Seven Psychopaths (Dir. Martin McDonagh/2012)

From In Bruges to “In Hollywood”. Seasoned playwright and filmmaker Martin McDonagh directed his first feature in 2008 to audiences who lapped-up his semi-serious, black-comedy. In Bruges was set within a quaint and picturesque town, so his move to the bright lights and big city of Los Angeles is a different setting to say the least! Seven Psychopaths deconstructs Colin Farrell's script-writing obsessive 'Marty' amidst the wannabe film-stars and Californian cliffs with a dark tone that In Bruges fans will be happy to see again.

Opening on the Hollywood sign, drunk screenwriter Marty (Colin Farrell) searches for an idea for a script. Marty's drinking-buddy Billy (Sam Rockwell) thieves dogs from the rich with the help of kind elderly gentleman Hans (Christopher Walken). Through Billy's criminal enterprise, Marty is dragged into this world as bullets blow-off limbs with “reality” and fantasy colliding as we meet dog-obsessed gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson replaying his smart-alecky but “oh-so-charming” villain we've seen before in Zombieland). Between the script Marty writes and the drama unfolding on-screen, McDonagh's twisty-plot and quirky-characters simply don't hold our attention. The final act of Seven Psychopaths in the harsh-lit desert, drags the film to a convoluted close that we desperately hope would've been more satisfying. Michael Stuhlbarg and Michael Pitt even appear in a Pulp Fiction homage 'prologue', before they are promptly shot in the head. Considering neither appears on the poster and casting them purposefully echoed their roles in Boardwalk Empire, the sun had set on these characters as soon as they appeared on screen - and the film is littered with this type or predictability throughout.

Seven Psychopaths flips between a mystery (as we seek to know who each of the Seven Psychopaths are) and the established Hitchcock favourite “innocent man embroiled in criminal activity” plot. Like the mental-states of the psychopaths featured, the story seems to be unbalanced and uncontrolled as we dart between sequences and moments of fantasy and reality without clear rhyme or reason. Rather than playfully toying with the audience, Seven Psychopaths jarringly attempts to shock; arrogantly believing it has pulled the wool over your eyes – when anyone paying a slight bit of attention will see the ‘reveal’ of the final three psychopaths coming a mile off. 

Marty’s conflicted attitude about ending the film refects the directors own difficulties as McDonagh struggles to resolve all seven psychopathic threads. Though highlighting violence in cinema - and its effect on audiences, Seven Psychopaths delivers too late with no clear statement on the issue. 

It is disappointing that such a sharply-shot, gun-toting comedy fails to meet the well-structured film-junkie movie it desperately wants to be and the ambitious ending finishes the film on a whimper rather than the bang it hoped for.

3/5

To The Wonder (Terrence Malick, 2012)

"Life's a dream. In dream you can't make mistakes. In dream you can be whatever you want."

Introduction

Released in 2012, To the Wonder marks the shortest timeframe between Terrence Malick films - with Palme D'Or winner Tree of Life dominating 2011. To the Wonder didn't garner the same attention as Tree of Life, but it holds a similar DNA as it dreamily reflects on the relationship between Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko). As an artist, Malick reacts to the moment and ruthlessly excises unnecessary characters and ideas if they do not relate to the core-story he is trying to tell. The Thin Red Line removed performances by Gary Oldman and Mickey Rourke, while To The Wonder removed characters portrayed by Rachel Weisz, Barry Pepper and Jessica Chastain. Creatively, this demonstrates a sense of expression that is honest and true. At this point in his career (and his success in 2011) he has absolute freedom and the final edit is absolutely what he wants - unlike Clooney in The Thin Red Line, whereby studios forced him to include an A-List star. Additionally, Oscar-winner Ben Affleck appears in the film and, rather than an acting job alone, Affleck was bound to use this opportunity to observe what many believe is one of the greatest living directors, on the job.

Romance and Reality

Richard Linklater’s Before Sunset/ Sunrise/ Midnight triptych philosophises on relationships through constant dialogue between characters that, whether relatable or not, give the impression that lead characters Celine and Jesse are a little too self-involved. To the Wonder doesn't philosophise with the excessive dialogue and, instead, manages to explore similar issues by using extreme close-ups of intimate moments to direct our attention.

Marina (Kurylenko) is front and centre as we see her relationship begin (in Paris) and break down (in the USA), through an obsession towards her American lover Neil (Affleck). The opening of the film depicts the only moments of hand-held video-recording as Neil and Marina are deeply falling for each other. Malick remains close to the couple throughout and the subtlety of hands caressing and feeling for each other, while they laugh and smile, romantically set the foundations of this film as a deeply personal story. The relationship in Badlands hints at an almost self-destructive journey as Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek are on the run - To the Wonder doesn't seem to hold such pessimism in these opening moments. 

Beauty and romance are overpowering in these early scenes - and the addition of Marina's daughter (Tatiana Chiline) provides Neil with a paternal role which he manages to live up to. Again, akin to Linklater's trilogy, it romanticises Europe - and Paris in particular (the setting for Before Sunrise) - in this opening before transferring the film to Oklahoma and the suburban lifestyle Neil affords through his environment-inspector profession.

Faith and Future

Outside of the relationship, in Oklahoma, we are also introduced to Catholic Priest Father Quintana (Javier Bardem) who supports Marina while he has a crisis of faith on his own. The separation in story as we see Quintana visit the poverty-stricken citizens of the town invites comparison - as does the re-location from France to America. We question whether Marina and Neil fell in love because of the journey they shared - and whether the static moments in the US combined with the industrial surroundings are what chipped away at their initial moments of happiness. We also reflect on the "struggles" they have as we also see the challenges of other town members when visited by Father Quintana – Marina and Neil are unique and lucky to have each other in such comfortable circumstances. Quintana's support of them is potentially the reason he has this crisis, especially when you consider the support he offers those in prison that far outweigh Marina and Neil's sense of confinement and apparent lack of love.

