Review: The Homesman (2014)

Posted on August 11, 2015 by Sam S-P

homesman2

Tommy Lee Jones’ return to feature directing nine years after THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA doesn’t quite strike the same perfect balance of tone, characterisation and slow-burning story, but it does reaffirm Jones’ mercurial eye for detail and reemphasise  his interesting take on the dark corners of the human mind and soul.

When independent and sharp-witted frontierswoman Mary Bee Cuddy (Hilary Swank) volunteers to transport three deeply disturbed women to a far away pious community for the sake of their immortal souls, the only company offered is down-on-his luck lowlife George Briggs (Tommy Lee Jones) and even he only joins her for the promise of a reward. How will their journey change this unlikely pair of travelers, and what will they find at its end?

After a strong start THE HOMESMAN is perhaps a little over-reliant on easy stereotyping for the sake of fluid storytelling. I didn’t really like that Mary Bee’s human cargo are neatly pigeon-holed stereotypes of madness. One just stares into the middle distance, one clutches on to a doll and rocks, the other foams at the mouth and lashes out like a feral animal. It’s all just a bit convenient. Aside from this the characters are all pretty well-drawn, and everyone (especially Swank) perform their parts superbly.

Jones’ representation of the harshness of life on the American Frontier is harrowing. And yet, we are given moments of both gentle humour and very black, almost Coen-y comedy – from George staggering out of his blasted hovel blackened by soot in his long-johns to Mary Bee’s increasingly desperate attempts to woo every man put off by her independence and “plainness” – to break up the bleakness and stop it all feeling too oppressive. The humour of Mary Bee’s rejected proposition always has a darker side, as no matter how intellectually free she is, she could never truly achieve the lifestyle or social status she desired lacking a husband in that time.

It’s likely a testament to the high regard Jones is held in amongst his fellows that he has convinced so many big names to come on board for what are essentially glorified cameos. Tim Blake Nelson as a scruffy scoundrel who has an entertainingly clumsy scuffle with Jones; John Lithgow as a kindly priest; James Spader as a slimy hotelier (with atrocious Irish accent); Meryl Streep as a kindly pastor’s wife. None of them really add a whole lot to the wider story, but they do contribute interesting background shades to film canvas as a whole.

From being pretty grounded and compelling to begin with, the film does become the Tommy Lee Jones show towards the end, with the actor-director providing himself with ample opportunity to prove he can still handle himself and dole out some good old-fashioned revenge. To begin with his character is quite a pathetic example of a man, like a mangy pitiable dog, but he seems to regain his composure and Jones’ usual gait a little too quickly for my money. It’s still the best performance he’s given in a while, and the constantly shifting dynamics of the relationship between George and Miss Cuddy keeps the film involving and very watchable.

It’s a feminist old yarn directed and co-written by a craggy old macho Texan, which might seem an odd formula. While it’s a liberating tale to an extent, it doesn’t shy from the hopelessness of this group of women’s situation, and doesn’t try and tack on an unbelievable resolution either. Jones and his writers know that then as well as now, much work is to be done before we reach true gender equality. He uses humour to hammer his points home, asking us, isn’t it ridiculous how scared Mary Bee’s suitors get when they realise how driven and more intelligent than them she is? George is the only man in the film who considers her an equal, not turning down her offer of marriage because she won’t be an obedient wife, rather just because she is plain-looking. George is a simple man who says it how it is, and is seemingly without prejudice, though that doesn’t make him a nice guy.

The Homesman is a Western that isn’t even really a Western. It’s a stark human drama with a strong voice that just happens to be set on the American Frontier. You don’t begrudge Jones for using a few run-of-the-mill tropes when his film reaches such distinctive heights elsewhere. Just don’t leave it another decade before you direct again, eh Tommy? SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Fantastic Four (2015)

Posted on August 9, 2015 by Sam S-P

ff

“A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would have received great reviews. You’ll probably never see it. That’s reality though.”

– Josh Trank, 6 August 2015

The above was posted by FANTASTIC FOUR director Josh Trank on his Twitter page following the torrent of damning reviews of his follow-up to CHRONICLE three days ago. It was then hastily deleted. This along with horror stories of Trank being locked out of his own editing room adds credence to the theory that 20th Century Fox leaned on Trank and sabotaged the young director’s chances of making the film that he wanted to. We may never know why. Whatever actually occurred behind-the-scenes, the fact remains that Fantastic Four as a final product does not work at all, and sadly it is this movie I must review rather than a hypothetically much better one.

