Directed by: Yorgos Lanthimos
Written by: Yorgos Lanthimos, Efthymis Fillipou
Starring: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Barry Keoghan
IMDb Link
A minor key to knock you off your game. Deadpan performances that never fail to make you uneasy. A conceit that demands to be taken both seriously and not. A camera that keeps you constantly shifting your eyes and your head. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is absurdism at its most uncomfortable, succeeding almost exactly as it sets out to do, and gets better the longer it is left to settle on you; it is also incredibly difficult to grapple with
*
Steven Murphy (Farrell) is a surgeon, a husband and a father. When a patient dies under his knife, he attempts to comfort the son (Keoghan) in any way that he can, meeting with him and giving him presents. However, it is not enough for the boy, who only sees restitution in Steven losing something of equal value.
The film is unsettling from the beginning, and only gets more so as the film carries on. Its beginnings are that of an incredibly dark comedy, but a very specific moment changes everything and the whole tone of the film becomes that much more threatening. At the same time, a purposeful disconnect between the characters and the audience complicate the emotions of the film further, making the whole experience something you don't want to be involved in but can't look away from. It leaves you in a relatively consistent state of unease, as the film crescendos in ways that eek shaky laughs and evoke literal Old Testament imagery.
This is in large part due to the performances. Farrell, Kidman and Keoghan all offer extremely stiff, almost reptilian cold performances that restrain almost all emotion and reinforce the strange world they live in. Keoghan in particular is absolutely horrifying, so alien in his mannerisms and perspective that his every action and eventually even his presence cause you to recoil.
The direction is undoubtedly a consideration here as well. Lanthimos evokes a similar but more sinister feel to his previous work The Lobster (2015), but even without that context it's not difficult to see that every surreal or absurd moment is meticulous and intentional in its placement, as are the moments where he employs realistic technique, which when laid alongside the film's much more consistent absurdity feels in itself absurd. His constant use of shots that never connect at eye level, gliding overhead shots, sneaky ground-level shots, tilted and unfocused shots and edits that play with time and distort reality, all work in aid of the film's absurd goals and reinforce a sense of lack of control in the film's situation, that the "God" of this movie sees fit to predestine its ending.
My Take: The Killing of a Sacred Deer is exactly as absurd as it intends to be, every moment as confusingly unsettling as you would expect just from its name alone. It is often brilliant in craft and story, and for those that can stomach unease for two hours it's absolutely worth the watch. That said, its greatest strength makes it difficult for me to think of a person who I'd recommend it to.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published November 21st, 2017
Tuesday, 21 November 2017
Thursday, 16 November 2017
2017 Film Review: Justice League (2017)
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: Zack Snyder, Chris Terrio, Joss Whedon
Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill
IMDb Link
This is exactly what you'd expect from a series that is built upon the shakiest of foundations in Batman v Superman. Wonder Woman was the anomaly here, not a new trend.
Justice League tries so hard to 'correct' everything that was wrong with Batman vs Superman and spends so much time setting up future movies that it doesn't take the time to actually be a movie itself. This experience is nothing, just a raw two hours of failing to try that's only held up by some decent spectacle and one or two intriguing characters.
*
I'd warn spoilers, but there's really nothing to spoil, as the plot is cookie-cutter at best; a super powerful bad guy shows up with unclear motivations beyond "destroy Earth, become a god", so Batman gathers some superheroes and forms the Justice League to combat him. As an ensemble piece, the focus should be on character interactions, but the characters are so poorly defined that there's very little to get from that either. Affleck's Batman just doesn't want to be there and plays completely differently to how he was in Batman v Superman, Gadot's Wonder Woman is still the best thing about the series and the one shining light in this mostly dismal movie, Jason Momoa's Aquaman has no screen presence and feels utterly useless when Wonder Woman and Superman exist, Ezra Miller's Flash flits between charming and insufferable, and Ray Fisher's Cyborg is the only other interesting character in the movie besides Wonder Woman, and is held back by his incredibly poorly CGI-ed body.
Unfortunately, the bad CGI doesn't stop there; just about everything effects-based in this movie looks disgustingly cheap and fake for a movie with a $300 million budget, which is also a reason that this is a notable problem with the movie. Everything from Cyborg's body to the Parademons looks unfinished and rushed, never meshing with the world and harming the visual experience on the whole.