Jane (Rachel McAdams), is described as Neil’s lost-love and a woman who he conducts an affair with when Marina is forced to return to Paris. This period is ambiguous as Marina now sees the tall, modern buildings of Paris as oppressive and dreams of the beauty of the endless fields and landscape Neil and Jane conduct their affair upon. It begs the question as to whether Jane exists at all considering the perspective is primarily Marina's and the two never appear to meet. Is it these thoughts of hers that pre-empt the end of their relationship? Does Marina imagine that she is not good enough, in turn prompting her to destroy and end their marriage? Ambiguity is what Malick does best and I can only marvel at the endless questions that arise from these various plot-threads.

The Pair

To The Wonder remains a strong example of Malick's vision, as waving fields of grass and graceful horses inhabit a world whereby peace and solace can be found - and these moments of peace are what Malick effortlessly portrays. But this is a story about one couple in a large world - the scale of Tree of Life managed to truly live up to the planet-wide relevance, while To the Wonder remains small in scale and, as such, it fails to resonate in the same manner. Edward Hopper inspired depictions of a laundrette show an appreciation and love of America - and this is the strength of the film; indeed, the strength of all Malick's films. But, in the closing moments, Marina seems to direct our attention to nature - and the intertwined nature of womanhood and faith. Where God is in such impoverished circumstances? We ask, and the answer seems to be within nature. Something that maybe Malick is arguing America has lost an appreciation for as it is built over and turned into business. To the Wonder seems to be the female portrait of life opposed to the structured, purposeful-focus of Tree of Life. In Tree of Life we see a man reflect on his upbringing and imagine where his whole life is due to lead; To the Wonder is more organic and ambiguous as Marina wanders through and follows her emotion and her passion for life. We can only appreciate such ambition and passion for filmmaking as Malick shows here - despite the small-scale of the story.

This post was originally published for Flickering Myth on 17th June 2013

100W: Lincoln

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts of a broad range of films...

Lincoln (Dir. Steven Spielberg/2012)

Directed by Steven Spielberg, the iconic Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) leads an epic story about the fight to emancipate the slaves. Soaked in information on the historical era, we are educated on the closing moments of the Civil War as a multitude of figures (who are critical to the evolution of the USA) vote to amend the constitution. The “countdown” narrative, as each vote is returned, gives a sense of pace, but the level of detail is overwhelming and it will take multiple viewings to fully appreciate the expansive scale and clear depiction of one man fighting for the greater good.

Rating: 6/10

100W: Amour

100-word reviews for clear and concise verdicts of a broad range of films...

Amour (Dir. Michael Haneke/2012)

Amour tells us what love truly is - and why we love to watch. We observe Eva (Riva) and Georges (Tintignant), an elderly couple, who are coping with the declining health of Eva following a stroke. Winning the Palme D’Or in Cannes, (and only within 3 years of winning the prize for The White Ribbon) Haneke delivers again in this sensitive, heart-breaking portrait of those final moments in an elderly woman’s life. Confined to a Parisian apartment, it’s tragic as it is tender as we experience the isolation of the aged contrasted with the loyalty of marriage. Profound and unforgettable.

Rating: 9/10

Sightseers (Ben Wheatley, 2012)

"He's not a person, he's a Daily Mail reader!"

When I watched Ben Wheatley's second feature-film Kill List, I couldn't help but recall Shane Meadows Dead Man's Shoes. Both films centered around assassin-like killers who lived within poverty-stricken areas while both films technically shot (primarily) hand-held and were rooted in Brit-realism. Whereas following Dead Man's Shoes, Meadows continued to explore Brit-realism and drama in early 80's-set This is England, it seems Ben Wheatley has veered into comedy territory with Sightseers. With Edgar Wright producing, Wheatley utilises the writing and acting talents of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace and The Mighty Boosh regulars Alice Lowe and Steve Oram respectively. Wheatley has moved into a completely different direction that surely shows his flexibility and diverse skill-set. That's not to say that Kill List and Sightseers have nothing in common, but considering Wheatley wrote and directed episodes of a comedy-series The Wrong Door and even directed a documentary on Steve Coogan, it may be that Ben Wheatley is more Edgar Wright than he is Shane Meadows.

Sightseers

Set in the North of England, we join Chris (Oram) and Tina (Lowe) as they travel from the city-scape of Redditch and onwards into Yorkshire, passing by quirky caravan stop-offs and pencil museums. Chris and Tina are 'those' people who seem to thoroughly enjoy caravanning and visiting obscure tourist attractions. Head to toe in cajoules and walking-boots, Chris and Tina, we feel like we know - but something isn't exactly 'right' about them. A small confrontation with a litterer soon ends in tragedy - with, initially, an ambiguity over whether it was purposeful or not. In either case Chris and Tina are a little too comfortable with the death of a fellow man.

A comparison made by Ben Walters in Sight & Sound, is Mike Leigh's Nuts in May. Mike Leigh's kitchen-sink drama's do seem to be a clear connection to Sightseers - especially within the middle-aged, middle-class couples our travellers meet. The other comparison, interestingly, would be Bonnie & Clyde, as we are regularly told about the "search" for the murderers on the local radio-station our culprits listen to.

The Wrong Tarantino Film

Co-writer and actor Steve Oram compares murder in Sightseers to murder in a Hollywood film; "Tarantino does it and it's really cool - and then we come along and we're wearing cajoules and being Brummies". He explains how it is "an American idea, but done in an English way". This is Sightseers strongest asset as this thoroughly 'English' depiction of the beauty and character of the UK country is something we rarely see across the cinema-screen - indeed, the last time I recall such beauty was the landscape shots that appear in the Scotland-based, final-act of Skyfall.

This country-village sentiment goes a long way when reflecting on British comedies too - especially Edgar Wright's output in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Hot Fuzz particularly has a stronger connection to Sightseers than Wheatley maybe lets on. The countryside peace; the strange characters in villages; the murder and death - and sudden-moments of gore. The difference is the realism Wheatley feeds into the story - and the subtext regarding social-classes (Chris has been made redundant while Tina is a carer for her insulting and argumentative Mother). Does Wheatley believe that the constant change in economic status within communities in Britain will explode? Akin to Falling Down - something will have to snap.


