Spiderman: Homecoming
For the hardcore Marvel nerds, it can be annoying to have to explain the complicated nature of movie rights and comic universes to the uninitiated. No, those X-men movies have nothing to do with the Avengers movies. And neither, up until now, did the Spiderman movies. Yes, they all featured a Marvel logo (but not a Marvel-Studios logo), but up until now they weren't built to tie into a wider universe and production style.
Part of the power of the Marvel Studios model is the consistency - for critics of them, they can and do argue that it leads to blandness or predictability, but I've never particularly found that to be the case. Yes, there is the argument that chunks of each film ends up acting as trailers for future films rather than getting an internally consistent narrative, but by now the model is sixteen movies deep. If you like 'em, you'll keep coming. If you don't, you can most definitely not argue you have not been sufficiently prepared.
The major joy of doing the connected universe is that directors will look harder for where the points of differentiation for their movie is compared to the rest. And in the case of "Spiderman", they double down on the previously-quickly-glossed-over teenage elements of the character (the Tobey Maguire films graduated him from highschool midway through the first film, Andrew Garfield early in the second, and in neither case did the characters spend a lot of time near a wider peer group). Giving Peter Parker his own bit of the world to work in - a neighbourhood, a range of school friends and rivals, something away from the usual high-powered business and miltary elements that make up the background of most of the earth-bound Marvel films means that you get a looser, more personal kinda story that is still quite capable of escalating when the action takes place. And because the stakes are not "the entire planet will be destroyed" (or, as Marvel has progressed into space, the entire universe), they're forced to find more personal stakes with villians who actually have vaguely realistic goals and schemes.
A lot of the strengths are with the performers. Tom Holland has pure joyous youth in abundance, wide eyed, impressionable, maybe a little out of his depth but determined to do the right thing regardless. Michael Keaton may be the best of the Marvel bad guys, with a scheme that takes advantage of him being slightly under-the-radar of the bigger guns. And it's a testement to the power of the film that one of the best scenes in the film is a simple dialogue scene in a car between the two of them - no costumes, no effects, just performances and writing. Of course it also brings the spectacle in major action set-pieces set at the Washington Monument, Staten Island Ferry and on a plane, but the point of these is that we are invested in the people who are doing the big flashy thing. Too many blockbusters seem to throw actors bodily at large objects without ever giving them anything human to play.
The main cross-universe element is Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark, who is in a weird point at the moment where the universe has sorta already thorougly established in two previous films that his weakness is a tendency to dabble in the world without thinking through the consequences, and yet again he's a bit of a dilettante in the life of Peter Parker, not very engaged and not very aware of the consequences of calling this kid in. It's clear that a price is going to have to be paid, but the delay in paying this price is a little bit of a case of "WHen are we going to get to the fireworks factory" (which Marvel already has a little bit of in the case of Thanos). Fortunately, hopefully both will pay off next year in Infinity Wars, one way or another.
This is a thoroughly delightful film otherwise, with solid characters, adventurous action and even a little bit of more-subtly-played-than usual heroics. Maybe because they're not trying to make another world-conquering superhero, they're able to make just an interestingly human one instead. And that's wonderfully fine with me.
Part of the power of the Marvel Studios model is the consistency - for critics of them, they can and do argue that it leads to blandness or predictability, but I've never particularly found that to be the case. Yes, there is the argument that chunks of each film ends up acting as trailers for future films rather than getting an internally consistent narrative, but by now the model is sixteen movies deep. If you like 'em, you'll keep coming. If you don't, you can most definitely not argue you have not been sufficiently prepared.
The major joy of doing the connected universe is that directors will look harder for where the points of differentiation for their movie is compared to the rest. And in the case of "Spiderman", they double down on the previously-quickly-glossed-over teenage elements of the character (the Tobey Maguire films graduated him from highschool midway through the first film, Andrew Garfield early in the second, and in neither case did the characters spend a lot of time near a wider peer group). Giving Peter Parker his own bit of the world to work in - a neighbourhood, a range of school friends and rivals, something away from the usual high-powered business and miltary elements that make up the background of most of the earth-bound Marvel films means that you get a looser, more personal kinda story that is still quite capable of escalating when the action takes place. And because the stakes are not "the entire planet will be destroyed" (or, as Marvel has progressed into space, the entire universe), they're forced to find more personal stakes with villians who actually have vaguely realistic goals and schemes.
