Directed by: Patrick Hughes
Written by: Tom O'Connor
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Elodie Yung
IMDb Link
A screwball action-comedy starring Ryan Reynolds and Samuel Jackson seems like a winning combination, but the experience with The Hitman's Bodyguard is muddled by stark shifts in tone and oddly placed moral quandaries.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Michael Bryce (Reynolds) was once one of the world's top bodyguards, but after a job ends in the death of his client, he loses his pristine status and falls in to a rut. Darius Kincaid (Jackson) is a highly skilled hitman, brought in by Interpol to act as a key witness in the trial of Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman), dictator of Belarus. When Dukhovich's men attack Kincaid's escort, Bryce is brought in by Interpol agent and ex-girlfriend Amelia Roussel (Yung), to escort Kincaid to the trial. The action plot is sometimes muddled by the dual love stories between Bryce/Roussel and Kincaid/Kincaid's wife Sonia (Salma Hayek), but the core of buddy cop-esque action-comedy is always there, with Reynolds' playing the tightly wound straight man and Jackson as the loose cannon.
The obvious thing to like about this film is the two leads. Reynolds and Jackson have both proven themselves effectively as leading men in both action and comedy, and the two of them have no problem molding their material to suit their respective styles. They're effectively playing themselves with a couple of character twists here, which works just fine because they're both extremely watchable. Most of the jokes that landed for me came from their delivery as well.
The key factor that dampened my experience with the film was some extremely strange tonal shifts that permeated several scenes and often devolved the film in to chaos. The comedy is regularly offset by extremely dark moments that are played far more seriously than what the rest of the movie is going for. A scene of somewhat awkward mix of action and comedy as Bryce calmly and efficiently protects a cocaine-addled businessman is followed by a man describing the brutal murder of his wife and child at the hands of Dukhovich. A scene of Kincaid finally giving his testimony, dashed with a few jokes to lighten the whole event, quickly jumps to an extreme terrorist act that seemingly murders innocent people. These moments didn't need to happen in order to tell the story, and combined with the difference in tone applied to these scenes they're just out of place against the attempts at silliness. Likewise, the film often slows its pace for a few moments to allow Bryce and Kincaid to talk and compare their work, sometimes going as far as to ask questions on the justice found in killing bad people, but played between chase scenes and attempts to get a laugh. The movie seemed to want to be more than just an action-comedy, and had the movie shifted more in the direction of dramatic action with the occasional comedic moment, perhaps getting a laugh purely out of situation rather than a few tired jokes, it would've been more effective.
The comedy of situation and the action do meld together perfectly, however, at a scant few points. The highlight of the movie comes after Bryce finally gives up on trying to protect Kincaid. Bryce goes to a street stall and begins complaining about everything, and Kincaid is immediately attacked by several of Dukhovich's men. Everyone else drops to the floor as the guns start firing, but Bryce immaturely attempts to ignore the sheer chaos around him and continue complaining. There's pure hilarity in seeing Bryce bitingly bitching about his life in front and centre while the action goes on behind him, watching as he grows steadily angrier at the realisation and denial that he'll have to intervene.
The Verdict: The Hitman's Bodyguard is solid action and hit-or-miss comedy. While the two leads carry their performances and interactions, the film's tonal shifts are jarring, and suggest an attempt to be more than it is, which would be more interesting if they'd actually succeeded. it's worth a watch, but not a must-see.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published August 31st, 2017
Thursday, 31 August 2017
Saturday, 26 August 2017
2017 Film Review: Death Note (2017)
Directed by: Adam Wingard
Written by: Charley Parlapanides, Vlas Parlapnides, Jeremy Slater
Starring: Nat Wolff, Lakeith Stanfield, Margaret Qualley
IMDb Link
I have no problem with films adapting stories from other media, and I am not bothered by changes necessary to compress a story in to a shorter time frame. The first season of the Death Note anime series was about twelve hours long, so it's unreasonable to expect the movie to have anywhere near the same nuance in just over an hour and a half. When I say that Death Note (2017) is a bad adaptation, it's not because it did things differently from the anime.
Death Note (2017) is a bad adaptation because it does so much to separate its own plot and characters from the series', but winds up pigeonholing itself in to some of the same goals. Light Yagami is a charismatic and popular golden boy of a student, positively above reproach, and the last person you would expect to be a complete sociopath with a God Complex. Light Turner is an awkward social outcast, known to be lacking in morality, and motivated by little more than revenge and the brain between his legs. Light Yagami is stronger and smarter than everyone around him, which leads him to make rash decisions when someone gets the better of him, Light Turner is a character so weak and without agency he can seemingly be manipulated by everyone around him, and makes stupid decisions because he's a horny teenager. Both characters can work, but the things that motivate their actions shouldn't bring them to the same conclusion. Death Note (2017) starts with a completely different Light in a completely different city, but rather than continue the idea of using the Death Note for personal vendetta that the film started on, it skips straight to same "God of the new world" plot from the anime, despite the film essentially turning Light in to a hostage of his own circumstance. The movie's first act seems to have a different idea brewing, but then throws it out the window in favour of being more like its source material, while failing at that also. The third act twist would have been brilliant, had it actually fit with the character that had been built up, but Light Turner's final move is so much smarter than everything else he's done in the movie up to that point that it comes off as cheap. That said, thankfully it's not nearly The Last Airbender or Dragonball: Evolution.
Despite being a bad adaptation, Death Note (2017) actually had its own thing going for it before the movie effectively kicked itself in the head. As I said, the idea of the owner of the Death Note being weak and easily manipulated by fear and sex is an interesting idea; even though it takes away the agency of his character, it can be used to make him more sympathetic in a sad sort of way, as he slowly devolves in to the fantasy equivalent of the school-shooter archetype, driven by anger and petty revenge and regret from bad decisions. The film plays in to this in a weirdly effective way as well; Light is made to look such a fearful weakling that it's truly comical, and as it contrasts with Ryuk's (played brilliantly by Willem Dafoe) menacing presence and Mia's (Qualley) forcefulness, there could've been potential for a really good story involving the Death Note, but with a much smaller scale. However, after spending a long time establishing the characters and and laying foundation for a more personal conflict, the movie forces Light to breeze past what would have been the natural progression of his character to attempting godhood. Here most of what the movie had going for it takes a downturn, as we're quickly introduced to L (Stanfield), and I do mean quickly. The film manages to smash its way through several scenes of L's detective work without sparing a second: The most egregious case involves L having Light followed and getting called out on it in literally ten seconds of screen time. The film so suddenly attempts to jam in the L story that it's almost easy to forget how haphazardly the romantic subplot between Light and Mia came about, which quite literally involves Light being in the gym with the Death Note for some reason, getting approached by Mia, avoiding showing her the Death Note, then going out of his way to show it to her and how it works. The film almost had its own interesting take, but forced its way back to resembling the original story, when it was already too late and it didn't have to.