The thing that makes this all fall that much harder is the way the movie tries to backpedal on everything that was done in Batman v Superman while also relying on the movie to exist. So much of Justice League requires Batman v Superman to exist, yet it's so sure of its predecessor's mistakes that a lot of the film is a complete turnaround for the characters; Batman is suddenly murmuring awkward quips to himself and being generally useless, and when Superman comes back they essentially use the opportunity of his resurrection to make him behave more like the Christopher Reeve version. The corny, jokey tone exists within a film that us still very much the dark Snyder vision, and as such the film simply does not fit together at all. There's pieces of better movies here, but the whole film is just a Frankenstein's Monster of ideas and goals sewn together by a love of money.
The Verdict: Justice League is a complete mess from start to finish; everything from the tone to the characters to the music to the plot to the effects just don't fit together as a whole, as the movie flails about unsure of its goals and intentions. Don't bother seeing it; somehow a movie about the Justice League does nothing more than try to correct the mistakes of its predecessor.
Rating: 4/10
Published November 16th, 2017
Written by: Zack Snyder, Chris Terrio, Joss Whedon
Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill
IMDb Link
This is exactly what you'd expect from a series that is built upon the shakiest of foundations in Batman v Superman. Wonder Woman was the anomaly here, not a new trend.
Justice League tries so hard to 'correct' everything that was wrong with Batman vs Superman and spends so much time setting up future movies that it doesn't take the time to actually be a movie itself. This experience is nothing, just a raw two hours of failing to try that's only held up by some decent spectacle and one or two intriguing characters.
*
I'd warn spoilers, but there's really nothing to spoil, as the plot is cookie-cutter at best; a super powerful bad guy shows up with unclear motivations beyond "destroy Earth, become a god", so Batman gathers some superheroes and forms the Justice League to combat him. As an ensemble piece, the focus should be on character interactions, but the characters are so poorly defined that there's very little to get from that either. Affleck's Batman just doesn't want to be there and plays completely differently to how he was in Batman v Superman, Gadot's Wonder Woman is still the best thing about the series and the one shining light in this mostly dismal movie, Jason Momoa's Aquaman has no screen presence and feels utterly useless when Wonder Woman and Superman exist, Ezra Miller's Flash flits between charming and insufferable, and Ray Fisher's Cyborg is the only other interesting character in the movie besides Wonder Woman, and is held back by his incredibly poorly CGI-ed body.
Unfortunately, the bad CGI doesn't stop there; just about everything effects-based in this movie looks disgustingly cheap and fake for a movie with a $300 million budget, which is also a reason that this is a notable problem with the movie. Everything from Cyborg's body to the Parademons looks unfinished and rushed, never meshing with the world and harming the visual experience on the whole.
The thing that makes this all fall that much harder is the way the movie tries to backpedal on everything that was done in Batman v Superman while also relying on the movie to exist. So much of Justice League requires Batman v Superman to exist, yet it's so sure of its predecessor's mistakes that a lot of the film is a complete turnaround for the characters; Batman is suddenly murmuring awkward quips to himself and being generally useless, and when Superman comes back they essentially use the opportunity of his resurrection to make him behave more like the Christopher Reeve version. The corny, jokey tone exists within a film that us still very much the dark Snyder vision, and as such the film simply does not fit together at all. There's pieces of better movies here, but the whole film is just a Frankenstein's Monster of ideas and goals sewn together by a love of money.
The Verdict: Justice League is a complete mess from start to finish; everything from the tone to the characters to the music to the plot to the effects just don't fit together as a whole, as the movie flails about unsure of its goals and intentions. Don't bother seeing it; somehow a movie about the Justice League does nothing more than try to correct the mistakes of its predecessor.
Rating: 4/10
Published November 16th, 2017
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
2017 Film Review: Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Written by: Michael Green
Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer
It's a book that made a name for itself with its famous mystery and has already been filmed a number of times; what can Kenneth Branagh bring to the table?
Well, apart from a glorious mustache that I was tempted to emulate the moment I saw it, nothing particularly new. The film has the usual Branagh charm of attempting to make things as faithful as possible to expectations in terms of storytelling but using the medium of film in his own way to affect the story's tone and style, but so much of that is dependent on the work he adapts and the new ways he can do things, as well as audience familiarity. His adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V was fantastic because the writing his film was based on is, well, Shakespeare, and he did something with the medium of film that was far more than simply filming the play. His version of Thor was far less good; his direction fine, but adapting from a convoluted story originally intended for children, and far too intent on making it look and feel like a comic book without altering the fact that the lore is too much, even for a comic. Murder on the Orient Express adheres to its source, but sometimes so much so that, aside from giving the ensemble a chance to chew the scenery and fawn over the excellent update of the production design, there's not a lot to get out of it.