Reed Richards (Miles Teller) has been working on a breakthrough in human teleportation since he was a boy, and is given the chance to realise his dream when Dr Franklin Storm (Reg E Cathey) offers him a scholarship and a team of like-minded young geniuses to work with. Reed, along with childhood friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), Dr Storm’s children Sue and Johnny (Kate Mara and Michael B Jordan) and the only man who might be more brilliant than him, Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) successfully travel to another dimension, but a disastrous attempt to return to their world has unexpected and damaging consequences.

For the first 30 minutes or so, I was with the film. It builds the characters and their motivations well enough, establishing Reed and Ben’s unbreakable bond and shared dreams; the Storm family’s dysfunctionality; and Victor’s disdain for anyone less intelligent than him, which is pretty much everyone. There is a workable rationale for why scientists would want to transport themselves to another dimension and why the Four develop the specific powers they do, though I’m not sure about the Cronenberg-y body horror with this material. Then something breaks.

The second half of the film has nothing. No character, no plot, no emotion, no coherence, no value whatsoever. Whatever Trank intended his film to become, it has been completely and utterly gutted. Entire sequences are missing and the resulting mess is utterly incomprehensible. We leap from the accident to the Four being used as military assets to the default sci-fi-disaster final act without pausing for breath. There’s no contemplation, no room for the actors to experience or convey all this physical and emotional turmoil, unless you count Miles Teller pulling the odd pained expression or mo-capped Jamie Bell doing sad eyes. There was clearly once much more connective tissue, something to make these characters and their actions make sense, but not anymore.

The casting is probably about as good as it could be if you’re committed to the Four and Doom being young adults. I’m still convinced that Mr Fantastic should always be middle-aged, the group’s father figure, and Teller is fine in the role, but is often stuck on exposition duty. Michael B Jordan being one of the most charismatic young actors of his generation playing arguably the most confident superhero of them all is well-cast, as is Bell in his human form playing another poor kid from a rough neighbourhood. Mara sadly has far too little to do throughout, and the usually-excellent Kebbell is essentially just a special effect for the final act, and not a particularly good one at that.

A story dealing with parallel dimensions opens up infinite conceptual and visual possibilities. The dimension our heroes travel to could look like anything, operate with any kind of physical laws. Josh Trank – and this is a criticism I will lay at his feet rather than the studio’s – went for a rocky planet with a few glowy bits. It’s the lowest possible rung on the imagination ladder, especially in a story aiming to explore scientific concepts so complex and far-reaching. Trank doesn’t even shake things up visually when Doom takes over his new domain in earnest. This could have been Doom remoulding an entire planet in his own image, but Trank thought just making a few rocks float and muting the background colour was enough.

Josh Trank has proven he can be an imaginative young filmmaker. Some directors would kill to have such a successful and distinct debut as Chronicle, and I’m not prepared to write him off after a single misstep. I wouldn’t bank on him working with a big film studio again for a while though, and hopefully he’ll rediscover his creative drive back in the independent film circuit. And as for Fox? Well they won’t be making another of these, and I doubt they care all that much if the rights head back home to Marvel as long as they can still milk the X-MEN for all they’re worth. Since it’s so stylistically unremarkable and butchered in the edit, all this latest take on Marvel’s First Family will be remembered for is as a mark of a film studio’s hubris. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Review: Focus (2015)

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Sam S-P

HT_focus_smith_robbie_jef_150226_16x9_992

FOCUS annoys me for the same reason that Steven Soderbergh’s OCEAN’S ELEVEN did. I can appreciate that they’re good-looking, reasonably well-acted movies, but they’re just so darn smug about it, think they’re far cleverer that they actually are, and for everything they get right they still make very basic filmmaking errors.

Con man extraordinaire Nicky (Will Smith) takes small-time lifter Jess (Margot Robbie) under his wing and nurtures her considerable skills to allow her to tackle more lucrative targets. But greater reward also comes far greater risk, and Nicky’s latest score might spell more than just some jail time for himself and his sticky-fingered protégé…

Yes, Smith and Robbie have decent chemistry. No, we did not need the 70s porno music accompaniment to their first sex scene. At least Robbie has enough self-awareness to point out when she’s being mistreated though (“Hi, I’m right here!” When one of Nicky’s crew is talking lecherously about her). Robbie is good in general and Jess gets more far more colour as a character as the balance in her relationship with Nicky shifts. Smith, on the other hand, rarely has to disengage autopilot, and when he does show a flicker of emotion it’s usually misjudged or unconvincing. He’s got to the stage in his career that he can’t just get by on having the incredible luck to be born Will Smith – in this film he even has the gall to utter the line “it’s one of the many wonderful things about being me”. Nicky’s team of dubious associates, including Brennan Brown as a dry-witted fence, are fun. Also fun is BD Wong as a nefarious imp of a high-stakes gambler, and Gerald McRaney outclasses the rest of the cast as an enigmatic enforcer.