Outside of the plot and characters taking an unexpected and unsatisfying turn, there's a few smaller things that stood out to me, minor inconsistencies in plot and technical weaknesses that I quickly want to list here because they're still rattling around in my brain. One such plot inconsistency that's demonstrative of a lot of them is a scene wherein Ryuk threatens Light with the fact that anyone who'e ever tried to get Ryuk's name in to the Death Note has never written more than two letters, despite the fact that Light learns Ryuk's name because someone had it written down in the notebook. The only technical aspect that bothered me was the sound mixing: a lot of the time, dialogue was obscured by ambiance such as rain. These little factors don't compare much to the issues I have with the direction in which they took the plot and characters, but they certainly don't help with the experience, and occur often enough to be noticeable.
The Verdict: Death Note is too little of anything to be really effective: not enough like the series to be a homage, not enough of its own film with its own story ideas to avoid comparison. While standouts such as the film's oddly hilarious comedic moments and Willem Dafoe's excellent performance as Ryuk keep this from being a colossal waste, the film doesn't have enough going for it to be more than a Final Destination movie with a terrible romance. This isn't a problem if you're in to those sorts of movies, and if you enjoy them, then more power to you, but I found it so disappointing, especially since I've seen better from Wingard.
Rating: 4/10
Published August 26th, 2017
Written by: Charley Parlapanides, Vlas Parlapnides, Jeremy Slater
Starring: Nat Wolff, Lakeith Stanfield, Margaret Qualley
IMDb Link
I have no problem with films adapting stories from other media, and I am not bothered by changes necessary to compress a story in to a shorter time frame. The first season of the Death Note anime series was about twelve hours long, so it's unreasonable to expect the movie to have anywhere near the same nuance in just over an hour and a half. When I say that Death Note (2017) is a bad adaptation, it's not because it did things differently from the anime.
Death Note (2017) is a bad adaptation because it does so much to separate its own plot and characters from the series', but winds up pigeonholing itself in to some of the same goals. Light Yagami is a charismatic and popular golden boy of a student, positively above reproach, and the last person you would expect to be a complete sociopath with a God Complex. Light Turner is an awkward social outcast, known to be lacking in morality, and motivated by little more than revenge and the brain between his legs. Light Yagami is stronger and smarter than everyone around him, which leads him to make rash decisions when someone gets the better of him, Light Turner is a character so weak and without agency he can seemingly be manipulated by everyone around him, and makes stupid decisions because he's a horny teenager. Both characters can work, but the things that motivate their actions shouldn't bring them to the same conclusion. Death Note (2017) starts with a completely different Light in a completely different city, but rather than continue the idea of using the Death Note for personal vendetta that the film started on, it skips straight to same "God of the new world" plot from the anime, despite the film essentially turning Light in to a hostage of his own circumstance. The movie's first act seems to have a different idea brewing, but then throws it out the window in favour of being more like its source material, while failing at that also. The third act twist would have been brilliant, had it actually fit with the character that had been built up, but Light Turner's final move is so much smarter than everything else he's done in the movie up to that point that it comes off as cheap. That said, thankfully it's not nearly The Last Airbender or Dragonball: Evolution.
Despite being a bad adaptation, Death Note (2017) actually had its own thing going for it before the movie effectively kicked itself in the head. As I said, the idea of the owner of the Death Note being weak and easily manipulated by fear and sex is an interesting idea; even though it takes away the agency of his character, it can be used to make him more sympathetic in a sad sort of way, as he slowly devolves in to the fantasy equivalent of the school-shooter archetype, driven by anger and petty revenge and regret from bad decisions. The film plays in to this in a weirdly effective way as well; Light is made to look such a fearful weakling that it's truly comical, and as it contrasts with Ryuk's (played brilliantly by Willem Dafoe) menacing presence and Mia's (Qualley) forcefulness, there could've been potential for a really good story involving the Death Note, but with a much smaller scale. However, after spending a long time establishing the characters and and laying foundation for a more personal conflict, the movie forces Light to breeze past what would have been the natural progression of his character to attempting godhood. Here most of what the movie had going for it takes a downturn, as we're quickly introduced to L (Stanfield), and I do mean quickly. The film manages to smash its way through several scenes of L's detective work without sparing a second: The most egregious case involves L having Light followed and getting called out on it in literally ten seconds of screen time. The film so suddenly attempts to jam in the L story that it's almost easy to forget how haphazardly the romantic subplot between Light and Mia came about, which quite literally involves Light being in the gym with the Death Note for some reason, getting approached by Mia, avoiding showing her the Death Note, then going out of his way to show it to her and how it works. The film almost had its own interesting take, but forced its way back to resembling the original story, when it was already too late and it didn't have to.
Outside of the plot and characters taking an unexpected and unsatisfying turn, there's a few smaller things that stood out to me, minor inconsistencies in plot and technical weaknesses that I quickly want to list here because they're still rattling around in my brain. One such plot inconsistency that's demonstrative of a lot of them is a scene wherein Ryuk threatens Light with the fact that anyone who'e ever tried to get Ryuk's name in to the Death Note has never written more than two letters, despite the fact that Light learns Ryuk's name because someone had it written down in the notebook. The only technical aspect that bothered me was the sound mixing: a lot of the time, dialogue was obscured by ambiance such as rain. These little factors don't compare much to the issues I have with the direction in which they took the plot and characters, but they certainly don't help with the experience, and occur often enough to be noticeable.
The Verdict: Death Note is too little of anything to be really effective: not enough like the series to be a homage, not enough of its own film with its own story ideas to avoid comparison. While standouts such as the film's oddly hilarious comedic moments and Willem Dafoe's excellent performance as Ryuk keep this from being a colossal waste, the film doesn't have enough going for it to be more than a Final Destination movie with a terrible romance. This isn't a problem if you're in to those sorts of movies, and if you enjoy them, then more power to you, but I found it so disappointing, especially since I've seen better from Wingard.