For those unfamiliar, Murder on the Orient Express is originally an Agatha Christie detective novel following Hercule Poirot, here played by Branagh. While on holiday he travels on the Orient Express to get between cases, but of course there's no rest for the weary Poirot, as during the train's journey, someone is murdered in the night.
Branagh's direction makes great use of the train set to emphasise the tight, claustrophobic nature of the whole affair and the two-faced deception of the suspects. Conversations are often shot through snowed or crystal windows that obscure them in some way, and shots from the top of the set show just how tightly packed everyone is; Branagh has always had a terrific sense of blocking, and every character's position seems deliberate in reinforcing the paranoia, a sense of needing to look over your shoulder but not being able to because it's too tight to turn your head. Unfortunately, this loses out when they open up to scenes outside the train, and later attempts at theatricality end up seeming more self-serious than they may have been intended; a shot of the suspects emulating the last supper gives a strange gravitas that doesn't quite fit. That said, it's still pretty to look at.
Speaking of pretty, the production and set design on this film is gorgeous, and Branagh knows it. An often gratuitous amount of time is spent proudly examining the aesthetics of the film, and deservedly so. Everything from the neatly prepared desserts and bottles of champagne in ice to every detail of the train itself looks slick and somewhat saturated for emphasis. From a purely design standpoint, this movie is fantastic to take in.
The acting is all decent as well. There's so many in this ensemble that nobody gets a real chance to flesh out their character, but everyone gives a respectable performance that suits the initial tone the movie sets, with enough personality to carry each of their scenes. The exception of course is Branagh as Poirot with most of the screentime to play with. He's such a strong English orator that it's a stark contrast to see him playing a soft-spoken Frenchman, and his natural screen presence sometimes betrays his attempt at a softer performance, but it's a convincing Poirot nonetheless.
Verdict: Branagh's stylised direction and everyone's effective performances keep this movie entertaining, even though the former ultimately sets too self-serious a tone as the film comes to a climax. The production design and costuming are almost sublime to look at, but their sheen can't hide the fact that knowing the twist mutes the overall experience, and while the lack of meaningful deviation makes for a good homage it leaves little to get out of it that you couldn't already from previous adaptations or the book itself. If you know the story, you're in for a slick modernisation that doesn't break any new ground. If you don't, it's an intriguing murder-mystery with some moral quandary and a big cast. It's worth seeing, just.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published November 9th, 2017
Wednesday, 25 October 2017
2017 Film Review: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Directed by: Taika Waititi
Written by: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett
IMDb Link
Who would've thought that in this superhero saturated year featuring the cinematic debut of one of DC's greats, the final film of a seventeen-year long run for a beloved hero, a sequel to one of Marvel's most acclaimed films, and the integration of one of the most popular superheroes in to the biggest cinematic universe, that the best superhero movie would be Thor 3?
*
In a movie where Odin dies, Hela the goddess of death shows up and destroys Thor's hammer, and both Thor and Loki are cast in to another realm, we have some of the funniest and most consistent comedy of any MCU movie. Director Waititi brings his brilliant comedic timing to what would otherwise be a grim and self-serious story, and in doing so reminds the audience that these stories were originally meant for children and don't need to be taken so seriously. If the film was simply going for comedy at the wrong moments or trying to force it when it isn't necessary or funny then it wouldn't have worked, but Waititi always goes for the joke when he has the opportunity, and his timing is so perfect that it never fails to draw a laugh. While this takes a little getting used to, as it contrasts with the serious attempts at epic fantasy from the first two Thor films, the film is very quick to establish it's irreverent tone, and by the time Matt Damon shows up to do a hilarious re-enactment of Loki's "death" scene from Thor 2 for the real Loki's entertainment, it's easy to see that everyone involved is able to laugh at their flaws and is just trying to make the audience laugh above all else. What's most interesting, however, is that the filmmakers also knew exactly when to stop, just long enough for important character moments to actually mean something and not feel like pointless busywork that needs to be gotten through; the film knows when to throw its weight around, and while it's not going to leave an impression past how you feel when you see the next Avengers movie, it doesn't detract from the overall experience. Of course, this is in large part due to the context of the previous movies: Thor losing Mjolnir feels significant to the story because we know what the hammer means to him, Odin dying in front of Thor and Loki means something because of how central Odin was in their familial conflicts and bonds. It's stuff that works as much as it needs to.