It is this underlying tension that is truly terrifying. The moments of gore are all played for shock - and they are often followed by strange mannerisms and statements by our lead couple cushioning the blow. The use of a hammer in Kill List seems to linger with you throughout the film - and remains an unexpected, deeply shocking moment. Sightseers doesn't hold such horror - but it does get under your skin in a different way. Surely, people are angry; and it is only a matter of time before their anger and outsider status becomes a purpose for reaction. Tina and Chris' reaction is clearly excessive - but the frustration they feel is something that the current climate knows all too-well.

Originally written/published on Flickering Myth on 23 March 2013

Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012)

"He said you had a story that would make me believe in God"

Introduction

Published in 2001, Yann Martel's novel managed to grab the attention of the world. A personal story about an Indian boy stranded on a boat with a Bengal tiger was hardly the story to win the world over. But it did, truly a book that fascinates you from the beginning. From the perspective of Piscine - aka Pi - he explains why Zoo's can be stunning, beautiful places for animals. We are convinced of his multiple faiths - as Pi is a Hindu, Christian and Muslim and, soon enough, we are stranded on the boat with a Tiger, Orangutan, a Hyena and a Zebra - and Pi. How could such an extraordinary situation be depicted in a film?

Passing it On

My own interest in the story is due to my love of the films by M. Night Shyamalan. Shyamalan himself, akin to Pi, was born in Pondicherry and in 2003, Shyamalan was hired by Fox to direct and write the film after the film The Village. Instead, Shyamalan directed The Lady in the Water, and passing through the hands of Alfonso Cuaron and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the film eventually landed on the lap of Ang Lee, who managed to work with scriptwriter David Magee to begin production. The film openly tackles faith and spirituality - and though this was an attribute Shyamalan would've been ideal for, Lee's own approach rooted the story in themes revolving around family and story-telling - two themes which occur often in Lee's films such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and The Ice Storm.

The film rests on the shoulders of the special effects - and they truly are stunning. The opening credits alone maximize the 3D as animals reach out of frame and scuttle across the shot. Even the main-act as Pi (Suraj Sharma) remains on the boat, Lee manages to experiment with a wide variety of techniques ensuring that you are never left uninterested. Fish fly in and out-of-frame as Lee adjusts the aspect ratio; when the ship crashes in the first act, we see Zebra and animals jumping and swimming on deck in the midst of rough rain and wind. Crucially, you believe it. There is no unsatisfying sequence - even as the colours become vivid and almost-animated in their depiction, it doesn't jar or seem out-of-place. The Adventures of Tintin was often seen as an example of a style of film-making that didn't know whether it was real or animated - Life of Pi does not have this problem, clearly supposed to be dreamlike, it never rings false.

Framing and Family

Book-ended by an unnamed writer (Rafe Spall) discussing the events with an older Pi (Irrfan Khan), the story is told in flashback akin to Oscar-winning films such as Forrest Gump, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Titanic. In that regard, though I think it will be nominated, I don't think it truly has the capability of a Best Picture winner; it doesn't have the same scale as Slumdog Millionaire, despite its cultural prowess (it even includes a romantic sub-plot which feels forced). This framing of the story gives the film a sense of authority and truth - despite the strangeness of the core-story. Spall and Khan are truly engaging, holding the film together as we - like the writer - are keen to hear how this story will help us "believe in God". Spirituality and God is discussed from the start of the film; we are well aware of the religious sentiments to the story, but the film still manages to keep your faith intact. Indeed, your enjoyment of the film will not be altered depending on your chosen faith.

This is a film that is for the family to watch. A film that, after the viewing, you can discuss, argue and debate long into the night. The idea that children and adults alike will start conversations about faith, truth and story-telling is truly the films crowning achievement. It is accessible - and yet ends in a way that forces you, as a viewer, to reconsider where you stand, and your judgement of others. Life of Pi could have been a film that was aimed at adults exclusively - indeed, the subject matter tackles a child that loses his entire family in one tragic disaster. The film could have been rooted in horror and danger; a tiger on a boat is hardly going to be seen as a cuddly teddy bear. The end of the film could be revealed in a manner that visually shocks you to the core - but Lee did not want to make that film (Maybe M. Night. Shyamalan did?) - he wanted to make a film that tackled some of the most important human-issues of faith and truth, and he made it accessible to all.

Trouble with the Curve (Robert Lorenz, 2012)

"Anybody who uses computers doesn't know a damn thing about this game"

 

Introduction

 

In the on-going guessing-game of the Academy Awards, it can often be entertaining to look at the trajectory of actors who clearly aim to achieve a statuette. The Trouble with the Curve clearly gained its finance on the basis that it would become an Oscar-nominee. Oscar-favourite Clint Eastwood leading the film supported by Oscar-nominee’s Amy Adams (who has a huge shot of winning one after her role in The Master); supporting-actors from The Artist, The Descendants and The Social Network in John Goodman, Matthew Lillard and Justin Timberlake respectively. Trouble with the Curve should be (and will be) sold as a heart-warming, sport-centric story in the vein of Moneyball and The Blindside (Just compare posters). This should be the film that sits awkwardly amongst the ten Best Picture nominees. It would never win, of course, but enough people will watch it on the basis of the nomination alone to justify the cost. It would then become the core-film in a book titled “D.I.Y Oscar Contender”…

 

The Story Is...

 

Unfortunately, Trouble with the Curve will not even get a look-in at the Academy Awards. This is a confused-film that doesn’t seem to truly grasp what is central to the story. It jumps between attempting to prioritise Eastwood’s aging baseball scout as the central narrative, before moving towards Amy Adam’s ‘Mickey’ and her romance with Justin Timberlake. Amongst the character-stories, we are also teased a story regarding an arrogant, sexist teenager shortly before he joins the big-leagues whilst Eastwood’s boss is conflicted about an 80-year-old scout choosing the most important player of the season; especially when computer programs can use statistics to generate details that invalidate the purpose of scouting completely.

 

Pacing and Tension

 

Trouble with the Curve seems to be under the impression that you have never seen a film before – and basic knowledge of pacing and set-ups ruin any tension the film attempts to create. Amy Adams and Clint Eastwood arrive at a motel and, fleetingly, two young boys run past to play baseball – only to be told by their Mother, the motel-owner that they need to complete some chores before they can play. It is clear that this is vital to the story and, despite the boys not appearing in the film during the following hour, you know they will return. And they do. And they save the day.