Date rape jokes should never be OK, in fact let’s cross rape off the whole comic riff menu. Making a Middle Eastern racial slur (based on documented cases legal or not) doesn’t make it any more justified. To be brutally honest, writer-directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa rarely make a joke in good taste, which wouldn’t be as insulting if they were funnier or wittier, but as they are they just come across as needlessly offensive.

Jess’s character motivation is an easy way out. It’s designed expressly to make stealing OK, and it’s justified as, what else could I do? I’m a dyslexic from a low social class! As aspirations go it’s completely and utterly defeatist, morally it’s overly black-and-white and intellectually it’s patronising. At least have the guts to make your thief steal because she likes it! You might end up with a more memorable and nuanced character then.

The most satisfying scenes are from pretty near the beginning of the film, with Smith and his associates giving Robbie a crash-course in diversionary tactics used by pickpockets, and while they’re not original or particularly creative, they have a nice rhythm and there’s a good crackle between the actors. There’s also a good lead-up to a key moment later on where we see a hit-man taking some amusing health-and-safety precautions for the job ahead.

The worst crime a film claiming to be clever can commit is exhibit extreme stupidity, and one of the key set-pieces in Focus is monumentally stupid. It involves Nicky fixing a bet at a football game in a way that would only work if everyone was in on the fix, and clearly Nicky’s opponent would not play into his hand as he does, even with their near-supernatural explanation for why he does so. It just defies all logic.

Focus isn’t particularly worth your time. Technical competence, the odd amusing diversion and Margot Robbie’s natural movie-star charisma can’t make up for lazy and tasteless writing, a lack of imagination and Will Smith just turning up for the pay cheque. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Review: Inside Out (2015)

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Sam S-P

InsideOut556500e6a2be0-2040.0

INSIDE OUT could be Pixar’s most satisfying ever effort for parents to enjoy alongside their children. For all the vivid colours and goofy characters, we’re also presented with a mini psychoanalytic thesis and big real-world issues that have formidable dramatic heft.

Eleven year-old Riley’s (Kaitlyn Dias) comfortable existence is rocked when her parents decide to uproot and move from Minnesota to California. As her familiar life collapses around her and she struggles to cope with all the changes, inside her head Riley’s Emotions embark on a quest to keep Riley Riley. 

Pete Doctor has always been a great ideas man and a tuned-in satirist. Some of the concepts he and his team of screenwriters have come up with are genius – not only do they set up punchlines, but also add depth to this world of imagination. Take Riley’s Studio Ghibli-esque hovering islands of personality, or the Emotions hitching a ride on the Train of Thought to get back home. On this journey they accidentally mix up boxes of opinions and facts (“Don’t worry, it happens all the time!”); point out déjà vu as a landmark multiple times; and pass by memory workmen busy clearing Riley’s head for new information (“she doesn’t need all these numbers, they’re in her phone!”, “Presidents? Just keep Washington, Lincoln and the fat one!”).

Another of Pixar’s old hands making a return is maestro composer Michael Giacchino. Giacchino has produced some beautiful music before, and his soundtracks always enrich a story, but Inside Out is among his finest scores. It’s somehow intimate and epic, and pretty much sums up the whole film as such.

As always with Pixar films, the gags aimed at the parents are a strange and random mixture, from jokes about psychoanalysis and major art movements to a completely out-of-the-blue CHINATOWN riff. I also imagine couples will get a kick out of seeing the full version of the dinner table scene that featured in the film’s first trailer, where we get to see Mom and Dad’s (Diane Lane and Kyle MacLachlan) emotional workings as they’re trying and failing disastrously to connect with Riley.

The film’s solutions to plot problems are as ingenious and creative as the are surreal. There’s a scene set in a film studio that manufactures dreams that feels (appropriately given Doctor’s involvement) very MONSTERS, INC with all its bored-looking workers doing extraordinary things on autopilot. At one point, to cross a ravine an Emotion uses a ladder made from Riley’s imaginary boyfriends. Pixar have done two mismatched friends on a journey before, but rarely have they had to think this hard to navigate such a complex and bizarre world that runs on its own unique logic, and keep the characters and their motivations consistent within it at the same time.