A lot of the strengths are with the performers. Tom Holland has pure joyous youth in abundance, wide eyed, impressionable, maybe a little out of his depth but determined to do the right thing regardless. Michael Keaton may be the best of the Marvel bad guys, with a scheme that takes advantage of him being slightly under-the-radar of the bigger guns. And it's a testement to the power of the film that one of the best scenes in the film is a simple dialogue scene in a car between the two of them - no costumes, no effects, just performances and writing. Of course it also brings the spectacle in major action set-pieces set at the Washington Monument, Staten Island Ferry and on a plane, but the point of these is that we are invested in the people who are doing the big flashy thing. Too many blockbusters seem to throw actors bodily at large objects without ever giving them anything human to play.
The main cross-universe element is Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark, who is in a weird point at the moment where the universe has sorta already thorougly established in two previous films that his weakness is a tendency to dabble in the world without thinking through the consequences, and yet again he's a bit of a dilettante in the life of Peter Parker, not very engaged and not very aware of the consequences of calling this kid in. It's clear that a price is going to have to be paid, but the delay in paying this price is a little bit of a case of "WHen are we going to get to the fireworks factory" (which Marvel already has a little bit of in the case of Thanos). Fortunately, hopefully both will pay off next year in Infinity Wars, one way or another.
This is a thoroughly delightful film otherwise, with solid characters, adventurous action and even a little bit of more-subtly-played-than usual heroics. Maybe because they're not trying to make another world-conquering superhero, they're able to make just an interestingly human one instead. And that's wonderfully fine with me.
Thursday 13 July 2017
Lady Macbeth
Based on the Russian novel "Lady Macbeth of the Matensk District" (not the Scottish Play), this moves the action back from the novel's Russia to 19th century rural England, where a young woman, married into a fairly hideous marriage in a rather un-grand property, finds herself left alone by her husband and starts to seize her own power as she falls into an affair with a stablehand. Of course when her husband and father-in-law return, she doesn't want to give up her new-found autonomy, and the results are, as the title suggests, rather lethal.
This is deliberately minimalist stuff (there's virtually no score until the final scene), and scenes are played starkly, somewhat like Thomas Hardy if the oppressed characters suddenly took brutal control of their own fate. The main attraction is Florence Pugh, who is extraordinary in the lead role - she's fierce and brutal and thoroughly determined to seize what she can out of the situation and not let go.
This is the kinda thing that is right up my alley, a short-sharp-shock to the usual frou-frou of period movies, with a mordantly dark heart.
This is deliberately minimalist stuff (there's virtually no score until the final scene), and scenes are played starkly, somewhat like Thomas Hardy if the oppressed characters suddenly took brutal control of their own fate. The main attraction is Florence Pugh, who is extraordinary in the lead role - she's fierce and brutal and thoroughly determined to seize what she can out of the situation and not let go.
This is the kinda thing that is right up my alley, a short-sharp-shock to the usual frou-frou of period movies, with a mordantly dark heart.
Saturday 1 July 2017
Una
Una is a messy story told tidily - which is to say, slightly bloodlessly. It's controversial material, certainly - the story of a woman who re-encounters the man who, when she was 13, seduced and then abandoned her - and the confrontation between him, post-prison reintegrating his life and her, still damaged by what happened so many years ago. And the casting is spot-on - Ben Mendehlson adds to his considerable recent repertoire of creeps, albiet here a somewhat shameful creep, and Rooney Mara has intensity to burn as the raw-nerved Una.
But in the end, Benedict Andrews' direction and David Harrower's script are both just that little bit too bloodless. Locations feel that little bit too clean and polite (up until the moment when they are symbolically messed up), and the encounter never quite cuts as deep as it feels like it should. Harrower's script wants to play our sympathies on a knife end between the two of them, as that makes for good dramatic suspense, but ... that leads to a script that never quite has convictions or drive, more a tendency to talk around than get deep inside the feelings and characters. It feels too much like a story, something constructed, an excercise, rather than something strongly and brutally pulled from the soul. And with material this close to the edge, playing it academic is playing it safe and, ultimately, you're left with a film that feels bloodless.
But in the end, Benedict Andrews' direction and David Harrower's script are both just that little bit too bloodless. Locations feel that little bit too clean and polite (up until the moment when they are symbolically messed up), and the encounter never quite cuts as deep as it feels like it should. Harrower's script wants to play our sympathies on a knife end between the two of them, as that makes for good dramatic suspense, but ... that leads to a script that never quite has convictions or drive, more a tendency to talk around than get deep inside the feelings and characters. It feels too much like a story, something constructed, an excercise, rather than something strongly and brutally pulled from the soul. And with material this close to the edge, playing it academic is playing it safe and, ultimately, you're left with a film that feels bloodless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)