Rating: 4/10
Published August 26th, 2017
Friday, 25 August 2017
2017 Film Review: American Made (2017)
Directed by: Doug Liman
Written by: Gary Spinelli
Starring: Tom Cruise, Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright
IMDb Link
This one's a fairly straightforward movie, a cynical presentation of an amoral twist on the American Dream, half way between Pain & Gain and The Wolf of Wall Street, but with more planes and a far less flashy style. The political implications and background of the movie are interesting; seeing a dramatization of the build-up to the Iran-Contra Affair through the lens of only a few people while one man worked through the game by playing every side makes this worth the watch.
*No spoiler warning for a film that is essentially history
Barry Seal was pilot so dissatisfied with his job that he agreed to fly a spy plane over Central America for the CIA. This quickly evolves in to him smuggling drugs for what would become the world's biggest drug cartel, smuggling weapons to the Contras for the CIA, and even smuggling Contras to the US so that they could be trained, all while making more money than most people dream of. The film follows that same rise and fall common in movies like this and the ones mentioned above, the follow-on as each money-making effort leads in to yet another money-making effort, the returns this money means to the local society to grease palms and keep questions at bay, the peak that then brings our lead down as everything eventually catches up to him, it's all familiar fair at this point; there's even a quick montage backed by dialogue to bring a handful of new people in to work quickly, much like The Wolf of Wall Street. That said, the additional political details and the juxtaposition of Reagan preaching morality while Seal works these weapon, drug and people smuggling schemes technically under the employ of Reagan's people, as well as the scant details about the rise of the likes of Pablo Escobar, are enough to keep the film's story interesting enough on its own.
Cruise is front and centre for the entire film, and he reminds why he can do that, carrying his role with that seemingly effortless swagger yet undeniable intensity, keeping each scene interesting as he as Seal goes from barely keeping his cool in a situation where he's out of his depth, to complete confidence as the entire criminal enterprise becomes a simple everyday thing for him.
Another note about the political aspect of this film, I found it interesting just how little repercussions came of Seal's actions through the legal system. The film treats these events with appropriate cynicism, not painting Seal with any higher or lower morality and just treating the story as a result of a failure in the system rather than one individual, conscious of the fact that the worst in this story was not that he committed a crime, but that he effectively got away with it, at least until the cartel found him. Once again, the comparison draws to Pain & Gain and The Wolf of Wall Street: the films all seem to be pointing at real events and at least glibly asking how the system allows this type of behaviour results in achieving the American Dream.
The Verdict: A rise-and-fall thriller with some political and comedic undertones, American Made has enough going on and a strong enough performance from Cruise that it's a good movie, but beyond a few tense scenes and funny moments it's not particularly memorable. If you like a bit of Cold War-era secrecy and that winning formula from Goodfellas or Scarface, give this a watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published August 25th, 2017
Written by: Gary Spinelli
Starring: Tom Cruise, Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright
IMDb Link
This one's a fairly straightforward movie, a cynical presentation of an amoral twist on the American Dream, half way between Pain & Gain and The Wolf of Wall Street, but with more planes and a far less flashy style. The political implications and background of the movie are interesting; seeing a dramatization of the build-up to the Iran-Contra Affair through the lens of only a few people while one man worked through the game by playing every side makes this worth the watch.
*No spoiler warning for a film that is essentially history
Barry Seal was pilot so dissatisfied with his job that he agreed to fly a spy plane over Central America for the CIA. This quickly evolves in to him smuggling drugs for what would become the world's biggest drug cartel, smuggling weapons to the Contras for the CIA, and even smuggling Contras to the US so that they could be trained, all while making more money than most people dream of. The film follows that same rise and fall common in movies like this and the ones mentioned above, the follow-on as each money-making effort leads in to yet another money-making effort, the returns this money means to the local society to grease palms and keep questions at bay, the peak that then brings our lead down as everything eventually catches up to him, it's all familiar fair at this point; there's even a quick montage backed by dialogue to bring a handful of new people in to work quickly, much like The Wolf of Wall Street. That said, the additional political details and the juxtaposition of Reagan preaching morality while Seal works these weapon, drug and people smuggling schemes technically under the employ of Reagan's people, as well as the scant details about the rise of the likes of Pablo Escobar, are enough to keep the film's story interesting enough on its own.
Cruise is front and centre for the entire film, and he reminds why he can do that, carrying his role with that seemingly effortless swagger yet undeniable intensity, keeping each scene interesting as he as Seal goes from barely keeping his cool in a situation where he's out of his depth, to complete confidence as the entire criminal enterprise becomes a simple everyday thing for him.
Another note about the political aspect of this film, I found it interesting just how little repercussions came of Seal's actions through the legal system. The film treats these events with appropriate cynicism, not painting Seal with any higher or lower morality and just treating the story as a result of a failure in the system rather than one individual, conscious of the fact that the worst in this story was not that he committed a crime, but that he effectively got away with it, at least until the cartel found him. Once again, the comparison draws to Pain & Gain and The Wolf of Wall Street: the films all seem to be pointing at real events and at least glibly asking how the system allows this type of behaviour results in achieving the American Dream.
The Verdict: A rise-and-fall thriller with some political and comedic undertones, American Made has enough going on and a strong enough performance from Cruise that it's a good movie, but beyond a few tense scenes and funny moments it's not particularly memorable. If you like a bit of Cold War-era secrecy and that winning formula from Goodfellas or Scarface, give this a watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published August 25th, 2017
Wednesday, 23 August 2017
2017 Film Review: The Dark Tower (2017)
Directed by: Nikolaj Arcel
Written by: Nikolaj Arcel, Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen
Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor
IMDb Link
I hadn't read the Stephen King novel series that this film is based on, but now I want to, because all I got from this movie was hints that their's a better story here than what I was shown.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The premise is one of the strongest things about the movie. A kid named Jake has visions of a revolver-toting badass Gunslinger named Roland (Elba) and a stand-in for Satan named Walter (McConaughey). The visions lead Jake to a portal, and we're off to another world. Had the film focused on just this premise and the interactions of Roland and Walter, we might've had a better movie. Unfortunately, the film has a heap of other subplots and ideas for subplots that, while on their own are good ideas, do not get explored and end up having little-to-no effect on the plot and just weigh the film down.