 

The same frustration sinks in as the film draws to a close and Amy Adams, a lawyer who throughout the film is attached to her mobile phone, stands by a large bin when leaving a baseball stadium. Eastwood re-informs her (as he has throughout the film) about her constant use of a mobile phone… and guess what happens…

 

The script jarringly attempts to make profound statements about the importance of wisdom and age – as Eastwood can pick-up certain ‘skills’ of players simply by the sound of the baseball hitting the bat. But this is in contrast to his age becoming a serious cause for concern. Eastwood is losing his sight and we see awkward moments as he trips over tables, chairs and steps. I can imagine a group of teenagers will simply see this old-man, stumbling around on screen, as laughable – and as comedic as Clint Eastwood stumbling on stage, in ‘support’ of Mitt Romney at the Republican convention.

 

Throw into the mix cliché scenes of a rousing “you’re fired!” moment at the end of the film and a romance whereby Justin Timberlake, despite his obvious, immature flirtations still manages to control the dominant Amy Adams and you have a film that doesn’t challenge, inform or engage you. There is a clear right-wing agenda whereby old-age and wisdom is valued higher than innovation and technological-prowess. Amy Adams, an independent-woman who carved out an incredibly successful career at a lawyers firm is “better off” working in baseball, subservient to the “real men” who own the team – and, obviously, she needs sporty-snake Justin Timberlake to come home to.

 

Starring Clint Eastwood...

 

And Eastwood? Despite his stuffy attitude to being comfortable (“Being comfortable is overrated!”) he manages, for no clear reason to accept his fate and take a back-seat as his daughter begins to work in the same profession as he did. A hint of nepotism ensures that Eastwood can rest in peace and, inexplicably, we assume this resolves his story (I’d be very interested to see how he actually adapts to this…). Interestingly, this is the directorial-debut of Robert Lorenz – a producer and second-unit director for many Clint Eastwood films. In the same way Amy Adams managed to swoop into the baseball-scouting profession with ease through her Fathers links, I have a feeling Lorenz would’ve had a hard-time finding the support without his own Eastwood connections. Because, like hitting a home-run, this film will disappear into the distance - and it will rest amongst the forgettable made-for-TV and ‘true-story’ films that litter the path of an actor’s career.

Skyfall (Sam Mendes, 2012)

"Take the bloody shot!"

 

Introduction

The possibility of Skyfall achieving acknowledgement at the Academy Awards is not without merit. An outstanding cast, Oscar-nominated composers and cinematographers with, for the first time ever, an Oscar-winning director, clearly establishes Skyfall as a film which has broken the rules regarding James Bond filmmaking. Despite this, Skyfall additionally manages to respect the series with the usual tropes of 007 by seamlessly advertising tourist hot-spots including Shanghai, Istanbul and – in the year of the 2012 Olympics – London. It includes exceptionally attractive ‘Bond Girls’ including Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe, but it is Judi Dench’s ‘M’ who is the central female character. We witness the re-arrival of Q (Ben Whishaw), offering a clear attempt at re-aligning all the facets which make James Bond so engaging. This film took "the bloody shot" and is a game-changer – and makes no attempt at hiding its influences.

 

“Storm’s Coming” 

 

It is interesting that, in a year whereby Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises advertised the term ‘a storm is coming’ as Bruce Wayne harked back to his roots, the James Bond film delves deeper than any other James Bond film since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in exploring where 007 emerged from – and additionally uses the line “storm’s coming” to precede the final act. The film begins as 007 is shot during a mission in Turkey attempting to retrieve a list of undercover-agents, which has managed to get into the wrong hands. The plot is similar to the McGuffin in Mission: Impossible and the infamous ‘Noc’ list. Unlike DePalma’s thriller, Skyfall continues initially under the assumption that Bond is dead – whilst M is held accountable for the loss of the agent and the missing list. Suffice to say, due to a terrorist-attack on MI5, 007 returns to England. But he is a broken-man and has to re-establish himself as the skilled-spy that he truly is.

Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have tried to change the Bond series for decades. Licence to Kill changed the formulae as Felix Leiter became a victim to Robert Davi’s ‘Sanchez’ (and his sharks), whilst Bond in true Dirty Harry form, “went rogue” to avenge his best friend’s death. Goldeneye became self-aware as the villain was alternate-agent 006 (Sean Bean), mocking the characteristics of Bond which we love. The World is not Enough saw ‘M’ become a victim as Sophie Marceau’s ‘Elektra King’ double-crossed the whole of MI5 and even Die Another Day pre-dated Daniel Craig as Brosnan’s Bond was tortured by scorpions during the opening sequence. Until Casino Royale all these attempts simply failed under the pressures of the expectations of the Bond series – so Die Another Day jarringly blended the torture at the start with a diamond-laser finale.

In 2006, Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig proved that James Bond can be so much more - and in Skyfall, all these elements come together to create a 007 adventure that truly represents James Bond in the modern era. No more token-gestures at change – Skyfall truly, and literally, destroys the “House that Broccoli-and-Saltzman built", in favour of a series built on firmer foundations. Scott Mendelson writes how these elements are what weaken Skyfall, stating the we are "drudging along recycled territory" whilst the filmmakers themselves offer only mere "periodic pandering" to fans of the series. I would disagree - after 23 films, this is what we have all wanted. It is simply a shame that they have tried (and failed) so regularly since Brosnan was cast to change the formulae without losing what we all love about the series.
 

Influences Further Afield

What separates Skyfall further from the franchise is the incredible direction of Mendes behind the camera. Rather than merely turning to action-films to inspire him, Mendes turns to films as diverse as Apocalypse Now, The Usual Suspects and Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight to create mood and depict scenes. Marc Forster failed to evoke the action depicted in The Bourne Trilogy in Quantum of Solace, but it seems that Mendes knew that this direction was the wrong tone for James Bond. Whilst Jason Bourne was rough, off-the-radar and uncontrollable – James Bond can be clean cut, exemplifies extreme class and style and his attitude borders on blatant arrogance. His snarky quips representing his personal, supreme confidence in his skill. Jason Bourne would be unlikely to discuss his sexual-experiences with an enemy when tied to a chair – as James Bond does with the brilliant villain Silva (Javiar Bardem). It is this use of character that not-only separates James Bond from the Jack Bauers and Ethan Hunts of the world, but it also separates Skyfall from all of its predecessors.