Second on this film's list of priorities is spectacle, which it pulls of with great success, sometimes even as the film also goes for comedy. Thor fights Hulk, Hulk fights a huge wolf and a gargantuan demon, Thor finally uses his godlike powers, it's all there to wow and put a smile on your face, evoking a silly, brightly coloured vision that plays like a sugar-induced fever dream right out of childhood, silly when it needs to make you laugh, momentarily epic when there's a chance to take in the sheer awesomeness of a horde of Valkyries charging Hela, or a man in a suit of armour played by none other than Karl Urban, wielding guns and mowing down zombie Asgardians. Once again, the movie embraces the ridiculousness of its origins and doubles down on them, playing them for laughs as needed to keep the convoluted lore from getting boring.
That's the only real issue with the movie: the lore. While the film does its best to give the necessary information in concise, rapid-fire packages, the film has to do this while also accounting for the open threads from the end of Thor 2, and a not unwelcome but somewhat haphazard inclusion of Dr. Strange that needed to be there because that film ended with a tease to have him in this movie. The transition from that to telling its own story isn't smooth, and doing so while also explaining who Hela is and including all the necessary details for her powers leaves the first act a little shambled, but the jokes keep the whole thing together while it gets to its actual story, even containing one of the film's strongest laughs, and once the exposition is out of the way there's plenty of time for the things everyone sees these movies for. The films sets out with very simple goals, and succeeds in them excellently.
The Verdict: Thor: Ragnarok is a ridiculous movie that revels in its sheer silliness and is all the better for it. Raw comedic timing and spectacle, Thor's only misgivings are when it has to grapple with the convoluted lore. Highly recommended; even if you don't love it, it's hard not to like.
Rating: 8/10
Published October 26th, 2017
Written by: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett
IMDb Link
Who would've thought that in this superhero saturated year featuring the cinematic debut of one of DC's greats, the final film of a seventeen-year long run for a beloved hero, a sequel to one of Marvel's most acclaimed films, and the integration of one of the most popular superheroes in to the biggest cinematic universe, that the best superhero movie would be Thor 3?
*
In a movie where Odin dies, Hela the goddess of death shows up and destroys Thor's hammer, and both Thor and Loki are cast in to another realm, we have some of the funniest and most consistent comedy of any MCU movie. Director Waititi brings his brilliant comedic timing to what would otherwise be a grim and self-serious story, and in doing so reminds the audience that these stories were originally meant for children and don't need to be taken so seriously. If the film was simply going for comedy at the wrong moments or trying to force it when it isn't necessary or funny then it wouldn't have worked, but Waititi always goes for the joke when he has the opportunity, and his timing is so perfect that it never fails to draw a laugh. While this takes a little getting used to, as it contrasts with the serious attempts at epic fantasy from the first two Thor films, the film is very quick to establish it's irreverent tone, and by the time Matt Damon shows up to do a hilarious re-enactment of Loki's "death" scene from Thor 2 for the real Loki's entertainment, it's easy to see that everyone involved is able to laugh at their flaws and is just trying to make the audience laugh above all else. What's most interesting, however, is that the filmmakers also knew exactly when to stop, just long enough for important character moments to actually mean something and not feel like pointless busywork that needs to be gotten through; the film knows when to throw its weight around, and while it's not going to leave an impression past how you feel when you see the next Avengers movie, it doesn't detract from the overall experience. Of course, this is in large part due to the context of the previous movies: Thor losing Mjolnir feels significant to the story because we know what the hammer means to him, Odin dying in front of Thor and Loki means something because of how central Odin was in their familial conflicts and bonds. It's stuff that works as much as it needs to.
Second on this film's list of priorities is spectacle, which it pulls of with great success, sometimes even as the film also goes for comedy. Thor fights Hulk, Hulk fights a huge wolf and a gargantuan demon, Thor finally uses his godlike powers, it's all there to wow and put a smile on your face, evoking a silly, brightly coloured vision that plays like a sugar-induced fever dream right out of childhood, silly when it needs to make you laugh, momentarily epic when there's a chance to take in the sheer awesomeness of a horde of Valkyries charging Hela, or a man in a suit of armour played by none other than Karl Urban, wielding guns and mowing down zombie Asgardians. Once again, the movie embraces the ridiculousness of its origins and doubles down on them, playing them for laughs as needed to keep the convoluted lore from getting boring.