The other strongest parts of this movie are McConaughey and Elba. While there's a conflict between the self-serious tone of the movie and the unfitting dialogue they speak, both of the men's natural charisma allows them to carry each role and make them credible to watch. McConaughey playing a seemingly all-powerful being who casually causes people to stop breathing just by speaking to them, carried by his usual swagger, is just sickeningly joyful to watch. Elba moving with shifts between slow calm and sudden rage is equally appreciable, and the film's best moments are when the two interact. What they said was awkward at times, conveying exposition and using terms that probably seem less silly in the King novels, but the general air of tension, and a perceivable history between the two, left a genuine disappointment that the entire film wasn't about them.
Outside of the premise and the two adult leads, the movie is just poorly-developed ideas, forced character development, questionable acting, and setpieces that show the limits of the film's budget. A distinct moment that stood out to me was when Jake is attacked by a house demon made of the house's materials. It breaks the build up to adventure for a quick monster moment that looks bizarrely fake and pulled me out of the movie, and it's emblematic of the later effects-heavy action sequences which seem like they're trying to look like a blockbuster but have to hide it with dark lighting or it just looks unbelievable. Tom Taylor as Jake isn't bad for a young actor, but standing next to Elba and McConaughey it's hard to ignore that he's out of his league; that said, so is just about everyone else. The story has so many extra ideas that don't go anywhere, and Elba's Roland has to go from vaguely cold to caring without much time spent showing how.
The Verdict: The Dark Tower seems like a lot of wasted potential. While the movie is engrossing whenever it focuses on Elba and McConaughey, it has so many ideas which it does almost nothing with that the most this film succeeds in doing is making me want to read the books.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published August 24th, 2017
Written by: Nikolaj Arcel, Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen
Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor
IMDb Link
I hadn't read the Stephen King novel series that this film is based on, but now I want to, because all I got from this movie was hints that their's a better story here than what I was shown.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The premise is one of the strongest things about the movie. A kid named Jake has visions of a revolver-toting badass Gunslinger named Roland (Elba) and a stand-in for Satan named Walter (McConaughey). The visions lead Jake to a portal, and we're off to another world. Had the film focused on just this premise and the interactions of Roland and Walter, we might've had a better movie. Unfortunately, the film has a heap of other subplots and ideas for subplots that, while on their own are good ideas, do not get explored and end up having little-to-no effect on the plot and just weigh the film down.
The other strongest parts of this movie are McConaughey and Elba. While there's a conflict between the self-serious tone of the movie and the unfitting dialogue they speak, both of the men's natural charisma allows them to carry each role and make them credible to watch. McConaughey playing a seemingly all-powerful being who casually causes people to stop breathing just by speaking to them, carried by his usual swagger, is just sickeningly joyful to watch. Elba moving with shifts between slow calm and sudden rage is equally appreciable, and the film's best moments are when the two interact. What they said was awkward at times, conveying exposition and using terms that probably seem less silly in the King novels, but the general air of tension, and a perceivable history between the two, left a genuine disappointment that the entire film wasn't about them.
Outside of the premise and the two adult leads, the movie is just poorly-developed ideas, forced character development, questionable acting, and setpieces that show the limits of the film's budget. A distinct moment that stood out to me was when Jake is attacked by a house demon made of the house's materials. It breaks the build up to adventure for a quick monster moment that looks bizarrely fake and pulled me out of the movie, and it's emblematic of the later effects-heavy action sequences which seem like they're trying to look like a blockbuster but have to hide it with dark lighting or it just looks unbelievable. Tom Taylor as Jake isn't bad for a young actor, but standing next to Elba and McConaughey it's hard to ignore that he's out of his league; that said, so is just about everyone else. The story has so many extra ideas that don't go anywhere, and Elba's Roland has to go from vaguely cold to caring without much time spent showing how.
The Verdict: The Dark Tower seems like a lot of wasted potential. While the movie is engrossing whenever it focuses on Elba and McConaughey, it has so many ideas which it does almost nothing with that the most this film succeeds in doing is making me want to read the books.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published August 24th, 2017
Thursday, 17 August 2017
2017 Film Review: Logan Lucky (2017)
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Written by: Rebecca Blunt
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig
IMDb Link
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Logan Lucky follows Jimmy Logan (Tatum), a man down on his luck (har har, yes that's an easy joke to make with this movie), out of work and doing what he can to stay involved in his daughter's life. He teams up with his brother Clyde (Driver), his sister Mellie (Riley Keough), convict Joe Bang (Craig), and Bang's brothers Fish and Sam, for a heist to steal money from a nearby speedway. Imagine something along the lines of Ocean's Eleven but with a Southern charm.
The whole film is just great silliness from start to finish, with lots of clever character quirks and absurd moments peppered throughout the film as we progress through an equally preposterous heist plot that never takes itself too seriously and takes joy in its need for conveniences.
There's a lot of delight to be had in the film's characters and the little bits of flavour the actors add to their performances. While Tatum and Driver have to handle the straight-man roles in the comedy, the Bang brothers are set up for one hilariously silly moment after another. Craig as Joe Bang is the particular highlight, looking like he's having an absolute ball of a time performing as the playfully silly convict with the bleach-blonde hair and the high-pitched voice. He's given great material to work with here too; one scene that stands out involves him taking the time to explain a chemical reaction to Logan boys, all the while holding the very explosive in his hand. It's hilarious to see him go from stressing how dangerous the stuff is, only to immediately forget about it and to go about legitimising his work the moment the boys question it, all expressed by a perfectly over-the-top Craig. That said, his brothers get plenty of moments to shine, including my absolute favourite moment in the film: When the Logan boys come to recruit them, they initially rebuff the suggestion, saying that they're good with God and that they'd need a damn good moral reason to break the law. The Logan boys scramble a reason together, one that's had half a thought put in to it and doesn't sound particularly true, but when the Bang boys turn to confer their decision, the conversation is literally "Whadya think?" "Yeah" "Ok" They don't question it unless it's convenient for them, they're seemingly just looking for an excuse, but the elaborate hoops they makes the Logan boys jump through once again add to the film's comedic tone..These two deliver lines to each other so quickly and easily that it's like sketch comedy.
The plot itself is simultaneously brilliant and ludicrous, relying on so many coincidences but executing so fantastically because those coincidences fell in to place. In another kind of film I'd find it annoying, but Logan Lucky does its best with barely a hint of a serious tone that it's easy to just sit back and suspend your disbelief. The film is endearing, and for that reason it's easy to forgive the obvious moments where this has to occur, and praise the film in its moments where these fortunes pay off in heartfelt ways. I criticise the film for having effectively three endings, which causes the pacing of the film to drag at the end, and a finale that's more annoyingly ambiguous than as clever as the rest of the film. However, these details don't detract from the preceding 100 minutes; the plot's set up and execution are slick, and the payoff is more meaningful than the rest of the film, even if it's muddled.