I see Inside Out as the natural, more sophisticated successor to SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS. Disney’s eponymous diminutive miners had one dimension only, namely whatever emotional state their name was derived from (to this day I still don’t understand why Doc isn’t Brainy). The Emotions in Inside Out have dominant traits, but are all three-dimensional characters with full personalities as well, and the flawless voice performances (notably Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith) reinforce what is among the most expressive character animation I’ve ever seen. Another reason why the Seven Dwarfs themselves were merely serviceable rather than great characters was they only had the personality and aspiration dead-end that was Snow White to interact with. The Emotions in Inside Out are fighting to keep Riley, a pre-teen that feels so real you could bump into her in the street, the best version of her herself she can possibly be.

I loved the idea that life begins with the purest emotion of all – joy, but as life is life sooner or later we have to give way to a certain amount of sadness. Sadness isn’t always a bad thing, however, and doesn’t last forever. Riley eventually finds a comfortable bittersweet existence by the close of the film, and that’s ultimately what we as people are aiming for. Inside Out is a beautiful film about achieving emotional harmony that manages to be warm and humorous while also providing enough food for thought to sustain even the most hardened and cynical adult. That’s the only kind of person I can see finding real flaws with Pixar’s latest – those who are unwilling to give in to humanity’s inherent emotionality. Life isn’t perfect, but neither are people. All you can hope for is to level out at some stage and find a balance between joy, fear, disgust, anger, and sadness. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Review: It Follows (2014/15)

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Sam S-P

It_Follows_review_-_CANNES_article_story_large

After THE BABADOOK, IT FOLLOWS is the second critical darling horror movie in a year where the premise is far scarier than the final execution. This is pretty frustrating as it feels like another near-miss, but at the same time I feel that It Follows has quite a bit more going for it that its Australian cousin.

Following her first significant sexual encounter, Jay (Maika Monroe) finds her quiet suburban teenage life invaded by an unstoppable something that wants her dead. Her pursuer moves slowly, but It is relentless and can look like anyone. As it becomes increasingly clear that she will never find peace, what lengths will Jay go to in order to exorcise her curse?

It Follows is one of the best-looking films of recent years, horror or otherwise. The pristine, relentless steadicam work, tracking shots, and wide, open vistas throughout support well the themes and plot of the film. Because everything is open, you find yourself constantly scanning the background for It. You’re often consumed by the same paranoia as Jay, constantly on the alert for the next time It appears. I’m quite frankly amazed writer-director David Robert Mitchell has only been at the helm of one other feature before this as his confidence in style and certainty of aesthetic makes the film feel like it is the work of a far more seasoned craftsman.

Rich Vreeland’s score heightens the sinister atmosphere perfectly, sounding chillingly like the musical lovechild of John Carpenter and Vangelis and keeping you constantly on edge.

Performance-wise, Maika Monroe reaffirms her position as one of the most rounded and likeable leading ladies in recent years. Much like with her turn in THE GUEST, Monroe as Jay embraces horror tropes to a point, but feels like a real, normal young woman and reacts as one probably would do to her terrifying predicament. She tells her closest friends about her pursuer almost immediately, and rather than dismiss her until they themselves are knocked off as might happen in the average slasher, they trust Jay and help her as best they can.

Jay’s hipster stereotype of a friend Yara (Olivia Luccardi) annoyed me incessantly, serving no purpose but to read choice prose at thematically convenient moments from her stupid ever-present clamshell Kindle. She represents a forced quirkiness that makes JUNO look subtle in comparison.The rest of the characters work well enough for what they actually have to do in the plot, though perhaps cling a bit closely to conventional horror archetypes.

I liked that it’s left pretty ambiguous what It is beyond a malevolent force. We know how It works, that It hunts the most recent victim of carnal desire, before working its way back along the chain until none remain. We know previous carriers can still see It (a concept that could be made more of), but the force is only concerned with the single, most recent victim. We also have an idea of the things It represents – lust, guilt, STDs, commitment to a sexual relationship too soon. What we don’t know is why It chooses the forms it does, when they change and why, which makes what I think was meant to be a ground-shaking twist later on in the film a little muddy.