That's the only real issue with the movie: the lore. While the film does its best to give the necessary information in concise, rapid-fire packages, the film has to do this while also accounting for the open threads from the end of Thor 2, and a not unwelcome but somewhat haphazard inclusion of Dr. Strange that needed to be there because that film ended with a tease to have him in this movie. The transition from that to telling its own story isn't smooth, and doing so while also explaining who Hela is and including all the necessary details for her powers leaves the first act a little shambled, but the jokes keep the whole thing together while it gets to its actual story, even containing one of the film's strongest laughs, and once the exposition is out of the way there's plenty of time for the things everyone sees these movies for. The films sets out with very simple goals, and succeeds in them excellently.
The Verdict: Thor: Ragnarok is a ridiculous movie that revels in its sheer silliness and is all the better for it. Raw comedic timing and spectacle, Thor's only misgivings are when it has to grapple with the convoluted lore. Highly recommended; even if you don't love it, it's hard not to like.
Rating: 8/10
Published October 26th, 2017
Saturday, 14 October 2017
2017 Film Review: Happy Death Day (2017)
Directed by: Christopher Landon
Written by: Scott Lobdell
Starring: Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard, Ruby Modine
IMDb Link
Sometimes the concept of a movie is so stupid that it loops right back around to being inspired. Happy Death Day is silly, yes, but it uses its schlocky strengths and seems to understand its limitations. Ultimately, your enjoyment of the movie will probably depend on how you take the movie's gimmick, which the film leans in to pretty hard, right from the very beginning. Personally, I got a kick out of it.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The movie is Groundhog Day via a fairly standard mystery slasher. Tree Gelbman (Rothe) is a college student who gets killed on her birthday and keeps re-living the day over and over. It's simple, and doesn't pretend to be anything else, at least for the most part: while there isn't any attempt to explain the source of the phenomenon, it does throw a bit of consequence to it all, suggesting that Tree keeps remnants of her deaths each time as a way to put a time limiting tension on the whole thing, but the film didn't really need it. The film is so lacking in self-seriousness that the idea that there should be any real tension in the movie is a little pointless, especially when the film seems to knowingly avoid all of the easy solutions so that it can pad its running time with more spectacle and humour. Frankly, these are also the movie's best attributes, so any attempt to focus on just satirising sorority society, playing around with its premise or show a new death in an over the top manner is fine by me. The first half of the movie makes such an excellently exaggerated effort to make Tree an insufferably terrible person that it's simply entertaining seeing how many ways they can come up with, so much so that the film gets weaker when it has to complicate the plot with actual stakes and feelings, because they're so obvious that it's not really compelling, save for one surprisingly heartfelt scene between Tree and her father (which unfortunately wasn't about him apologising for naming her Tree). It's moments where the movie tries to apply any sort of logic or reason or emotion beyond a knowing smirk that it could all have fallen apart, were it not for the surprisingly strong lead.
Rothe plays her role as Awful Scream Queen as cheesily as possible; every insult is dripping with venom, every expression of exasperation emanates her "done with this crap" attitude, she's enthusiastically bitchy and she keeps the film from ever getting dull, even when it gets repetitive.
The Verdict: This film is ridiculous in the most entertaining way. When the film isn't taking itself seriously, it's enjoyable schlock held up by strong use of its gimmick and a well-rounded lead performance. If the idea of Groundhog Day as a B-Horror entertains you, this is worth a watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published October 14th, 2017
Written by: Scott Lobdell
Starring: Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard, Ruby Modine
IMDb Link
Sometimes the concept of a movie is so stupid that it loops right back around to being inspired. Happy Death Day is silly, yes, but it uses its schlocky strengths and seems to understand its limitations. Ultimately, your enjoyment of the movie will probably depend on how you take the movie's gimmick, which the film leans in to pretty hard, right from the very beginning. Personally, I got a kick out of it.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The movie is Groundhog Day via a fairly standard mystery slasher. Tree Gelbman (Rothe) is a college student who gets killed on her birthday and keeps re-living the day over and over. It's simple, and doesn't pretend to be anything else, at least for the most part: while there isn't any attempt to explain the source of the phenomenon, it does throw a bit of consequence to it all, suggesting that Tree keeps remnants of her deaths each time as a way to put a time limiting tension on the whole thing, but the film didn't really need it. The film is so lacking in self-seriousness that the idea that there should be any real tension in the movie is a little pointless, especially when the film seems to knowingly avoid all of the easy solutions so that it can pad its running time with more spectacle and humour. Frankly, these are also the movie's best attributes, so any attempt to focus on just satirising sorority society, playing around with its premise or show a new death in an over the top manner is fine by me. The first half of the movie makes such an excellently exaggerated effort to make Tree an insufferably terrible person that it's simply entertaining seeing how many ways they can come up with, so much so that the film gets weaker when it has to complicate the plot with actual stakes and feelings, because they're so obvious that it's not really compelling, save for one surprisingly heartfelt scene between Tree and her father (which unfortunately wasn't about him apologising for naming her Tree). It's moments where the movie tries to apply any sort of logic or reason or emotion beyond a knowing smirk that it could all have fallen apart, were it not for the surprisingly strong lead.