All of the film's escapist plot and enjoyably absurd characters are laid on a backdrop of a surprisingly fleshed out picture of small town USA. Clyde has one hand and thinks the family is cursed with perpetual bad luck, Jimmy's daughter is in to beauty pageants, there's a county fair with some unique carnival games, and everyone knows everyone; it all adds up to this real sense of a little community somewhere in the US, which humanises the film a little despite its absurdity, and gives the film a little meat behind the lightweight veneer.
The Verdict: Logan Lucky is light and absurd with a little bit of heart and rarely a dull moment. The colour in its characters and dialogue, handled by experienced direction, makes for an all-round superb experience that everyone seemed to enjoy making. I recommend you go see if you enjoyed the likes of Soderbergh's other works such as the Ocean's series.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published August 17th, 2017
Written by: Rebecca Blunt
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig
IMDb Link
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Logan Lucky follows Jimmy Logan (Tatum), a man down on his luck (har har, yes that's an easy joke to make with this movie), out of work and doing what he can to stay involved in his daughter's life. He teams up with his brother Clyde (Driver), his sister Mellie (Riley Keough), convict Joe Bang (Craig), and Bang's brothers Fish and Sam, for a heist to steal money from a nearby speedway. Imagine something along the lines of Ocean's Eleven but with a Southern charm.
The whole film is just great silliness from start to finish, with lots of clever character quirks and absurd moments peppered throughout the film as we progress through an equally preposterous heist plot that never takes itself too seriously and takes joy in its need for conveniences.
There's a lot of delight to be had in the film's characters and the little bits of flavour the actors add to their performances. While Tatum and Driver have to handle the straight-man roles in the comedy, the Bang brothers are set up for one hilariously silly moment after another. Craig as Joe Bang is the particular highlight, looking like he's having an absolute ball of a time performing as the playfully silly convict with the bleach-blonde hair and the high-pitched voice. He's given great material to work with here too; one scene that stands out involves him taking the time to explain a chemical reaction to Logan boys, all the while holding the very explosive in his hand. It's hilarious to see him go from stressing how dangerous the stuff is, only to immediately forget about it and to go about legitimising his work the moment the boys question it, all expressed by a perfectly over-the-top Craig. That said, his brothers get plenty of moments to shine, including my absolute favourite moment in the film: When the Logan boys come to recruit them, they initially rebuff the suggestion, saying that they're good with God and that they'd need a damn good moral reason to break the law. The Logan boys scramble a reason together, one that's had half a thought put in to it and doesn't sound particularly true, but when the Bang boys turn to confer their decision, the conversation is literally "Whadya think?" "Yeah" "Ok" They don't question it unless it's convenient for them, they're seemingly just looking for an excuse, but the elaborate hoops they makes the Logan boys jump through once again add to the film's comedic tone..These two deliver lines to each other so quickly and easily that it's like sketch comedy.
The plot itself is simultaneously brilliant and ludicrous, relying on so many coincidences but executing so fantastically because those coincidences fell in to place. In another kind of film I'd find it annoying, but Logan Lucky does its best with barely a hint of a serious tone that it's easy to just sit back and suspend your disbelief. The film is endearing, and for that reason it's easy to forgive the obvious moments where this has to occur, and praise the film in its moments where these fortunes pay off in heartfelt ways. I criticise the film for having effectively three endings, which causes the pacing of the film to drag at the end, and a finale that's more annoyingly ambiguous than as clever as the rest of the film. However, these details don't detract from the preceding 100 minutes; the plot's set up and execution are slick, and the payoff is more meaningful than the rest of the film, even if it's muddled.
All of the film's escapist plot and enjoyably absurd characters are laid on a backdrop of a surprisingly fleshed out picture of small town USA. Clyde has one hand and thinks the family is cursed with perpetual bad luck, Jimmy's daughter is in to beauty pageants, there's a county fair with some unique carnival games, and everyone knows everyone; it all adds up to this real sense of a little community somewhere in the US, which humanises the film a little despite its absurdity, and gives the film a little meat behind the lightweight veneer.
The Verdict: Logan Lucky is light and absurd with a little bit of heart and rarely a dull moment. The colour in its characters and dialogue, handled by experienced direction, makes for an all-round superb experience that everyone seemed to enjoy making. I recommend you go see if you enjoyed the likes of Soderbergh's other works such as the Ocean's series.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published August 17th, 2017
Friday, 11 August 2017
2017 Film Review: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Directed by: Luc Besson
Written by: Luc Besson, based upon Valerian and Laureline by Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mezieres
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen
IMDb Link
Sometimes a fictional world filled with incredible ideas and imagination is brought to life. Star Wars, Harry Potter, these films are good stories with enjoyable characters that take place in a beautiful world just brimming with potential. Valerian is a lot like that, but without the "good stories" and "enjoyable characters".
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film follows Major Valeriean (DeHaan) and Sergeant Laureline (Delevingne) as they explore a dark conspiracy aboard the gigantic space metropolis of Alpha, a place filled with thousands of cultures and alien species.
The best thing that this film does is give us a tour of Alpha and the world in which Valerian and Laureline inhabit. Every five minutes there's a new and creative sci-fi idea brought to focus, like an extra-dimensional market that can only be interacted with on our plane of existence through special technology, or a small creature that can produce more of anything it eats. So much of it is conveniently timed in its introduction, just so happening to be available in the moment when our characters need it, but it's something I can accept in this post-scarcity utopia that's the result of so many people and cultures combining their understanding. It takes a bit of tension out of some scenes, as you can always be sure that when something bad happens to the characters they'll be able to find something to save them, but the world up on screen is pure imagination.
Truth be told, it's not so much the story that's the problem as it is how the story is presented. Everything about who the characters are or the fantastical design of Alpha are simply told to us directly. There's no chance to be wowed by a lot of what the city has to offer, we're just told everything up front, so instead of observing some cool, of-the-wall creature or environment, it's a plain reaction of "oh, this is that thing that they talked about before". This is even worse in the case of Valerian and Laureline's dialogue about each other, which doesn't hold any actual chemistry and just forces us to understand that Valerian is some rugged cowboy type in a soldier's uniform and that he loves Laureline, and that Laureline is uninterested because of Valerian's swath of sexual escapades in his past. Not only is this clunky dialogue that's delivered poorly, it also runs counter to what we see Valerian do as the film progresses. It seems as if these two were introduced to us about two-thirds of the way through their own story, and rather than suggest history through light barbs or genuine moments we have to understand exactly how their history has been, no matter how out of sync that seems with what we actually see.