After a pretty solid first hour, the film certainly loses something in the final act. The tension mostly leaves the story and it feels like it’s going for a big finish before just petering out. It all becomes a bit SCOOBY DOO as Jay and her clique plan to set a trap for It, and their final confrontation is disappointing. A story like this can’t be tied up with a bow, and the loosely resolved state of the plot works in the end, but you still want an extra punch from somewhere. I would still recommend It Follows as a creepy, if not outright scary, horror with solid performances, well supported by high-impact direction and music. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

My First Comic Con: Manchester, July 2015

Posted on July 28, 2015 by Sam S-P

11742849_10153503851167430_4704998470709478136_n (Sadly I’m the slightly disappointing Star-Lord, not the awesome Ant-Man)

This weekend I attended my first ever Comic Con. Thinking that the main event in San Diego might be a little much for a convention virgin, I and a group of friends plumped for a more modest affair – Manchester. Following my weekend, I believe this may be the start of a beautiful friendship.

What first struck me when I walked through the doors of the Manchester Central expo was just how accepting and full of life the event was. There were no judgements here, only compliments, encouragement, and happiness. Our group’s takes on Star-Lord, Thor, The Punisher and Quicksilver were fine, but Great Scott, were there some creative people in that hall! There were countless takes on Jokers and Harley Quinns, Batmen and Spider-Men; WARHAMMER Space Marines that inspired envy in all who beheld them and ditto Garrus from MASS EFFECT, plus loads of people dressed as brightly-coloured characters from various anime series which completely went over my head. There were also a lot of people in civilian dress, but they were having just as much fun. Everyone was having the time of their lives mingling with their fellow fans, strutting their stuff or buying some really cool stuff.

The other great thing (that I didn’t wholly expect) was how much of a family affair convention-going can be. Couples and single parents alike brought their children along and the whole family had a great time, particularly the dad dressed as Wreck-It Ralph with his daughter as Vanellope. One dad asked me to pose with his son who was a very convincing Rocket Raccoon, which was lovely.

I’ve always been obsessed by films, have an occasional intense interest in a particular TV show, comic or video game. Anime and manga has mostly passed me by, but in this kind of arena it doesn’t really matter – there are just as many who like superheroes but not Japanese animation as vise versa. Everyone can find their place at a Comic Con if you love something passionately enough, and of course no-one can love everything. No-one can even have a passing interest in everything.

I didn’t really get in on meeting the Con’s famous special guests, but I walked, posed, photographed, and boy, did I shop. I was particularly pleased with my purchase from the autographed photos stall, a certain character image from my all-time favourite superhero movie signed by Alan Cumming.

I’m sure every attendee took some very special memories away from the Con, as well as bags fit to burst with geek memorabilia and a mountain of photos that hopefully don’t show the sweat patches too much. My personal favourite moment was watching a friend posing as Thor with a Deadpool acting very Deadpool right behind him.

Next year San Diego? Maybe it’s a little soon. London? Very possibly. We’d better start getting our costumes together. SSP

Posted in Film, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Need to Talk About Disney

Posted on July 23, 2015 by Sam S-P

Merlin-wearing-pink-shorts-in-the-Sword-and-the-Stone

Indulge me if you will to have a bit of a rant. Walt Disney Studios is flying higher perhaps than ever before, owning as it does the box office bulkheads Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar. Needless to say Disney’s acquisition of these three pillars of imagination allows for a near-monopoly on cinematic entertainment over blockbuster season. They are the modern film studio.

The pool of creativity Disney has access to is truly enviable, and they can do more or less anything. So why, in the name of good old Uncle Walt, are they so fixated with remaking their animated back catalogue – all still perfectly satisfying as they are – in live action?

We’ve already been subjected to THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE, which had HARRY POTTER aspirations but padded a short to within an inch of its life; MALEFICENT, which featured several moments that were staggeringly inappropriate for children but also unashamedly featured a shot-for-shot redo of the most famous sequence in SLEEPING BEAUTY. Last year saw the release of CINDERELLA, still to come we have BEAUTY AND THE BEAST; THE JUNGLE BOOK; MULAN; PINOCCHIO and the just-announced THE SWORD IN THE STONE.

So Disney have had a few knockbacks. More-or-less every big project not drawn from in-house, safe-bet material has been considered a flop by Disney bigwigs. The real failures of TRON: LEGACY, JOHN CARTER, THE LONE RANGER and TOMORROWLAND may have been exaggerated (at least they all took risks) but for Disney anything less than a mega-hit just wasn’t good enough. Is this really reason enough to give up and fall back on extravagant remake after extravagant remake?