Rothe plays her role as Awful Scream Queen as cheesily as possible; every insult is dripping with venom, every expression of exasperation emanates her "done with this crap" attitude, she's enthusiastically bitchy and she keeps the film from ever getting dull, even when it gets repetitive.
The Verdict: This film is ridiculous in the most entertaining way. When the film isn't taking itself seriously, it's enjoyable schlock held up by strong use of its gimmick and a well-rounded lead performance. If the idea of Groundhog Day as a B-Horror entertains you, this is worth a watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published October 14th, 2017
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
2017 Film Review: The Mountain Between Us (2017)
Directed by: Hany Abu-Assad
Written by: Chris Weitz, J. Mills Goodloe
Starring: Idris Elba, Kate Winslet
IMDb Link
The Mountain Between Us is plain butter spread too thinly over white bread. The movie has a predictable story, awful dialogue, bad characterisation with not so much as an arc as a straight line, very little tension, and even performances that are held back by a surprising lack of chemistry, but the thing that brings all of these bad aspects together and makes them that much worse is the protracted running time, which draws out so much of the movie it almost bored me to tears.
*This is normally where I'd put the Spoiler Warning, but there's so little to this movie that there's nothing for me to spoil*
Alex (Winslet) and Ben (Elba) are two strangers whose plane crash on a mountainside. Unable to make contact with the outside world, the two work together to survive the harsh environment.
The actual 'survival' aspect of this movie is actually not bad. While they are few and far between, scenes of Alex nearly getting mauled by a cougar or falling in to icy water serve to remind the audience that these characters are in some sort of danger, when so little else of the film does so. Likewise, the movie early on uses its snowy backdrop and shifting camera angles to hammer home the disorientation of the characters against their terrain, evoking a mild frustration as we're left just as unable to get out bearings as the characters. However, the survival takes up a disappointingly small portion of the movie, and between these beats of tension there's only long stretches of almost nothing happening. This wouldn't be a problem if the movie used this time to explore the characters as people or build a rapport between the two, but the film doesn't really do much of that either.
This is the really surprising part of the movie, that Winslet and Elba turn in weak (for them) performances that have very little chemistry between the two. In the long stretches of nothingness the film fails to build up their relationship in any meaningful way; the two don't really bond over anything in particular bar their mutual need to survive, and even that doesn't go beyond them both caring enough to make sure the other survives too. There's more going on between each of them and the dog that joins them than between the two of them.
It gets worse when the empty space in the movie isn't used to develop either of the characters as individuals. All we know about Alex is that she's reckless, a little selfish, and that she's a journalist, and by the end she's reckless, a little selfish, and a journalist. The lack of character arc goes for Ben too. Neither of these characters have much to do for themselves, and the only two character points that could have acted as catalysts for genuine change or conflict in one or both of the characters are essentially glossed over to make it fine for these two characters to have sex. Ben has a message left behind by his ex-wife that suggests that he's controlling, which may act as a key conflict point between him and Alex? Don't worry about that, his wife dying on his operating table will serve as a revelation that will make you forget all about that while also making it completely alright for you two to get busy. Alex has a fiance at home? Don't worry, the movie forgets all about him and when he finally comes along it takes a few minutes for her to leave him for Ben. This movie pretends to be a survival movie while just being a considerably worse romance.
That said, even if the story wasn't paper thin, and the actors had turned in good performances with a shared chemistry, the movie would still have to contend with its absolutely atrocious dialogue. The two characters don't really talk to each other, they just say things out loud. It's so robotic in process, like there were internal moments from the novel this film is based on that the writer decided to turn in to spoken lines. An internal conflict about Alex's work is introduced as a bit of a reaching response to Ben asking for her to take a photo; it's not actually a bad idea, and it does come up again later in the film, but it's delivered so strangely, and all at once, and the return to the idea is at a point where I was so bored and disengaged from the movie that I almost missed the fact that it was a resolution.