With that in mind, I hate to say it because I like the guy's acting, but DeHaan is the weaker of the two here. Not only is he performing in a way that seems stiff and clunky, but the character he's portraying is unlike how he's performed in the past, so when we see through the thin veil set by his performance it's hard not to think of how out of place he seems in his role. I was actually surprised by how much I liked Cara Delevingne's performance by comparison. She's not great, and she's still working with clunky and unnatural sounding dialogue, but she definitely seems more at home in the sort of role that requires her to be serious and severe on the surface with an obvious softer side beneath.
The Verdict: Valerian is a gorgeous empty shell. While it has a vibrant and imaginative world to share, the story and characters it attempts to ground you with are shallow and forgettable, a point which isn't helped by the often appallingly bad dialogue. I won't recommend against it, because the film's world really does a lot for the experience, but I won't tell you to go see it either.
Rating: 5/10
Published Friday, August 11th, 2017
Written by: Luc Besson, based upon Valerian and Laureline by Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mezieres
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen
IMDb Link
Sometimes a fictional world filled with incredible ideas and imagination is brought to life. Star Wars, Harry Potter, these films are good stories with enjoyable characters that take place in a beautiful world just brimming with potential. Valerian is a lot like that, but without the "good stories" and "enjoyable characters".
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film follows Major Valeriean (DeHaan) and Sergeant Laureline (Delevingne) as they explore a dark conspiracy aboard the gigantic space metropolis of Alpha, a place filled with thousands of cultures and alien species.
The best thing that this film does is give us a tour of Alpha and the world in which Valerian and Laureline inhabit. Every five minutes there's a new and creative sci-fi idea brought to focus, like an extra-dimensional market that can only be interacted with on our plane of existence through special technology, or a small creature that can produce more of anything it eats. So much of it is conveniently timed in its introduction, just so happening to be available in the moment when our characters need it, but it's something I can accept in this post-scarcity utopia that's the result of so many people and cultures combining their understanding. It takes a bit of tension out of some scenes, as you can always be sure that when something bad happens to the characters they'll be able to find something to save them, but the world up on screen is pure imagination.
Truth be told, it's not so much the story that's the problem as it is how the story is presented. Everything about who the characters are or the fantastical design of Alpha are simply told to us directly. There's no chance to be wowed by a lot of what the city has to offer, we're just told everything up front, so instead of observing some cool, of-the-wall creature or environment, it's a plain reaction of "oh, this is that thing that they talked about before". This is even worse in the case of Valerian and Laureline's dialogue about each other, which doesn't hold any actual chemistry and just forces us to understand that Valerian is some rugged cowboy type in a soldier's uniform and that he loves Laureline, and that Laureline is uninterested because of Valerian's swath of sexual escapades in his past. Not only is this clunky dialogue that's delivered poorly, it also runs counter to what we see Valerian do as the film progresses. It seems as if these two were introduced to us about two-thirds of the way through their own story, and rather than suggest history through light barbs or genuine moments we have to understand exactly how their history has been, no matter how out of sync that seems with what we actually see.
With that in mind, I hate to say it because I like the guy's acting, but DeHaan is the weaker of the two here. Not only is he performing in a way that seems stiff and clunky, but the character he's portraying is unlike how he's performed in the past, so when we see through the thin veil set by his performance it's hard not to think of how out of place he seems in his role. I was actually surprised by how much I liked Cara Delevingne's performance by comparison. She's not great, and she's still working with clunky and unnatural sounding dialogue, but she definitely seems more at home in the sort of role that requires her to be serious and severe on the surface with an obvious softer side beneath.
The Verdict: Valerian is a gorgeous empty shell. While it has a vibrant and imaginative world to share, the story and characters it attempts to ground you with are shallow and forgettable, a point which isn't helped by the often appallingly bad dialogue. I won't recommend against it, because the film's world really does a lot for the experience, but I won't tell you to go see it either.
Rating: 5/10
Published Friday, August 11th, 2017
Thursday, 10 August 2017
2017 Film Review: Atomic Blonde (2017)
Directed by: David Leitch
Written by: Kurt Johnstad, based upon The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart
Starring: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Sofia Boutella
IMDb Link
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Atomic Blonde follows Cold War MI6 agent Lorraine Broughton (Theron) as she tells the tale of her last mission, wherein she had to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and retrieve the item he was carrying, which contains the identities of all MI6 agents, including a double agent for the KGB known only as 'Satchel'. The film is presented through Broughton's perspective, as she is interrogated by her superior (Toby Jones) and a CIA agent (John Goodman).
Broughton tells us her experiences with contact David Percival (McAvoy); Broughton paints Percival as larger than life, loud and anarchic yet still so incredibly skilled as to use that punk persona as another cover, and move about the city unseen as he needs to. Both Theron and McAvoy play their characters incredibly well. luckily, their performances weren't lost in the overly complicated plot. There are so many things going on in this film, and they aren't particularly well juggled. In Broughton's story alone we have to deal with the inclusion of characters that are introduced to seem important only to be killed off later, and unnecessary story additions that ultimately get relegated to the background because there's so little development to them. It can't just be a man Gasciogne was killed and Percival is secretly responsible, there has to be another man who killed Gasciogne with Percival's information, only to be later killed by Percival so that Percival can use the information to make a deal with the KGB to kill off Broughton and Spyglass, who is the only other man with access to the spy information, because for some reason there needs to be yet another side plot for Broughton to investigate, while Spyglass has a family as well that just exists and doesn't need to be there. There's so much that screams "this was all in the comic and we couldn't figure out how to cut it entirely so we just threw it in where we could, without regard for pacing or emotional impact". Moments like the death of Spyglass or Sofia Boutella's Delphine seem to have these attempts at tugging your heartstrings, but these characters get so little time it's just a bland throw-away moment. Then there's the additional layer to the story, the reveal that all of this being Broughton's perspective was intentional in order to reveal to the audience that Broughton was Satchel the whole time. It's a really cool twist, that would've been way cooler if the film had actually been about finding out who Satchel was the whole time, but because the film is so lacking in story focus the reveal's impact is reduced. The impact is then further reduced by the apparent need for Broughton's character to come out of the film on the audience's good side. Rather than sting the audience with the knowledge that they just spent the duration of the movie barracking for the wrong character, they have to have another twist five minutes after its initial twist. So, Broughton is not just and MI6 double agent for the KGB, she's a KGB double agent for the CIA.