Indeed, supporting cast members Judi Dench and Naomie Harris manage to provide a scope to the film that the lone-wolf in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace lacked. Harris’ ‘Eve’ is much more than a token ‘Bond-girl’, whilst M manages to garner more screen-time than any other actor other than Bond himself. The fact that Oscar-winner Judi Dench holds the role assures you of the quality of her depiction of ‘M’ in her seventh-outing as 007’s superior. In this film particularly, her role is one to be commended and celebrated. Indeed, she is as conflicted about the morality of her role in MI5, leading men into battle, as James Bond is about his espionage work on the front-line. Therefore, it is simply poetic that Silva is a character (not unlike Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye and Scaramanga in TheMan with the Golden Gun) who is physically and mentally 007’s reflected-rival, adding a further dimension to the Mother-Child relationship between Bond and M.
 

The Destruction of the Past

As a fan of the series, the final-act is what is noticeably different to previous outings. Even Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace had an almost-cliché finale as huge, exotic locations – Venice and the Atacama Desert in Chile respectively – set the scene for an explosive ending that would-not be out of place in any other Connery or Moore adventure. Skyfall sets the scene in the highlands of Scotland. The misty moors and dusty chandeliers are hardly the expensive ‘quality’ we are used to seeing in the series. But it is Roger Deakins that turns the location into a ghost-town that accurately represents the story which Purvis, Wade and Logan are telling. Again, this is not your usual James Bond film and the end of this film is like no-other. Sam Mendes has peeled back the layers of the character to reveal his history and his past – something that many may see as sacrilege. But Deakins cinematography is simply glorious; capturing the mood and emotion attached to the moment. After Vesper (Eva Green) ‘stripped away his armour’ in Casino Royale - only for him to bury it deep within his soul after her betrayal; Skyfall destroys every other human characteristic James Bond had, and the final act represents how much has been taken away to make 007 a lethal man with a licence to kill.

Fans of the series will leave the film with a similar crooked smile on their face. We will think to ourselves “Now he is James Bond!” the same thing we thought when the sniper-rifle hit Mr White at the end of Casino Royale. In that respect, a niggle of frustration may creep through as it has almost been three films now of ‘understanding’ James Bond. Can’t we simply have a James Bond adventure? Can’t we see a story contained unto a single film without a self-referential collective ‘aah’ when he says the same “You must be joking” line we have heard too many times in the series? Maybe. In fairness, this is what Quantum of Solace should’ve been. This is what the 20^th film, Die Another Day, dreamt it could’ve been. But it is 50 years since Dr No, and this film is a way that truly celebrates that success. No other franchise has such longevity and, therefore, captures 50 years of stylistic changes and cultural shifts over the period of its release. This film will remain a special film for many reasons – the use of James Bond’s home town, London; the political and personal relevance to the nature of terrorism in the 21^st century; the dramatic finale. It is only fitting that the film ends where it all began, almost daring younger and new-fans of the series to pick up the box set and go back to the start. Because behind all the Oscar-nominees and Oscar-winners; behind the cast and crew; behind the two producers who have managed to maintain the series since GoldenEye are fans of the series – like we are. And we only want what is best for Bond – and this could be the very best of the entire series.

After Lucia (Michel Franco, 2012)

"Ale!"

Introduction

Director Michel Franco broke out in 2009 with a small indie-hit Daniel & Ana. His follow-up, After Lucia, has garnered huge critical acclaim through winning the Prize Un Certain Regard at the Cannes Film festival and receiving the Silver Hugo Special Jury Prize at the Chicago International Film festival. At the London Film festival it was in competition but, late last night, it was revealed that Rust and Bone took the prize. The film has also been selected as Mexico’s entry for the Academy Awards so we have yet to see whether the film will continue to take awards between now and February. After Lucia introduces Father and Daughter, Roberto (Hernán Mendoza) and Alejandra (Tessa Ía), as they travel to begin a new life in Mexico City following the death of Roberto’s wife, Lucia, who died in a car accident.

Reality Bites

 

The opening sequence establishes a pace that doesn’t stop throughout the film as we see, from a static-camera inside a car, the Father pick up the car which has had a wide range of alterations before he drives away, parks the car, and leaves. The sequence lasts at least seven minutes and, as soon as he leaves the garage, you feel like something will break the tension. Akin to Little White Lies, it crossed my mind that someone may crash into him – or could he crash into someone else? Neither happens and, as noted, he merely drives away, parks the car and walks away.

 

This type of observation is what Franco utilises throughout the film as we are often situated behind characters, following and observing their movements. We think about where they are going and what they are doing. And Roberto is a character who is reserved and thoughtful – a man of few words. Alejandro, nicknamed ‘Ale’, is equally quiet and patient. Both are content on their own and, without a score or soundtrack, this creates an atmosphere that is rooted in realism - but also in the inevitable tropes of art house and indie cinema. Shots linger on characters on sofas; they look into the mid-distance. Car-journeys are long with questions that characters ask – but are given a mute-response, forcing us, as a viewer, to think about why no answer is given.

Extreme Bullying

 

The core-narrative revolves around Alejandro’s horrendous experience at school. She becomes the victim of bullying after she has sex with a boy in the group. He records the incident on his mobile phone (drawing parallels with the phone-footage showing the smashed-car which killed her mother) and circulates it around his friends. Consequently, she is taunted, molested, physically abused and raped. As a secondary school teacher, inevitably I found this entire story absolutely appalling. Why does she not tell the teachers? How can students be so brash – without any children even attempting to intervene? Why do the students go on a school trip whereby staff do not even check students in the evening; as students drink, smoke and make-out “under the supervision” of teachers. Even in the final few scenes, teachers would meet questions with blank expressions and no answers. This, I believe, is not representative of my profession and – as education is not the focus of the film – I believe this mishandling of the context is grossly exaggerated and ineffective. The sequences play-out more to shock, rather than investigating the reality of bullying.