Even putting aside the monotony of this particular production cycle, the quite frankly depressing lack of new ideas (even sequels require some innovation, remakes not so much), for me the most worrying thing about Disney’s current creative preoccupation is that it diminishes, even dismisses, the films and immensely talented artists behind them that built the company from the ground up. It almost seems to say “cartoons are OK, but imagine how good it would be if it is real?”. Animation is not a lesser form of artistic expression, and it never will be. All filmmaking is a simulation of reality, and live action has no more claim to truly representing the world we live in than animation does.

Perhaps this latest production announcement particularly rankles with me because Disney are remaking my personal favourite of their back catalogue. The Sword in the Stone is the perfect Disney cartoon in my opinion, balancing warmth, humour and limitless imagination and bringing the complete package to us in an unfussy, endearingly scruffy and free animation style. It’s simply magic, and holds a very special place in my heart. Disney can’t make it better, and certainly not by simply putting flesh-and-blood actors on the screen.

Disney are in danger of becoming a bloated, self-obsessed yet self-hating, and above all an irrelevant force in the movie business. Even if their risks in the past haven’t quite paid off, you might as well aim high and stay brave when you have THE AVENGERS, STAR WARS and every wonderful thing Pixar dream up to soak up any shortfall. In those terms, where is the risk? SSP

Posted in Film, Film Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Review: Ant-Man (2015)

Posted on July 19, 2015 by Sam S-P

ant-man-costume

I’d have never guessed that the Marvel movie of 2015 I preferred was the apparent gamble that is ANT-MAN rather than the seemingly sure thing that was AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON. It just goes to show how bang-on Yoda was in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK with his disgruntled query “Judge me by my size, do you?”

Convicted cat burglar Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) struggles to gain work after his latest spell in prison, and finds himself increasingly shut out of the life of his young daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Fortson) until he proves he has truly changed his ways. His chance comes from an unexpected source – shutaway genius Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) – who asks Scott to help him pull off a dangerous heist for the betterment of humanity, a heist that requires Scott to use a very unusual suit…

There’s a good number of critics out there (and probably a fair few audience members as well) who are developing a certain lethargy for filmed comic book adaptations. I guess it’s understandable, as superhero movies have been the dominant summer blockbuster genre for around fifteen years now. This is by no means a modern phenomenon in the Movie Business. Westerns were all-consuming in the 50s, disaster movies in the 70s, horror in the 80s – Hollywood has always moved in trends. If we are to see a superhero movie monopoly for the rest of this decade and beyond, each example has to be very different from the last. Keeping these formulas fresh is Marvel’s specialty – they’ve done superhero deconstruction (IRON MAN 3);  superhero conspiracy thriller (CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER); and now a superhero heist movie with Ant-Man. It’s not Marvel/Disney I’m worried about, but DC/Warner Bros (grim and operatic becomes monotonous fast).

When did Paul Rudd become such a great leading man? He’s been a reliable supporting player in comedies for years, usually lumped with the smarmy best friend role, but here he’s really able to stretch his dramatic chops as well as his usual charm offensive. As Scott Lang, he looks like he’s been put through the wringer, and there’s a real pain in his eyes throughout. Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly convincingly play Hank and Hope’s complex father-daughter relationship, and both have a lot of fun putting down Rudd’s overconfidence. Just as Hank Pym could have ended up as just an older version of Tony Stark, Darren Cross could have just been a younger Obidiah Stane, but Corey Stoll gives him enough nuance to interest, playing Cross as a genius with the morals of a cruel seven-year-old who likes pulling the legs off of things. Michael Peña, T.I and David Dastmalchian all play stereotypes as Scott’s cronies, but they’re knowing stereotypes and fun characters with some of the funniest exchanges.Co

It’s funny, while the premise of Ant-Man sounds pretty bizarre and out-there, it’s probably Marvel’s most grounded and contained movie to date. The threat of experimental technology falling into the wrong hands and threatening the world isn’t a new premise, particularly not within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (all three IRON MAN movies, Age of Ultron had the same plot) but it is nice to see the threat pretty confined for a change, mostly limited to a San Francisco suburb and two families rather than the entire world and everything on it.