The one thing that I do give credit to the movie for is its good use of the beautiful setting. The whole movie is well shot, never failing to take in the scenery, the cold snowcapped mountains and the frost-tipped forests and the icy lake, it's all very easy on the eyes.
The Verdict: The Mountain Between Us is vapid. Its story is so predictable and foregone that the experience is ultimately pointless, and just as sinfully the movie stretches it out for far longer than it needs to.Elba and Winslet are good actors, but they turn in performances that share almost no chemistry, while spouting painfully dull dialogue. The only aspect of this film that offers any satisfaction is its visuals, and they alone are not nearly enough for me to recommend this film.
Rating: 3.5/10
Published October 12th, 2017
Written by: Chris Weitz, J. Mills Goodloe
Starring: Idris Elba, Kate Winslet
IMDb Link
The Mountain Between Us is plain butter spread too thinly over white bread. The movie has a predictable story, awful dialogue, bad characterisation with not so much as an arc as a straight line, very little tension, and even performances that are held back by a surprising lack of chemistry, but the thing that brings all of these bad aspects together and makes them that much worse is the protracted running time, which draws out so much of the movie it almost bored me to tears.
*This is normally where I'd put the Spoiler Warning, but there's so little to this movie that there's nothing for me to spoil*
Alex (Winslet) and Ben (Elba) are two strangers whose plane crash on a mountainside. Unable to make contact with the outside world, the two work together to survive the harsh environment.
The actual 'survival' aspect of this movie is actually not bad. While they are few and far between, scenes of Alex nearly getting mauled by a cougar or falling in to icy water serve to remind the audience that these characters are in some sort of danger, when so little else of the film does so. Likewise, the movie early on uses its snowy backdrop and shifting camera angles to hammer home the disorientation of the characters against their terrain, evoking a mild frustration as we're left just as unable to get out bearings as the characters. However, the survival takes up a disappointingly small portion of the movie, and between these beats of tension there's only long stretches of almost nothing happening. This wouldn't be a problem if the movie used this time to explore the characters as people or build a rapport between the two, but the film doesn't really do much of that either.
This is the really surprising part of the movie, that Winslet and Elba turn in weak (for them) performances that have very little chemistry between the two. In the long stretches of nothingness the film fails to build up their relationship in any meaningful way; the two don't really bond over anything in particular bar their mutual need to survive, and even that doesn't go beyond them both caring enough to make sure the other survives too. There's more going on between each of them and the dog that joins them than between the two of them.
It gets worse when the empty space in the movie isn't used to develop either of the characters as individuals. All we know about Alex is that she's reckless, a little selfish, and that she's a journalist, and by the end she's reckless, a little selfish, and a journalist. The lack of character arc goes for Ben too. Neither of these characters have much to do for themselves, and the only two character points that could have acted as catalysts for genuine change or conflict in one or both of the characters are essentially glossed over to make it fine for these two characters to have sex. Ben has a message left behind by his ex-wife that suggests that he's controlling, which may act as a key conflict point between him and Alex? Don't worry about that, his wife dying on his operating table will serve as a revelation that will make you forget all about that while also making it completely alright for you two to get busy. Alex has a fiance at home? Don't worry, the movie forgets all about him and when he finally comes along it takes a few minutes for her to leave him for Ben. This movie pretends to be a survival movie while just being a considerably worse romance.
That said, even if the story wasn't paper thin, and the actors had turned in good performances with a shared chemistry, the movie would still have to contend with its absolutely atrocious dialogue. The two characters don't really talk to each other, they just say things out loud. It's so robotic in process, like there were internal moments from the novel this film is based on that the writer decided to turn in to spoken lines. An internal conflict about Alex's work is introduced as a bit of a reaching response to Ben asking for her to take a photo; it's not actually a bad idea, and it does come up again later in the film, but it's delivered so strangely, and all at once, and the return to the idea is at a point where I was so bored and disengaged from the movie that I almost missed the fact that it was a resolution.
The one thing that I do give credit to the movie for is its good use of the beautiful setting. The whole movie is well shot, never failing to take in the scenery, the cold snowcapped mountains and the frost-tipped forests and the icy lake, it's all very easy on the eyes.
The Verdict: The Mountain Between Us is vapid. Its story is so predictable and foregone that the experience is ultimately pointless, and just as sinfully the movie stretches it out for far longer than it needs to.Elba and Winslet are good actors, but they turn in performances that share almost no chemistry, while spouting painfully dull dialogue. The only aspect of this film that offers any satisfaction is its visuals, and they alone are not nearly enough for me to recommend this film.
Rating: 3.5/10
Published October 12th, 2017
Thursday, 5 October 2017
2017 Film Review: Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Written by: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas
IMDb Link
This is how you make a sequel to a thirty five-year old cult classic that became the progenitor of cyberpunk as we know it and is still worthy of discussion to this day. Blade Runner 2049 is a movie that lives up to the standard of its predecessor, telling a new story with new questions that build on the story and questions offered us by the first film.
*
Thirty years on from the events of the first film, 2049 follows young Replicant Blade Runner K (Gosling) as he investigates and unravels a long-buried secret. That's all you need to know about this movie in terms of plot; it's a well-told mystery that doesn't need to be spoiled here.
This film looks immaculate. The visuals of this film draw from its predecessor and its own incredible visuals for the film's design and colour, and everything about how the film looks is gorgeous, sometimes to the point of being astounding. The world is changed, dirtier than before, but with more neon light to distract from it; the visuals work to reflect similar changes in the Blade Runner world.
The sound also indicates and reinforces this change, keeping music that homages the first in many ways but offers a more industrial touch. While I preferred the synth-noir style of the original, there's no denying that the music here packs more of a punch to punctuate this film's slightly more emotionally poignant take.
The pacing is a slow burn, deliberate but subtle in its every move, keeping you in the dark but curious as long as it needs to, constantly engaging despite its near 3-hour running time. Even the smallest pieces are carefully handled, allowing for attachment and care in unexpected ways, and even though one or two things seem a little out of order, they're not out of place.
A caveat for the experience of this movie, however, is seeing the first one. While it's not necessary to understand what's going on, the events and themes for the first film are the reason for the events and themes of this one. Not only does everything that happens in this film have more weight if you have seen and understood the first film, this film in turn gives more meaning to the first film, and together they offer great detective stories wrapped in philosophical discussion about A.I., the nature of the soul and the meaning we give life, while building each other up as excellent movies.
The Verdict: Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent follow-up to the original that builds on its ideas in every productive way. I highly recommend that you see this film, though I do stress the positive impact that seeing the first will have on the experience.
Rating: 8.5/10
Published October 5th, 2017
Written by: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas
IMDb Link
This is how you make a sequel to a thirty five-year old cult classic that became the progenitor of cyberpunk as we know it and is still worthy of discussion to this day. Blade Runner 2049 is a movie that lives up to the standard of its predecessor, telling a new story with new questions that build on the story and questions offered us by the first film.
*
Thirty years on from the events of the first film, 2049 follows young Replicant Blade Runner K (Gosling) as he investigates and unravels a long-buried secret. That's all you need to know about this movie in terms of plot; it's a well-told mystery that doesn't need to be spoiled here.
This film looks immaculate. The visuals of this film draw from its predecessor and its own incredible visuals for the film's design and colour, and everything about how the film looks is gorgeous, sometimes to the point of being astounding. The world is changed, dirtier than before, but with more neon light to distract from it; the visuals work to reflect similar changes in the Blade Runner world.
The sound also indicates and reinforces this change, keeping music that homages the first in many ways but offers a more industrial touch. While I preferred the synth-noir style of the original, there's no denying that the music here packs more of a punch to punctuate this film's slightly more emotionally poignant take.
The pacing is a slow burn, deliberate but subtle in its every move, keeping you in the dark but curious as long as it needs to, constantly engaging despite its near 3-hour running time. Even the smallest pieces are carefully handled, allowing for attachment and care in unexpected ways, and even though one or two things seem a little out of order, they're not out of place.
A caveat for the experience of this movie, however, is seeing the first one. While it's not necessary to understand what's going on, the events and themes for the first film are the reason for the events and themes of this one. Not only does everything that happens in this film have more weight if you have seen and understood the first film, this film in turn gives more meaning to the first film, and together they offer great detective stories wrapped in philosophical discussion about A.I., the nature of the soul and the meaning we give life, while building each other up as excellent movies.
The Verdict: Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent follow-up to the original that builds on its ideas in every productive way. I highly recommend that you see this film, though I do stress the positive impact that seeing the first will have on the experience.
Rating: 8.5/10
Published October 5th, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)