 

The focus is her isolation and loneliness – her inability to express herself or turn to someone when she is in need. We hear how she was offered psychological support but her Father turned it down; she claimed her Mother was teaching her how to drive (Was she responsible for her mother’s death?). Therefore, this leads you to consider whether her decision to not involve anyone, or turn to anyone, may be rooted in a self-destructive attitude. Does her guilt weigh so heavy on her mind that she sees the bullying as penance for, what she believes, is her sins? Whether this is the case or not, akin to the ending of the film, it is unclear and unfulfilling.

Closure and Clarification

 

A story that is set-up as a film coping with loss and mourning can easily slip into an almost-cliché camp of indie-film expectations. Ambiguous scenes, unexplained set-ups and a slow-and-steady pace lends itself well to a film attempting to analyse the after-effects of loss; indeed, I can only imagine the frustration and timelessness you could feel when coping with the loss of a loved one. But in cinema, we have seen this before – and sometimes a little clarity would assist in the audience gaining closure. So that when we leave the cinema, we can reflect on the film personally without having to seek clarification for plot-points. We surely shouldn't be seeking clarification regarding the purpose of the film itself.

Rust and Bone (Jacques Audiard, 2012)

"I liked being watched..."

 

Introduction

Jacques Audiard completely shook the foundations of the Cannes Film Festival in 2009 when A Prophet competed against Michael Hanekes The White Ribbon. A Prophet won the Grand Prix whilst The White Ribbon took the Palme D'Or. This year, we are in a similar position whereby Audiards Rust and Bone is released the same year as Amour – Hanekes latest film. Amour won the Palme D'Or whilst Rust and Bone left Cannes with nothing.

Dangerous Creatures

Rust and Bone, unlike the sprawling A Prophet, is a personal story centred around two characters; Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts), who is violent, lacks effective parenting skills and ignores the expectations of the law and Stephanie (Marion Coitillard), an Orca Whale trainer who is a victim to a freak accident when a Marineland Orca Whale show goes wrong. Within the first thirty minutes, Stephanie loses her legs and incredible special effects win you round to accept Coitillard as an amputee. She swims and uses a wheelchair – shots are so natural and fluid, that you constantly ask yourself how Audiard and Coitillard managed to perfectly capture the reality of the situation she is in. If you didn’t believe she had lost her legs, the film would surely lose its credibility in the opening act.

Thankfully, it doesn’t. Both Schoenaerts and Coitillard deliver performances that are utterly convincing. The initial opening portrays Ali with his child, Sam (Armand Verdure), on a train eating the leftovers from other commuters. Is he a tramp? Is this a twisted, less-Apocalyptic version of The Road? Appearances are deceptive as both Father and Son have escaped to his Sisters home to provide a safe haven for the child, we are told. When we first see Stephanie, she has been assaulted in a club and Ali intervenes to protect her. The parallel between the Orca whales and Ali are immediate; Ali’s imposing and dominant figure, his soft-voice though alluring hides an aggressive edge that, when cornered, will attack. We see it first-hand as he assaults his own Son.

Outstanding Performances

Though stealing every scene she is in, Coitillard is not the centre of the story (though I wish she was), it is about Ali. It is Ali who is strengthened by Stephanie – we see him in an illegal street-fight and, at the point whereby he is struggling to defeat his opponent, it is Stephanie who emerges and inspires him to rise-up and win. Stephanie’s personal struggle to cope with her disability is supported by Ali, but in turn, she supports him. She likes the attention and she craves his passing-desires – but he, in turn, sees her physical challenge as an impetus to succeed.

The Channel Four coverage of the Paralympics 2012 broke many boundaries as we became comfortable with disability – specifically the comedy-show The Last Leg, managed to break down stereotypes and assumptions the general public may have towards those with a disability. Rust and Bone manages to highlight how limited that perspective truly is as Stephanie is clearly stronger than Ali. We see Stephanie build her life and re-establish who she is after an event which could force you to turn to suicide (Indeed she considers it). Ali, in the process of supporting her, ignores his own child and places himself ahead of his own Son time and time again; he directly affects his Sisters life too, only threatening her when confronted.

This is a film which manages to capture the arrogance of humans –whilst also showing the struggles people can overcome. Audiard has created a film that, through multiple watches, I’m sure will provide more scope and depth than it initially lets on – but on a first viewing, I can commend what it attempts and I would recommend viewing the film for Marion Coitillard’s performance alone.

End of Watch (David Ayer, 2012)

"I am the police, I'm here to arrest you, you've broken the law. I did not write the law, I may disagree with the law but I will enforce it. "

Introduction

 

Daniel Barber’s 2009 thriller Harry Brown begins as we see phone-camera footage held by youths on a London estate. The video speeds round, as the owner is sat on a motorbike, and the gang-members threaten a woman with her child before accidentally (?) shooting her and then speeding off before the motorbike riders are hit by a truck. The footage represents the story which is about to begin but, on a first-watch, it is easy to believe it is actual footage which shocks you to the core. Does this happen? Has it happened already? How can we live in a world whereby this is possible? It is this same shock and horror you feel when watching End of Watch.

At the front of the Action

Unlike Harry Brown, whereby the film begins more conventionally after the introduction, End of Watch remains committed to the found-footage element as street cop Taylor (Gyllenhaal) introduces himself and narrates the story before presenting us with an unspecified, but considerable, length of time in the company of himself and Zavala (Michael Peña), his partner as they patrol X13, a district which is initially new to them. By the end of the film, they know much more about this area. They know about the Mexican drug cartels which operate. They learn about the power of Big Evil (Maurice Compte), a major drug-lord. They realise how much danger lurks behind the street corners and curb-side gangs that infest the area.