The plot is not something that should be fit in to two hours; it's a cool idea, especially with the implications and eventual twist that come with telling it from Broughton's point of view, but there's a lot of small pieces that are forced in to place for the audience so that we can follow along. The film creates the assumption that any time we learn a piece of information that, because of the format of the movie, the interrogators are learning it too, but the film cheats on this a few times to line up a surprise reveal to the interrogators with a different surprise reveal to the audience. The cheat is complicated further by the fact that the scenes that cheat are ones that Broughton has no perspective on because she wasn't there for; one scene is accounted for, but another can't even be a lie because she has no idea it even happened. This is further made an issue by the meaning of the double lie: the fact that Broughton is not a double, but in fact a triple agent is supposed to be a soft forgiveness of her character, making her "good" and absolving her sins in the movie in the eyes of the audience, but it's so out of left field and gels so poorly with the idea that the whole original tale is a lie that it not only has no effect on the audience, it diminishes the effect of the initial twist and just adds unnecessary complexity to an already unnecessarily complex spy thriller.
Alright, so the movie's a mess in terms of plot, but what it does with everything else more than makes up for the experience.
The action is fantastic in terms of both choreography and visuals. I appreciate the director's penchant for using long takes; the action is shot smoothly and coherently, and it allows every punch, kick, stab and bone break to have its moment of impact, all while the characters fight using every tool available to them. It's all stylised in that gritty, hyper-realistic way that's been seen most recently in John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017); characters take a ridiculous amount of punishment, but because the movie takes the time to remind us that they are hurt, it's easier to suspend disbelief for it. One scene in particular, utilising a staircase in an apartment building as its set, is a feat of filmmaking that shows the best of what the film has to offer. A continuous shot that keeps the action easy to follow, with fight after fight that displays choreography that comes off as naturally scrappy.
Outside of the action, I have to gives praise to this film's sense of style and sound. The Neon business is alive and well and 80s synth soundtracks are making a comeback, all of which is good news to my eyes and ears. The colour in this film is fantastic, not only making use of Neon to evoke a mix of style and base emotions through colour, but contrasting it with clean and cold whites and blacks in sets such as the interrogation to reinforce a sense that the story Broughton is telling is embellished. Meanwhile the movie's music is both setting appropriate and excellent at setting the tone of the film. While you might find it difficult to care about the plot details of each scene, it's very easy to listen to and understand the intended impact of each scene while you appreciate musical compositions that would be right at home in the film's setting. As it stands, the movie isn't one you'll want to think about, but it's better to look at and listen to than a lot of bigger movies I've seen this year.
The Verdict: Atomic Blonde is an awesome action piece inside of a convoluted espionage thriller. It's gorgeous to look at and listen to, but its story is a mess of a fake tale wrapped up in a mess of another fake tale told to us in this way entirely for the purpose of a satisfying twist that ends up pointless. By my nature, I have to recommend it for the action scenes that are as impressive as the likes of the John Wick movies, but the plot feels like they took Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and jammed it haphazardly together with an action movie.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published Thursday, August 10th, 2017
Written by: Kurt Johnstad, based upon The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart
Starring: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Sofia Boutella
IMDb Link
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Atomic Blonde follows Cold War MI6 agent Lorraine Broughton (Theron) as she tells the tale of her last mission, wherein she had to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and retrieve the item he was carrying, which contains the identities of all MI6 agents, including a double agent for the KGB known only as 'Satchel'. The film is presented through Broughton's perspective, as she is interrogated by her superior (Toby Jones) and a CIA agent (John Goodman).
Broughton tells us her experiences with contact David Percival (McAvoy); Broughton paints Percival as larger than life, loud and anarchic yet still so incredibly skilled as to use that punk persona as another cover, and move about the city unseen as he needs to. Both Theron and McAvoy play their characters incredibly well. luckily, their performances weren't lost in the overly complicated plot. There are so many things going on in this film, and they aren't particularly well juggled. In Broughton's story alone we have to deal with the inclusion of characters that are introduced to seem important only to be killed off later, and unnecessary story additions that ultimately get relegated to the background because there's so little development to them. It can't just be a man Gasciogne was killed and Percival is secretly responsible, there has to be another man who killed Gasciogne with Percival's information, only to be later killed by Percival so that Percival can use the information to make a deal with the KGB to kill off Broughton and Spyglass, who is the only other man with access to the spy information, because for some reason there needs to be yet another side plot for Broughton to investigate, while Spyglass has a family as well that just exists and doesn't need to be there. There's so much that screams "this was all in the comic and we couldn't figure out how to cut it entirely so we just threw it in where we could, without regard for pacing or emotional impact". Moments like the death of Spyglass or Sofia Boutella's Delphine seem to have these attempts at tugging your heartstrings, but these characters get so little time it's just a bland throw-away moment. Then there's the additional layer to the story, the reveal that all of this being Broughton's perspective was intentional in order to reveal to the audience that Broughton was Satchel the whole time. It's a really cool twist, that would've been way cooler if the film had actually been about finding out who Satchel was the whole time, but because the film is so lacking in story focus the reveal's impact is reduced. The impact is then further reduced by the apparent need for Broughton's character to come out of the film on the audience's good side. Rather than sting the audience with the knowledge that they just spent the duration of the movie barracking for the wrong character, they have to have another twist five minutes after its initial twist. So, Broughton is not just and MI6 double agent for the KGB, she's a KGB double agent for the CIA.
The plot is not something that should be fit in to two hours; it's a cool idea, especially with the implications and eventual twist that come with telling it from Broughton's point of view, but there's a lot of small pieces that are forced in to place for the audience so that we can follow along. The film creates the assumption that any time we learn a piece of information that, because of the format of the movie, the interrogators are learning it too, but the film cheats on this a few times to line up a surprise reveal to the interrogators with a different surprise reveal to the audience. The cheat is complicated further by the fact that the scenes that cheat are ones that Broughton has no perspective on because she wasn't there for; one scene is accounted for, but another can't even be a lie because she has no idea it even happened. This is further made an issue by the meaning of the double lie: the fact that Broughton is not a double, but in fact a triple agent is supposed to be a soft forgiveness of her character, making her "good" and absolving her sins in the movie in the eyes of the audience, but it's so out of left field and gels so poorly with the idea that the whole original tale is a lie that it not only has no effect on the audience, it diminishes the effect of the initial twist and just adds unnecessary complexity to an already unnecessarily complex spy thriller.