The action is superb, and very different to anything we’ve seen before in Marvel’s previous efforts. The creative use of scale inherent in portraying the character lends itself to unique, eye-popping and comic set pieces. We see normal household objects in colossal scale as miniature characters leap and flip over them as is common in shrinking movies, but we also often cut to see the action in normal scale, as lightning-fast specks bounce around the environment, which gives the action a concrete geography. There’s a very clever fight that takes place entirely inside a suitcase falling through the air, and that battle on a Thomas The Tank Engine toy that’s been all over the trailers has a killer punchline when it concludes.

The idea of different species of ants being used for different roles is a neat one (the flying Carpenter ants function like a scout plane squadron; swarming Crazy ants can form bridges and ladders; Bullet ants distract guards with a formidable bite) and this makes the inevitable heist planning montage feel fresh and amusingly oddball.

An idea I thought was less well executed was the concept of shrinking to a sub-atomic level. There’s a few key dramatic scenes that incorporate this idea, of taking the ultimate risk to achieve your objective. Visually, it’s interesting enough, going almost psychedelic to portray such a concept. The issue is much the same as the visual portrayal of inter-dimensional concepts in INTERSTELLAR – I didn’t like how they appeared, but at the same time I don’t know how else you’d do it better. The difference between the two films is that Interstellar (and the Nolan brothers) had ideas above their station, whereas Ant-Man and Edgar Wright/Peyton Reed made it essential to the plot and characters’ journeys.

I’m pleased they didn’t go for the over-used sick daughter plot device (a trope even used in my favourite Marvel movie Iron Man 3), but rather Lang becoming “the hero she already thinks he is”. The filmmakers really commit to Lang being an ordinary man becoming extraordinary, a guy who has made some big mistakes in his life using his pint-sized superheroics to redeem his soul. Edgar Wright may not have directed his passion project, so many may feel the final film lacks his distinct dynamism, but many of his script ideas and the general arc of his story remains, and you can’t diminish Peyton Reed’s achievement for coming in at the eleventh hour and still producing something so satisfying. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Review: Obvious Child (2014)

Posted on July 17, 2015 by Sam S-P

A117_C002_0418MH

As well as being both unabashedly filthy and a proud and dignified representation of real humanity, OBVIOUS CHILD boasts the simple (but criminally rare in storytelling) pleasure of seeing a strong female protagonist making a difficult decision and being allowed to see it through to the end. Abortion is still a controversial issue in many arenas, and the film doesn’t claim for a moment that it’s the right decision for everyone, but it was right for Donna, and no judgement is made about her because of it. Or at least no judgement is made within the film, I’m sure Pro-Life activists will have plenty to say.

Part-time Brooklyn standup comedian Donna’s (Jenny Slate) world is rocked when her boyfriend dumps her following yet another gig that plunders her personal life for material. At least, that seems to be the excuse until it comes to light that he was having an affair with one of Donna’s friends. After her friends and family fail to lift her spirits despite their very best efforts, Donna bumps into Max (Alex Lacy) while drowning her sorrows, and the pair have a night of drunken fun. A few weeks later, Donna notices the result of her one-night-stand.

It might sound a little odd, but it really is great to see women discussing their bodily functions so openly. Men joke about smells, sounds and stains, so why can’t women? It’s a very backward and outdated – not to mention sexist – view that it’s somehow improper or unladylike to acknowledge what a fully-functioning body does, and the film revels in bringing these issues front-and-centre for comic effect. Donna’s stand-up routines rely heavily on such material, and it’s a testament to Jenny Slate’s skill as a performer that she makes such honesty so endearing, often visibly cracking up at her own jokes (understandable – they’re hilarious).

The crux of the story (aside from the pregnancy) is Donna getting over one bad relationship and trying to preserve another. She gets pregnant following a one-night stand with a lovely fella, who appreciates her chosen profession, wants to support her, and genuinely cares for her and who she is. Slate and Lacy have brilliant chemistry and you genuinely want it to work between them in the end. Gabby Hoffmann is also good as Donna’s best friend Nellie, who is the voice of reason and wisdom for the pair, and is such an open book that she gives Donna a heart-to-heart from the toilet. Donna doesn’t have as good (or straightforward) a relationship with her parents (Polly Draper and Richard Kind) as both are distant from her in different ways despite caring deeply for their only child. She does have one particularly moving key scene with her mum, where an adult woman becomes a scared little girl all over again in the arms of her mother. In a lesser film this might be where Donna has a change of heart, but Obvious a Child is not a lesser film.