It is easy to assume that the found-footage element is merely a fashionable filmmaking technique – akin to Cloverfield, Chronicle and Paranormal Activity. But it is much more – harking back to TV-programmes such as Police, Camera, Action! whereby the camera sits at the front of the car as it speeds between houses and estates. End of Watch surpasses the usual tropes of found-footage as it makes a point about the use of surveillance and use of videos in the modern world. Indeed, though Taylor carries a camera “for a project”, the Mexican gang-members also carry their own cameras and we are even privy to surveillance caught by Immigration Control of conversations which relate to the district the two police officers work within. But we also realise that director David Ayer doesn’t constrain himself to the ‘footage’ caught by these characters as we are often a third person as we witness Taylor and his girlfriend Janet (Anna Kendrick) kiss at the end of a date and pan around the couple as they fall on the bed. We know Ayer wants to highlight the reality of the profession but doesn’t want to cut-out the personal stories that hide behind the badge for the sake of a technique – it is a bold move, but it pays off as the performances of the lead characters Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick and Natalie Martinez is hugely convincing and deeply satisfying. Not for a single second do you think of Gyllenhaal as a Prince of Persia. It is more akin to his skin-head role in Jarhead than of anything he has ever shown us before; Could an Oscar nomination be around the corner? I hope so.

 

Poignant

 

The title, End of Watch, refers to a euphemism used in the force to describe an officer/officers killed in the line of duty so it is timely that this film, with a tragic outcome, comes so soon after the shocking story regarding the murder of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, Police Constables of Manchester. We are shown how challenging and difficult this job truly is – especially in poverty-stricken areas such as South L.A.

Ayer doesn’t shy away from the ambiguous morals Police Officers are expected to have and, akin to Training Day (written by Ayer), we spend a huge amount of time inside the police vehicle with the cops as they discuss the profession. Zavala’s wrestling and fighting with African-American Tre (Cle Shaheed Sloan) – an act which garners him respect and, as Tre tells him “keepin’ it ‘G’” – isn’t the same as Denzel Washington forcing Ethan Hawke to smoke drugs, though it does question what police officers need to do to gain the trust and respect of those in troubled areas. In a world post-The Wire, it is easy to pass this off as another imitation cashing in on David Simon’s successful TV series. This is much more – it is a shining example of the amazing career of the police officer. The hugely important role they play in society and the ignorance others have when even considering the profession to be an easy job. This is a job that is akin to the military – these men are on the front line and deserve every ounce of respect we can offer. Blistering performances and flawless direction leave you shocked and amazed at the end of the film: Is this the reality of law-enforcement?

 

Frankenweenie (Tim Burton, 2012)

"I'd welcome death"

Introduction

Tim Burton is a filmmaker who seems to dip in and out of public acceptance. On the one day he is praised for his iconic films such as Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice and Batman. On the next day he is mocked and ridiculed for his reliance on Johnny Depp and wife Helena Bonham-Carter in films such as Dark Shadows and Alice in Wonderland. I am happy to report that Frankenweenie falls into the former camp - and could be one of my favourite Tim Burton films.

 

Using the voice-talents of Catherine O'Hara, Martin Landau, Martin Short and Winona Ryder, Frankenweenie tells the story of a school-boy named Victor (Charlie Tahan), who aspires to be a filmmaker himself. In true Burton fashion, he is socially awkward and has few friends - instead, relying on his dog Sparky to provide company. Shortly into the film, Sparky dies and Victor - inspired by his strange teacher - manages to bring Sparky back to life, much to the shock of his friends and family. Frankenweenie is a Disney film and, with this in mind, becomes a unique specimen when placing it within the Disney animated canon. A black-and-white film about death is hardly Snow White. Indeed, the film is a remake of a 30-minute film Burton made in 1984 and, viewers of animated TV series Family Dog (a Brad Bird creation, executively produced by Burton in 1993) may notice a suprising similarity with the lead characters. This is a tale which has been close to Burton's heart for decades and, you can see, how his love for cinema too bursts off the screen in 3D.

A Love for Filmmaking

 

From the opening sequence, it feels as if something is referenced. The Toy Story sequence that begins the film appears more as nostalgia rather than imitiation. The joy of cinema and fun of filmmaking is celebrated throughout - live-action Dracula plays on the TV in Victor's household, Bambi (another Disney film very-much about death and moving-on) plays at the local cinema. Godzilla, Jurassic Park and Gremlins all feel as if they are acknowledged in the final act.

This is a story about filmmaking and, as you hear the clicking and winding of a film reel, you realise that the death of the dog represents the death of film itself, in a digital age. In this regard, the film joins Scorseses Hugo, JJ Abrams Super 8 and Hazanavicius' The Artist as it harks, and weeps for what cinema used to be. Victor edits the film by cutting-and-sticking shots together, not using an Apple iMac. The world is a balance between Gothic and Suburban - and Edward Scissorhands himself could easily live in the same area. Burton has made a film in Disney Digital 3D, mourning the loss of traditonal filmmaking. Then again, as a character says: "I'd welcome death", maybe he is celebrating the death of film and praising the future of a new medium.

Belief in Burton

The film is not without it's faults as Danny Elfman's score seems to echo many themes and riffs from his score for Batman and Batman Returns. In addition, buried deep in the film, is an argument regarding the challenge between faith and belief against the cold, mechanical research required of a scientist. Victor is a scientist at heart - but he loves his dog so much that literally brings him back to life. I would like to believe that multiple-viewings may flesh out this potentially-profound element to the film - but it could be the case that there is simply inconsistency in a theme that is weakly explored.

I strongly recommend this film as it truly does show Burton at his best. Filmmakers and film-fans should all be exceptionally satisfied as Burton seems to be in his element combining his artistry and knowledge of cinema to create a film that, I believe, will not be forgotton. As an opener to the London Film festival it is richly deserved - and I can only wait with baited breath, to see whether Burton can continue this success with another fine film in the future. Mr Burton - my faith in you has been restored.
 

Rock Of Ages (Adam Shankman, 2012)

"This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke."

Introduction

In 2006, the Disney Channel released a TV-only film: High School Musical. This went on to become the most successful 'Disney Channel Original Movie' ever produced. In 2009, Fox released a TV-series in the same vein: Glee. An incredibly successful TV-show and film-series, both were musicals set in high-schools. The fundamental difference is how Glee re-imagined well-known songs and adapted them to suit the stories of the characters. This change is in in response to the success of reality-TV shows American Idol and The X-Factor, whereby songs are often covered by up-and-coming artists, only to be released soon after. I think, with regard to the revival of musicals in the last decade (Mamma Mia, Hairspray, Nine, Chicago, Dreamgirls...), it would be nice to attribute it to the success of Moulin Rouge. But we all know that this is simply not true - as production companies are well aware of the multiple sales available in different formats (At the time of writing, the best-selling 'soundtrack' on itunes is from Smash! with Burlesque and Hairspray still within the Top 20. I doubt those two films are as popular as film downloads.). The cult-following alone ensures a consistent financial-income can be generated over a long-period of time - Mamma Mia become the fastest-selling DVD in the UK. Ever. Musicals are very much 'in fashion' in production houses.

Rock of Ages is in the same world as Glee and Hairspray. The added bonus of Tom Cruise will surely get those ticket sales tip-top, but as soon as the film begins and Britney-Spears-a-like Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) sings with a chorus of bus-passengers, we realise the type of film we are in. This is a loose story hung together by rock-songs, which you will recognise, that has no connection to emotion, purpose or - of course - reality. Purples, reds and blues light up Los Angeles and, despite nods to the homelessness, drug-taking and prostitution within the city, the afflictions are merely a backdrop to the 'fun' musical that it is. At its core, it is pure Hollywood - shiney, A-list stars and big music. But it is hollow, soulless and contradicts the only issue it attempts to raise.

You Should Be Dancing

 

My partner Sarah has seen the musical and her biggest issue with the film was the lack of dancing. On stage, huge numbers are performed by a large dancing cast. Though I do recollect some dancing, the focus was always on the lead role and their 'emotions'. For example, the "Juke Box Hero"/"I Love Rock 'n' Roll" medley, clearly included a number of dancers alongside Drew and Sheriee - but we constantly cut-away to Brand and Baldwin singing on their own, before focussing on Drew singing whilst jazz-hands flicker at the side of the screen. Why not a static shot? Whereby the dancers are front and centre? If this is an all-out musical, show me something I don't see on The Voice because only 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot' portrayed dancers dominating the screen - and one song in a film-musical is simply not good enough.

Supporting Roles

The standout performance here is between two established actors - Paul Giametti and Tom Cruise. A fascinating dynamic whereby the business is up against the artist. Staciee Jaxx (Cruise) is everything he needs to be - and you desperately feel the love everyone has for him. It is also much-more than a 'supporting-role'. The film demands an actor who is well-know. By casting Cruise in this role, he demands your attention. Not only because of his iconic status, but he is doing things that we have never seen him do before. Paul Giametti shows two sides - we sympathise with the difficulties he has in reigning-in Staciee Jaxx, but we also despise his greedy money-making ideals. Staciee Jaxx is how he gets his money and we can see he will do anything to ensure that it happens. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston are not as memorable, but they manage to give a little comedy to some dull-roles - Jone's is an up-tigh, conservative campaigner whilst Cranston is a Mayor with an interest in S&M.

The Complete Contradiction

The end of the film portrays Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) as he manages to sneak into the music-industry, but unfortunately, the 'rock-and-roll' time period is over - Wham! and Vanilla Ice is the new thing. Poor Drew sells his soul and becomes a George-Michael-looking pop star. Obviously, the film - and musical - criticise the late-80's pop-world, but the irony is how the film becomes the cheap-Hollywood it also criticizes. Its akin to the complete conflict when Britney Spears covered 'I Love Rock and Roll'. It simply doesn't make any sense. Then again, maybe all these 'rock-and-roll' ballads in the 80's were simply cheesy pop-songs dressed up as rock songs?

At any rate, Russell Brand  (Dennis Dupree) and Alec Baldwin (Lonny) both represent the old-school values of Rock and Roll. Initially singing "I Love Rock n Roll" (as Drew sings "Juke Box Hero" - already the conflict between fame-against-music perhaps?), the two characters then fall for each other, in a memorable duet covering REO Speedwagon's 'Can't Fight This Feeling'. A song covered by the Glee cast on their first album. But again, this is the contradiction - songs already performed by Glee (including Journey's 'Don't Stop Believing') and re-re-covered in Rock of Ages, so I'm sure that even the core-audience will watch it and have a feeling of deja-vu.

The "Fun" Finale

As a musical, I don't believe 'spoilers' are going to ruin the film for you. Suffice to say, at the end of the film, we see Staciee Jaxx perform with his band Arsenal in a stadium - and the crowd is going wild. They are singing Journey's 'Don't Stop Believin''. Initially, you think to yourself that maybe Staciee Jaxx has stolen the song from Drew (the "writer" of the song), who performed the song in the previous scene at The Bourbon Club. A very pessimistic ending I thought, until Jaxx says to the crowd "lets give a big hand to the writers of the song - Drew and Sheriee!". The crowd cheers and Drew and Sheriee continue singing the song on the stage. We see all the cast somewhere in the audience singing along. This is ridiculous.

And I think that this final scene summarises my feelings towards the film. Other than a rousing finale, whereby all the characters can sing a little bit, and we can all cheer, there is no purpose to why the story would play-out in such a way. The entire film, we have seen Drew and Sheriee struggle to 'make it' in LA. Do they achieve success? We don't know, they are merely brought on stage briefly at an Arsenal gig. Why would Staciee Jaxx even want them on his stage? Why would anyone cheer them on? These are writers - a profession which is historically not appreciated in the film and music industries. The story wraps up nothing except relationships - girl and guy get together. The entire '80's pop' destroying rock 'n' roll is not truly tackled. The whole Paul Giametti as a money-man isn't resolved - indeed, Staciee Jaxx fires him, but I'm sure he'll survive (a standout scene). But as long as the finale looks cool and the songs are great, theoretically we can all walk out happy to have sung, hummed and tapped our feet to the sounds of Foreigner, Poison and Starship. But that is it - a bunch of songs we all like to hear. But sung by actors. In a cheesy-pop manner.

I'd rather just listen to the original songs myself.