Alright, so the movie's a mess in terms of plot, but what it does with everything else more than makes up for the experience.
The action is fantastic in terms of both choreography and visuals. I appreciate the director's penchant for using long takes; the action is shot smoothly and coherently, and it allows every punch, kick, stab and bone break to have its moment of impact, all while the characters fight using every tool available to them. It's all stylised in that gritty, hyper-realistic way that's been seen most recently in John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017); characters take a ridiculous amount of punishment, but because the movie takes the time to remind us that they are hurt, it's easier to suspend disbelief for it. One scene in particular, utilising a staircase in an apartment building as its set, is a feat of filmmaking that shows the best of what the film has to offer. A continuous shot that keeps the action easy to follow, with fight after fight that displays choreography that comes off as naturally scrappy.
Outside of the action, I have to gives praise to this film's sense of style and sound. The Neon business is alive and well and 80s synth soundtracks are making a comeback, all of which is good news to my eyes and ears. The colour in this film is fantastic, not only making use of Neon to evoke a mix of style and base emotions through colour, but contrasting it with clean and cold whites and blacks in sets such as the interrogation to reinforce a sense that the story Broughton is telling is embellished. Meanwhile the movie's music is both setting appropriate and excellent at setting the tone of the film. While you might find it difficult to care about the plot details of each scene, it's very easy to listen to and understand the intended impact of each scene while you appreciate musical compositions that would be right at home in the film's setting. As it stands, the movie isn't one you'll want to think about, but it's better to look at and listen to than a lot of bigger movies I've seen this year.
The Verdict: Atomic Blonde is an awesome action piece inside of a convoluted espionage thriller. It's gorgeous to look at and listen to, but its story is a mess of a fake tale wrapped up in a mess of another fake tale told to us in this way entirely for the purpose of a satisfying twist that ends up pointless. By my nature, I have to recommend it for the action scenes that are as impressive as the likes of the John Wick movies, but the plot feels like they took Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and jammed it haphazardly together with an action movie.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published Thursday, August 10th, 2017
Sunday, 6 August 2017
Quick Film Review: The Big Sick (2017)
Directed by: Michael Showalter
Written by: Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon
Starring: Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, Ray Romano
IMDb Link
This one is going to be a short one because I have not been feeling well lately and I can barely put two thoughts together.
The Big Sick depicts actual events from the lives of Kumail and Emily, with Kumail playing himself and Emily being played by Zoe Kazan. We see their relationship bloom as they grow to trust and appreciate and love each other, and it all feels completely natural, heartfelt and believable, while Kumail's cultural background leaves a constant spike of tension as we watch the two develop together. Kumail's Pakistani/Muslim background is a massive part of his story, and it's fantastic to see him portray it with a sense of humour that's still respectful; a topic like arranged marriage, or indeed the nature of obeying one's culture, is not easy, and the decision to leave a broad answer out of the film and deal only with Kumail's views about how it affects himself seems an excellent way to handle it, allowing the merits of such an idea to exist but showing with honesty how Kumail chose to deal with it. Everything about these events comes off as very personal, and I appreciate the difficulty that comes with putting such an important part of your life so completely out there, a fact that I applaud Kumail and Emily for.
Outside of the film's cultural subject matter, there's the events of the film that occur once Emily enters a medically induced coma. There's so much raw emotion here that it's hard to process in my current state, but Holly Hunter's performance as Emily's mother is unforgettable. The moment Kumail introduces himself and she replies with "We know who you are" in a tone so cold Jack Frost got chills, I knew she was going to be incredible. The way Kumail, Hunter, and Ray Romano play off each other is so true to how people behave in these grievous situations, as emotion and blame are thrown around and misdirected while they all just try their best to cope with the situation.
The Verdict: The Big Sick is fantastic; I appreciated the humour and humanity with which the whole film was approached, and in doing so was able to bring a tear to my eye, whether I laugh or cry. I have a lot of respect for what this film was able to achieve in it's depiction of the human experience, dealing with difficult subject matter with no right answer and an understanding that the film can't give an answer more than the personal one that Kumail came to. I highly recommend you go see it, because it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
Rating: 9/10
Published August 7th, 2017
Written by: Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon
Starring: Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, Ray Romano
IMDb Link
This one is going to be a short one because I have not been feeling well lately and I can barely put two thoughts together.
The Big Sick depicts actual events from the lives of Kumail and Emily, with Kumail playing himself and Emily being played by Zoe Kazan. We see their relationship bloom as they grow to trust and appreciate and love each other, and it all feels completely natural, heartfelt and believable, while Kumail's cultural background leaves a constant spike of tension as we watch the two develop together. Kumail's Pakistani/Muslim background is a massive part of his story, and it's fantastic to see him portray it with a sense of humour that's still respectful; a topic like arranged marriage, or indeed the nature of obeying one's culture, is not easy, and the decision to leave a broad answer out of the film and deal only with Kumail's views about how it affects himself seems an excellent way to handle it, allowing the merits of such an idea to exist but showing with honesty how Kumail chose to deal with it. Everything about these events comes off as very personal, and I appreciate the difficulty that comes with putting such an important part of your life so completely out there, a fact that I applaud Kumail and Emily for.
Outside of the film's cultural subject matter, there's the events of the film that occur once Emily enters a medically induced coma. There's so much raw emotion here that it's hard to process in my current state, but Holly Hunter's performance as Emily's mother is unforgettable. The moment Kumail introduces himself and she replies with "We know who you are" in a tone so cold Jack Frost got chills, I knew she was going to be incredible. The way Kumail, Hunter, and Ray Romano play off each other is so true to how people behave in these grievous situations, as emotion and blame are thrown around and misdirected while they all just try their best to cope with the situation.
The Verdict: The Big Sick is fantastic; I appreciated the humour and humanity with which the whole film was approached, and in doing so was able to bring a tear to my eye, whether I laugh or cry. I have a lot of respect for what this film was able to achieve in it's depiction of the human experience, dealing with difficult subject matter with no right answer and an understanding that the film can't give an answer more than the personal one that Kumail came to. I highly recommend you go see it, because it's one of the best films I've seen all year.
Rating: 9/10
Published August 7th, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)