I didn’t think a side-story where Donna fools around with her fellow comedian friend Sam (David Cross) worked at all. I get that we needed a scene where Donna acts like an idiot and pushes Max away to give the story jeopardy and the characters an arc, but it’s impossible to buy that she would turn down such a decent guy for such a jerk just because he’s a fellow comedian. Though usually value for money, Cross is painfully unfunny, so mirthless that he wears an awful tie-dyed string vest back at his apartment seemingly just to give us something to smile at in place of a lack of jokes.

That unnecessary scene aside, Obvious Child in consistently funny and warm, exploring a big issue in a mature, unsentimental and non-sensationalist manner. Not only will it amuse and tug on your heartstrings, it could very well restore your faith in human dignity as well. Writer-director Gillian Robespierre is a sure pair of hands and makes for a winning double-act with the sheer charisma of Jenny Slate. I look forward to seeing what they both do next immensely. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Review: Amy (2015)

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Sam S-P

young-amy-winehouse-ponders-fame-in-first-trailer-for-new-documentary

AMY had me glassy eyed both at its beginning and end. Such is the power and the tragedy inherent in exploring the life of an astoundingly talented artist whose time was cut so cruelly short, especially when we see the upsetting contrast between the vitality of their innocence and the extent of their eventual ruination side-by-side. The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long as they say.

Documentary maker Asif Kapadia’s style lends itself incredibly well to stories with vastly differing perspectives on tumultuous lives and events such as this, as he demonstrated previously with SENNA. Talking heads now bore me to tears through their over-use, so it’s refreshing to see this alternative style of filmmaking – extensive archive footage and photos with voiceover – increase in prominence. Winehouse’s father Mitch has very publicly condemned the film as a pack of lies, particularly in relation to the way he feels he is negatively represented. He also claims not enough focus is placed on Amy’s talent and success, and too much of the film is taken up by her self-destruction.

The representation of Mitch in the film is debatable – the key point in which he appears appropriates footage from a documentary he himself commissioned and presented, MY DAUGHTER AMY, where he took a camera crew out to the Caribbean where Amy was recovering from an overdose. Aside from this, his voice is mostly absent from the story, though he is nearly always hovering in the back of shot keeping a close eye on his daughter. I personally think Mitch is over-reacting here. I don’t doubt for a moment that Mitch cared deeply for his daughter, that he would do anything to make her happy. What I do think is that Mitch never fully understood Amy or what she actually needed to become healthy again. Kapadia isn’t blaming Mitch for Amy’s untimely death (if he blames anyone it’s her despicable ex-husband Blake Fielder-Civil) but rather saying no-one could have helped her after she set out on a path of self-destruction to such an extent.

As to Mitch’s latter claim, it’s complete hogwash. The rare live performance footage and early demos showcase Winehouse’s talent sublimely. We probably don’t need the lyrics of the songs superimposed over these sequences as her voice conveys everything perfectly already, but otherwise they are must-see moments for her fans. What Mitch Winehouse wants, it seems, is a film that celebrates his daughter’s achievements and whitewashes her mountain of personal, mental and narcotic issues. That would be a pointless and dishonest exercise. A hagiography does no one any favours.

Amy’s sardonic sense of humour and openness comes through as well. Just look at her pout and struggle to keep her temper when an interviewer inadvertently compares her to Dido, or her schoolgirl giddiness when she finally meets and sings with her hero Tony Bennett. The moments where she’s just hanging out with her friends and bandmates and is just allowed to be herself are the real highlights of the documentary as opposed to the voyeurism of her self-destruction.

I don’t think we’ve ever had a documentary able to make use of such extensive archive material. We live in an age where everyone documents everything, so we’ll likely see a lot more of this in future. It really hits home the extent to which the press and the media destroyed Amy when you see the number of clips of her being hounded, and the ignorance of one pap telling an obviously clinically depressed woman to “cheer up” really makes your blood boul.

Now clearly Amy Winehouse drastically cut her chances of a long life through her heavy use of narcotics (particularly in the downtime between albums) and we can’t ignore that an addict actually needs to want help for treatment to work. Kapadia’s documentary veers from uplifting to downright harrowing, much like Winehouse’s life, career, and perhaps inevitable decline. Kapadia leaves it pretty open as to who to blame for the young artist’s death on 23 July 2011. He certainly doesn’t blame the family as Mitch has claimed, but rather points to the unfortunate combination of fame and a personality that didn’t take at all well to it. Most importantly, though, the documentary is one that celebrates the life and work of a gifted and affectingly flawed human being over mourning her. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment