peter-j-downey Reviews

The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (2014)

Loves Schwartz, forgets facts.

[6/10 · 3 May 2015]

Being a redditor, and being just an avid internet consumer, led me to follow what happened to Aaron Schwartz, and going into this film I was already disgusted by what the DA had done during his investigation and prosecution. Therefore my expectation for this film were minimal; I just wanted to be informed about the aspects of the case that were did not pop up in the shallow articles on the net. And in that aspect the film doesn't fail.

Brian Knappenberger reveals the case against Schwartz chronologically, so as each piece of Schwartz's case was pushed against him we cut to reaction or an interview with a family member or friend who was there for these revelations. The feeling in the film is one of frustration, exhaustion and anger; Schwartz's family seem particularly distraught by the whole experience, and this is conveyed well through the talking head format. Knappenberger structures the documentary in black and white terms though. Schwartz is given this messiah like platform in the film, each talking head that speaks about his youth sing nothing but his praises. He is given no flaws at any stage; genius, family man, best friend one could have, etc. This created a sense of disconnection, and I felt that in showing the loss of a "great man" we are supposed to be more outrage than the loss of a "human".

The documentary's black side; the villains, the betrayals etc. I would also consider a distraction. Quinn Norton is given a particularly difficult time and coming away from the film she easily became a lightning rod for people's anger. A conversation I had a few days after watching the film focused mainly on how stupid she was, and only briefly spoke about the structures of society that allowed Schwartz's to end up this situation.

Splicing the film with homemade footage and only speaking from personal experience about the events that transpired, also made the structure feel shallow. Exposing exactly what went on seems like a secondary objective for Knappenberger, and can't understand why this is. After the film do I feel like I know more about the Aaron Schwartz case? A little bit more. If this is a biographical documentary do I feel like I know Schwart more? Nope. This feels like something emotionally cathartic than an actual informational film.

Blackfish (2013)

Strong documentary, but forces itself to be digestible for a mass audience.

[7/10 · 14 April 2015]

Being a veggie, I make the conscious decision to not be directly involved in the killing of the animals for my pleasure. Zoos and aquariums have also been places where I found it depressing to watch sentient beings locked up so we can goggle at them, and watching Blackfish hurt my "soul". Gabriela Cowperthwaite clearly feels impassioned about the plight of these abused, neglected and misunderstood animals, and this comes across on the screen.

First of all using the talking head's format gives a great deal of emotional weight to the topic. Cowperthwaite essentially distills the sense of frustration and helplessness of all those involved in capturing, training and maintaining the lives of the whales, and I found it especially difficult listening the labourer recounting how he captured whales. Having the interviewee staring down the lens of the camera as he sheds tears of anger should certainly melt even the coldest heart.

Cowperthwaite also has a weight of live footage of the create a sense of gravitas. Watching a whale leap at its trainer as the trainer begs for their life is haunting, and I let out a few expletives in shock. Also splicing in news coverage of the deaths paints a sinister image of Seaworld; having corporate coverage contrasting with anecdotes shows that Seaworld have a lot to gain from covering up the many deaths and horrendous treatment of animals at their parks.

Cowperthwaite, however, seems like an absent interviewer; meaning that he allows the people to speak until they are ready to stop, and he doesn't try to push the interview in a certain direction. Not having any difficult interviews, and people volunteering information under fraudulent terms are apparent in the film. For example: "After the film's release, former SeaWorld trainer Bridgette Pirtle said the final film was 'a complete '180' from what was originally presented to me.'" So there is some agenda pushing, and this is aided by Seaworld refusing to take part in the film.

The film also ends cheese-ily. After the film spends the bones of 80 minutes trying to convince us to re-think our position on these abhorrent places, the message is undermined straight away by giving us a conclusion. Rather than leaving us with some difficult questions we need to answer, Cowperthwaite shows us, in a structural sense, that "everything worked out alright".

Despite some qualms with this documentary, I still believe this believe this to be important one. If this film achieves one thing, it is to bring an esoteric topic in to the conscience of the public, which should be the goal of every documentary.

Into the Abyss (2011)

A film being dragged in two directions.

[5/10 · 13 April 2015]

I have always liked Werner Herzog fictional films, but I have yet to warm to his documentaries. The reason why is that Herzog is heavy handed with his own personal convictions, and this heavy handiness is immediately apparent in Into the Abyss. Herzog opens the documentary as an interview with the convict, Michael Perry, on death row. He explains to Michael that he doesn't like him and that this doesn't matter because even people who are horrible individuals do not deserve to die. This ruins a lot of the film as it sets in our mind, already, that we are not going to like the central figure. What really annoyed me about this, is that his crimes and attitude towards his crimes were enough to make me dislike Michael. Herzog is patronising his audience here, Michael is sociopath and it is artificially charming and instead of showing us this (which he tried to) he tell us straight out.

Herzog is also terrible at interviewing, if an interviewee doesn't give the "right answer" Herzog will prod them until they cater to his film's tone. This brings two interviews to a complete halt; the interview with the father of one of the convicts and the interview with the mother of one of the victims. It also makes the film smack of bias, and this film will not make people who agree with Death Penalty change their opinions, but instead re-enforce it. And this is made worse Herzog tries to be objective in a couple of scenes, even getting far past the facts and trying to capture the emotional attitude of everyone involved.

Herzog however does allow to film to fall to pieces. The crimes in the film are very well documented, even giving a palatable feeling to the events. This ties into Herzog's eye for detail and research; picking the most aesthetically pleasing place to show where the cigarette butt fell, moving the camera into the thickets to create a sense of panic and then filming still the shots of the areas where people died.

The film also shows that Werner Herzog is possibly an empathetic person, even though he is not good at expressing this at times. For example, the town where the two convicts are from is shown to be suffocatingly poor and isolated from modernity. It makes the sense of loss seem that more wanton, and underlines the idea that one of the two convicts is a product of his environment. While the other seems that more fated to be a criminal no matter where he goes.

Into the Abyss is hard film to judge, the reason being is that what it does, it does incredibly, and comes across as bad, feels incredibly bad. The topic of the Death Penalty is probed and prodded but I was left feeling no different about the topic by the end, nor did I feel I could recommend this film to people to try and convert them to my opinion on the topic. And isn't that the two main reasons of any documentary to illuminate a topic or to make people take a more objective stance on something?

Whiplash (2014)

Directorial Intention... doesn't mean it's my cup of tea

[2/10 · 9 April 2015]

The crux of Whiplash's story is obsession; whether that be obsession with the form of something (Fletcher), or your own legacy (Neiman), or acceptance (Nicole) or status (everyone in Neiman's family), and this film explores the dark depth's of this obsessive nature, and creates realistic characters in doing so. However, that doesn't make Whiplash a "great movie".

It is a case where realism undermines escapism, as well as emotional attachment. In 106 minutes of film time I felt no empathy for any of the characters, in the real the world these are the type of people I would avoid and "b*tch" about to other friends; "Did you hear how Neiman got into his band? What a Richard?! And isn't it ran by that See you next Tuesday of a conductor as well? And here comes Nicole, oh god she is just such a downer... NICOLE! HEY!" I had to force myself through this film to what I felt was an unsatisfying conclusion, unfortunately since the film builds so much to this conclusion I will have to spoil it in the next paragraph.

Neiman spends the entire film trying to impress Fletcher; Fletcher constantly undermines Neiman and downright abuses him. Neiman, like some kicked puppy, runs back to Fletcher for another bit of abuse. Some of his band mates call Neiman a "f**cking retard" and I spent most of the film vehemently agreeing with them by the way Neiman acts. When Fletcher finally breaks Neiman at the end of the film after he switches out his music sheet and embarrasses him in front of the New York public, instead of giving up he realises he should be playing music for himself not for the approval of others.

This ending was projected through-out the film, and when the ending finally came it felt like a patronising school teacher's hand on your shoulder speaking around to the class "you shouldn't need the approval of others". *sigh* How many films feel like they need to tell me this moral/words of wisdom? I could list a 100 sports movies, Jesus even Happy Gilmore manages to have this idea in its film.

Then we move to artistic intent; "You weren't meant to like the characters?" I have watched whole TV shows about characters I don't like; "The Sopranos", "Breaking Bad", but they have to some redeemable qualities. Tony was funny, Walt was pathetic and an everyman. Neiman is a spoilt little rich kid and Fletcher is an elitist know it all hipster, they have no self-awareness and no sense of humour, they are always serious and always stuck in their character.

Of course there are a few things I liked about this film. JK Simmons and Miles Teller were so on point with their acting that I could have went out watched the two people I know like them, and I wouldn't have notice the difference. Damien Chazelle also seems to have a great deal of affection for the genre of Jazz, and sprinkles the film with some great choices for music.

I did however have a lot of problems with the cinematography. People raved about how alive the film felt, but to me it felt stale. Constant close ups of music performances felt like beatniks describing jazz musicians, rather than fluid pictures, also lighting felt so similar to the college environment in "The Social Network", that I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

Citizenfour (2014)

The Human Face of Bravery

[10/10 · 11 March 2015]

Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald have been receiving encrypted emails for nearly 4 months from someone called Citizenfour; the content of these emails allude to a disturbing level of surveillance committed by the American NSA and the British GHCQ. The contact wants to meet Laura and Glenn and show them everything, they agree, they meet in a hotel in Hong Kong. An inconspicuous young man named Edward Snowden greets them, and he is about to leak to them the worse surveillance crimes ever committed, and Edward is scared.

The atmosphere of the film immediately establishes the feeling of paranoia, justified paranoia, felt by all those involved. Poitras uses clear visual language to establish that what they are doing flies in the face of many powerful people. She uses archaic typeface and computer screens to establish a hacker vibe, and a tone of dissent, she cuts back and forth to mainstream media and to the three of them hid away in Hong Kong, and she intermingles interviews with William Binney to show how far the government will go to stop information about their intrusive programs from leaking.

Poitras also does something incredibly important; she humanizes Edward Snowden. Mainstream media and the government have tried incessantly to cast discursions about the character of Snowden; "martyr complex" " narcissist" "computer weirdo" have been some of the slanders used to diminish his achievements. Poitras makes Snowden seem reasonable and somewhat nice; even when he has thrown a blanket over his head to stop the NSA from visually identifying his password, he jokes about and tries to use this moment to connect to Greenwald.

Also some of the candid admissions that Poitras manages to extract from Snowden shows the strength of Poitras' interviewing style. The admission by Snowden about how he realises his life is going to be from now onwards; about leaving his loved ones behind and the fear he felt throughout, makes him come across as incredibly brave. "I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear." (Nelson Mandela)

Citizenfour last act is a summary of how the release of these documents have affected the lives of all those involved. It's depressing to see that those who stand up for what is right have been harassed and followed by the British and American government figures. Poitras tries to end the film on high note with Edward and his partner living together again, cooking and cleaning in an apartment in Moscow. Poitras however battles against the Hollywood ending, and shows the frustration of fighting the good fight, and leaves us reflecting upon the drone program. Poitras is saying not to rest on the achievements of her, Greenwald and Snowden, but forces her audience to continue discussing the terrifying reach of the American government.

Alien 3 (1992)

How Fincher made a career from this is beyond me.

[1/10 · 10 March 2015]

Alien 3 Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has crashed landed on the penal colony. Sand roars around the prison as they take her, a little girl and a badly damaged android back to their habitat. Amongst the wreckage, something is scurrying around, it leaps on unsuspecting dog, and wraps itself around on breeding with the dog to create a new nearly stoppable alien. An alien that will take the prisoners out one by one.

Alien 3 is infamous for having 6 scripts written and redrafted for it; the result is of all of those scripts Frankensteined together, and it's more than evident. The film feels aimless, if there was no Alien, nothing would have happened this entire 112 minutes. Also with having too many cooks, we left with these contrived predicaments. This is a penal colony without weapons? Clearly in an universe where Aliens like this exist wouldn't make sense to arm prisoners so that you don't lose out on your huge investment? Then the religious aspect mixed with the genetic syndrome of the men; like to make them all mentally hindered and give no exposition why they were sent to work for a corporation is frustrating. Also to have one non-XXY doctor adds to that bafflement. The conclusion is equally bewildering, I don't want to have a spoiler warning, but my God could they have come up with an easier way to bring the film to an end.

David Fincher will hopefully never direct a film that is as ugly as this one. Brown close, brown sets, brown filters, brown terrain, brown, brown, brown. Also the CGI of the alien, and I am being literal here, makes it look like a turd. The lack of budget for the Alien itself means that the cast interact with the alien in B-movie style, almost comparable to a kids' show that throw a teddy at the presenter and have them wrestle with it. Editing is atrocious as well; cut to first person view alien, cut of over shoulder of prisoner, repeat, rinse, wash.

Then there is the acting. You have this great cast that of character actors and a noticeable face beloved for the previous installments in the franchise, and they do nothing. Dialogue is boring and the delivery is clumsy to boot. fincher clearly doesn't give the actors context to the scene so they just deliver the script as is, also their reactions are hilarious, being attacked by the alien brings on some sort of relief like sensation followed by a twitch if I am not mistaken.

The only thing that is redeemable, and this is really just for the nerds, is to watch the film and read the entire history of the project, see where bits and bobs of each previous rendition of this film were added and see if you can pick them out. I nerded out for the first hour but the last 50 minutes are so incomprehensible that I should have just turned it off.

It Follows (2014)

It Follows... It's Scary

[9/10 · 9 March 2015]

Drugged and tied to a wheelchair; Jay (Maika Monroe) awakes to find Hugh, her date, in a frenzy. Looking for something that can't be found, it seems, and then he screams, rolls her to the edge of a car park and points. A nude woman on the lip of an amber light, just walking directly at them, unstoppable. Jay has been cursed by Hugh, he passed the curse to her through sex, and as Jay stays alive Hugh is guaranteed to stay alive too. The curse can take the shape of any person and will work endlessly to find its next victim; it follows.

Set in Detroit, David Robert Mitchell uses It Follows to tell the feeling of alienation and isolation felt by teenagers in the 21st century. Each teen awkwardly interacts with one another, and adults play a remote role in the movie. Authority and structure almost seem non-existent; the police only appearance and they seem non-plus by the possibility of a rape, this creates a believable environment where the mysterious deaths of teens would not affect the community. Also, the film's monster runs along the edge of nearly every shot allowing run seamlessly into the narrative and the environment.

The visual tone of the film is stark, and many driving scenes roll through the decaying landscape of the 8 Mile Stretch. Some of the shots are also unique in building tension, like attaching the camera to the leg of the wheel chair or spinning the camera on its own axis to give a panoramic showing of monster and it's potential victim. Also lighting is one of the nuances of the terror; one scene early in the film has a friend opening the door, behind the hall is lit to be completely black, this allows for the monster a giant man to lurch into the shot, and my heart pulsed throughout the sequence.

Acting in the film is subtle for a horror movie; the actors shift from action to apathy seamlessly. Keir Gilchrist in particular adds a depth of desperation to the dreariness. His constant melancholy stares at Maika Monroe, the aimless body language and his ability for his face to express angst conveys the emotional depth of the film.

There is one flaw to the film; the main plot of the film is engaging up until the climax. The film final confrontation seemed a bit forced, and all too similar to the climax in Stephen King's It. The sequence isn't terrible and does have this feeling of anxious scurrying, also its significance is exposed skilfully after. It just doesn't gel with the rest of the film.

Definitely one of the best English speaking horror films I have seen since The Descent; I was left feeling tense and the concept for the monster is one that should unnerve most people.

The Guest (I) (2014)

A film to be watched with friends

[5/10 · 2 March 2015]

The Guest: David Collins (Dan Stevens), a glib soldier, turns up at the Peterson's home and ingratiates himself as a friend of their dead son. The Peterson's take in Collins as he is down on his luck; despite them being on the brink of collapse after their son's death. However not everything is as it seems, Collins starts producing wads of cash, violence seems to follow him no matter where he goes, and a spate of unusual deaths happen within the community.

The is a film from Adam Wingard where the cracks are evident through out; it's fun, it's humour is black and it has visual a style that follows in the steps of Drive, for the most part, but Wingard sacrificed cohesion to achieve this.

Let's take the shootout scene in the film as an example; beforehand Collins' background is just shoehorned in to allow for the shootout. As the action in the scene flows several cheesy moves from Collins' turns the tides for him, and while we are lead to believe that the people attacking are an elite squad, the script dumps more exposition into the scene to reveal Collins is the elite-elite. And then to allow for the entire film to come to a neat ending Collins does something that completely undermines his actions in the first half of the film, and Collins repeats this when he bumps into Mr Peterson in the scene after.

The script undermines the film time and time again in this regard too; the climactic scene at the school, the epilogue to establish a sequel, Luke Peterson's reaction to some of Collins' more violent tendencies, and creating relationships just to move the film forward, here's looking at you Kristen. Wingard also embraces cliché after cliché; Collins sinisterly stares out windows or into the mirror, the local women are loose and the youth are all drug addicts, the mother is oppressed like Marge Simpson, and the father drinks like someone out of Mad Men.

Acting is careless as well; Dan Stevens is just smug throughout, Maika Monroe will be added to pile of strong female protagonists that exclusively turn up in horror films, and the rest of the cast seemed like they had no idea what they had to do in each scene.

Nonetheless there is a b-movie/ironic charm to the film; a "so bad its good" intention to it all; my housemates and I laughed through most of it, and Wingard plays up to this tone. Hiring Lance Reddick, or as we kept on referring to him "Cedric Daniels, feels tongue in cheek, so does the continuous pastiche to 80s pop videos and the over the top violence. I would call this a social film, where the enjoyment comes from watching it with friends and laughing at some of the more irreverent scenes.

Dark City (1998)

Interesting idea, poorly executed.

[6/10 · 24 February 2015]

John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) awakes with no memories, in an apartment with an eccentric doctor (Keifer Sunderland) who makes little sense, in a city where the sun never shines, and ghoul like beings haunt every corner. Murdoch tries to piece together what's going on in this nightmarish landscape, these ghouls are however doing their best to stop him.

Alex Proyas tries to weld two genres together; noir and sci-fi, and this complicated, b-movie-esque film is the result. Visually this film is unique; the ghouls inhabit a steam-punk underworld, while Murdoch and the humans occupy a world frozen in the 1940s. The contrast works well with the lighting and angles chosen by Proyas. However the editing is a mess, in the first 30 minutes there are possibly 300 cuts, this frantic editing undermines the visuals completely, and it took me much longer than it should to immerse myself in the world. Proyas also mimics the Star Trek style for action sequences, and while sci-fi fans may get some kick out of this, it just felt cheesy to me.

Acting in this film is a mixed bag; the performances themselves are top notch and Kiefer Sunderland is particularly impressive. The doctor is a wretched, worm like man, yet Sunderland plays him with a great deal of compassion. There are many scenes where we can empathise with this broken man, and Sunderland behaves like a kicked dog.

It's the direction, however, that weakens the acting in this film. Anything involving a green screen the actors tense up and look lost. In one of the character's death he falls into a computer generated back ground and the look on his face is one of confusion. There is also a montage sequence with Sunderland and he delivers his lines so awkwardly it feels like he is reading them for the first time. Did Proyas not outline to them how these scenes were going to be inserted into the film?

Dialogue in this film is also a bit hackneyed; Jennifer Connolly, in particular, has to deliver some stale lines. Parts of the script should definitely have been re-written, as the phrasing for some of the conversations seems so familiar that it feels like parody.

There is some self-awareness to this film, and it was a fun to watch. Proyas also manages to capture a fin-de-siècle atmosphere that was typical at the turn of the 21st century, and there could be even some direct comparisons made to The Martrix.

This film was recommended to me as a cult classic, and I can easily imagine some people having a great affinity for Dark City. Still, it was a little bit naff.

The Drop (2014)

Messy

[4/10 · 20 February 2015]

"Cousin Marv" is a dive bar where the locals frequent to get a beer from the seemingly naive bartender, Bob (Tom Hardy). Bob is underfoot of his belligerent cousin Marv (James Gandolfini), who's ruled by a psychotic gang of Chechens who use his pub to collect and launder their illegal income. Bob tends to keep his distance from all the illicit dealings, and lives a humdrum life with a recently acquired dog and girlfriend. However the bar is a hub for all sorts of shady dealings, and Bob gets drawn into its dark shadow.

This film is a mess, the two major plot lines are clunky and don't flow together as one. Firstly the robbery plot line is convoluted; the reason for the robbery is to establish how the Chechens reaction. And they come down on the robbers like a ton of bricks, yet this intense reaction is ignored by the other characters for their future plans. Then Hardy's love story is patronised and contrived, having a puppy for the audience to immediately connect to is like that sleazy guy who only has a dog to pick up chicks. Then shoving in an antagonist to allow for a resolution of this plot line feels abrupt. There is also the subplot of the cop's investigation; which goes nowhere, and just serves to remind us things we already know.

Character motivation is completely contradictory. Marv is shown in the introductory scene as hard and money-wise, this is contradicted by debts from a previous life, his reaction to an extreme violence and his relationship with his sister. Bob is shown in first 5 minutes to be a soft heart, but immediately after when he has to adopt the dog, he seems reluctant, I ask what was the point of showing he treated the old lady at the bar well (a really weak excuse was given later, and still didn't make much sense.)

Editing is god awful, each scene has perhaps 10 cuts, Michael Reynders clearly doesn't trust his actors. There are also a handful of re-shoots, and they are poorly inserted. Visually the film is also boring, and at times awkward; hand-held shots inserted for no real reason, and bad lighting with shoddy angles makes it hard to distinguish how the scene is progressing.

This is not a completely negative review; there are two things that save this film from failing. The resolution of the 2 main plot lines is actually well done, the revelations when they come are satisfying and were foreshadowed well. Which makes me think that the ending of the film was written first, and the rest of the film was sculpted around that. Also the actors in this film really sell their performances, Tom Hardy once again dominated the film with a superb performance. Gadolfini played Gadolfini, and the supporting cast added flavour to Hardy and Gadolfini's performances.

This type of film has been done a few dozen times before, look to David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" if you want to watch a competent version of this film.

Perfect Blue (1997)

Something is just missing...

[7/10 · 20 February 2015]

Mima Kirigoe is a bouncy pop star whose profitability has almost been exhausted by the music industry; Mima's agent wants her to make the difficult transition into acting despite the protests of her manager, Rumi. Mima's fans from her pop career aren't happy about this change either, and tensions turn violently quickly. But who is committing these vicious acts?

Satoshi Kon makes us question what we perceive publicly may not be what happens privately. He uses this dichotomy to criticise how people are run into the ground by the entertainment industry, privately these people are trading their dignity for fame, but to those on the outside, such as Mima's stalker, it all seems glamorous or even self- indulgent. Kon, however, doesn't just ridicule people who run the industry, but asks what type of person wants to enter this industry, and what does it take to succeed in it? And he believes it can only be the mentally unstable.

This belief frames the film; Kon chooses to give the film a psychotic tone and feel, as an audience we are disconnected from it all. Kon uses editing to blur the boundaries of reality; in the scene where Mima first reads her stalkers blog, Kon jumps back and forth between the two slowly warping her stalker into Mima herself.

The script also obscures the reality of the characters, if you look at that blog it does not just detail Mima's movements but her exact thoughts and feelings. These two characters seem to share a psychosis, and the constant repetition by Mima of saying "Who am I?" makes it obvious how Mima feels about herself. Yet I was left unsatisfied.

The animation is the first thing I had a problem with, Kon draws the characters in a clichéd Anime manner. Mima for example is big breasted, and has large facial features. Kon also uses bold colours to distinguish the characters from the background; this felt like a budget constraint rather than a style choice. The backgrounds are lethargic as well, and this becomes apparent when the action is fast paced, especially in the climactic scene of the film where it becomes hard to understand how things are happening. This is highlighted even more by some of the interesting scenes, especially the scene in the bath.

I wasn't worried about the characters either, now I know this is intentional, but when you consider that the film is trying to unravel a mystery it is hard to care about that when those effected by it are unlikable. Mima is annoying airhead, her manager is weak and self-absorbed, her agent is sleazy, and her stalker is just weird. Adding more scenes like the one in the bath would have made me feel more engaged, the run time is only 85 minutes so this wouldn't have slow things down and added depth.

Kon took a huge risk in picking such a complex topic for his debut film but it feels like an incomplete artistic vision.

Bronson (2008)

Too pretentious to be good.

[6/10 · 18 February 2015]

How does someone who wants to be infamous view themselves? Nicolas Winding Refn explores this idea through Michael Gordon Peterson (Tom Hardy), or more commonly known Charles Bronson, or as he is known in the media Britain's most violent prison inmate.

Refn creates this world through an elaborate, dramatic and camp style, and creates a film that forces us to look at the chaos of Bronson's life. The audience is treated to great assortment of interesting visual tones and settings, and the back on forth between the stage monologues and the real life incidents pierces Bronson's consciousness. The soundtrack of the film also adds a sense of location and narrative film, and perfectly complements the visual tone of the film.

Hardy seems to have a lot of fun in this film as Refn seems to have let him off a leash. Bronson narrates the film in a vaudeville style and this is interspersed with extremely violent and physical scenes; so Hardy overacts and is bombastic. Then in other scenes where we have Bronson brooding or planning, Hardy is allowed to just fill the screen with his presence. Refn also took some liberties with the secondary characters and directs to harmonize with Hardy's acting. Matt King as Bronson's fellow inmate and bare knuckle boxing; Paul Daniels, is flamboyant and physically effectual, and Refn does to same for Bronson's family, lover and associates.

This film, however, isn't without its flaws, some of which are pretty unforgivable. Refn shows a poor understanding of pacing, and this film feels like every second of its 92 minutes; scenes drag and repeat. For example, the circular nature of the scenes in the mental prison, where we have some action followed by a stagnant shot of a cationic or defeated Bronson drags the movie out. There is also far too much slow-motion shots; firstly this distracts from the gritty setting of the prison, and does not suit crime film of this type. Secondly, it makes the hits less painful and more cartoonish, Bronson isn't super-human, and we are reminded of this when we find him beaten up and drugged, so this contradictory effect makes the slow motion feel pretentious.

Bronson as a character is also impossible to relate to. We must consider that his life is incredibly boring, he spends most of days trying to force himself back into a 6x8ft cell. He's a psychopath who has no real life connections, and the majority of relationships end the same way, into a hostage situation. The dialogue is a bit melodramatic as well, in my mind they forced drama into scenes just to divert the attention of the viewer as it doesn't take much to piece together what Bronson is about to do next.

Looking at this film as a whole it's hard to make a decision whether this movie is pretentious or effective. Refn straddles this fence in any other film I have seen of his, and this one falls all too often in this film.

The Long Good Friday (1980)

A Throwback rather than a Great

[6/10 · 15 February 2015]

Welcome to 80s London; a city on the brink of massive international investments, a working class being displaced and a community plagued with the fear of domestic terror bombings. Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) is an old school gangster trying to get the biggest piece of the pie in this new environment, and just when he is on the cusp of closing off that market is when his empire comes under significant threat from an unknown power.

John Mackenzie has created a film that feels cathartic in tone and action. The themes and symbolism are all visceral and violent, even the name is taken from the day in which Jesus Christ was tortured to death. Mackenzie definitely captures a slice of a generation in destruction, but I found it difficult to empathise with it. The scene where Shand has to pay kids to clear away from his car embodies the insincerity of this outlook.

Shand in two scenes previously spoke about the moral collapse of Brixton but this scene praises the moral decrepitude of the children. I could only conclude two things from these scenes; Shand had tortured or assaulted two black people in the other 2 scenes in Brixton, and these kids were all white, therefore it was just some excusable racism. Or it was a script oversight.

I also found it difficult to maintain what exactly was going on. The script introduces every secondary character in a barrage of names and casual greetings at the start of the film, so when the film was concluding I had to spend 5-10 seconds remembering who was who. This was a momentarily loss of concentration when all the action was fast paced, and I was a little bit removed from all of it.

Visually the film feels grimy, with some interesting camera angles to boot. One camera effect that will stick with me in terms of immersion was in the abattoir, where Mackenzie switches to a first person shot. Also the lightening creates a natural effect, and some of the more violent elements of the film feel tangible.

Bob Hoskins was spectacular as well. Hoskins at the start comes across as a harmless "geezer", but as the pressure builds he becomes violently and unpredictable, even menacing in some scenes. Helen Miriam as his partner, also complements his great performance, and the exchanges between the two feel genuine. The supporting cast on the other hand is a bit of a mess, the casting director picked too many people who look like each other. If I described someone in the film as the early 40-ish, tall, sunken faced, rough blonde gangster, that would fit three characters and this also added to my confusion in parts.

This film feels dated and budget constricted. And I aware that this is one of these must see British films, however something's only remain relevant because of nostalgia, and this feels more like a throwback than an all time great.

Inherent Vice (2014)

A successful adaption.

[9/10 · 12 February 2015]

Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a hippie PI, has a case thrust upon him by his ex-lover, Shasta (Katherine Waterstone). Doc is asked to stop the plot to commit Mickey Wolfman, an eccentric real estate developer, to an insane asylum. As soon the plot starts to gain momentum it breaks down; Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerrilla family, a society of drug smuggling dentists, a Chinese drug syndicate, the FBI, cults, local politicians, prostitutes and a renegade cop all twist the narrative out of shape.

Being familiar with the source material, this feels like as close you could get to a watchable adaption of a Thomas Pynchon novel. Pynchon subverts plot and structure in his novels; he presents the world as an absurdist mess, presenting stranger and stranger situations as his protagonists meanders to a conclusion that doesn't really matter. In these worlds Pynchon assaults his readers with symbolism trying to force meaning where there may be none; PT Anderson's script and direction adeptly translates this on to the big screen, and is probably why he has been nominated for an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

The sequence in the brothel shows the strength of Anderson's adaption; Doc is confronted by a prostitute who lists all of the specials that are available, another prostitute comes into the conversation and goes down on the first one. Doc wanders off into the brothel, is hit over the head, and falls to the ground Buster Keaton style. Moments later he awakes, beside a dead body, and surrounded by a battalion of police who shout insults at him through a megaphone. This is a jarring sequence of events; noir style conversation, sexual action, violent action, black screen cut, resting shot, cut to army of police, reaction shot. The dialogue suits the absurdity of the situation and Anderson's shooting and direction mould the scene to flow naturally, and Anderson manages to avoid abstraction allowing for to audience to take in everything, and he keeps this style throughout.

Casting in the film is extensive, and suits to the collage tone of the film. Anderson employs Reese Witherspoon, Josh Brolin, Martin Shortt and other notable faces to create a sense of recognisable chaos. However the real strength of this film comes from the interplay between Brolin and Phoenix; their back and fourths elevates the dark humour to laugh out loud moments, and at times allow us to see the repressed emotions amongst the absurdity.

All that said, this film isn't accessible, it is intentionally obscured in pacing, dialogue and plot; the reaction from a person behind me when the credits rolled was "Sh*t", several people also walked out during the film. I spent an hour or so trying to think of people I could recommend it to, and left empty handed. Also my housemate and I failed at discussing exactly what had happen in the film and why, and I think I will need to watch this film again to grasp what happened. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.

REC (2007)

Found footage done right.

[8/10 · 8 February 2015]

Angela Vidal (Manuela Valasco), a local journalist, starts her night in a humdrum fire station in Barcelona; interviewing awkward firemen, and capturing the banal aspects of their night. Roll on their first call; a set of apartments, cops are already there, the neighbours have heard a scream from an elderly recluse's apartment, and they need door broken down. They bash down the door and she is looming there, covered in blood, they try to comfort and she jumps on top of them, biting one of their throat's out. Chaos descends, Angela insists that she must continued getting everything on camera, and the emergency services try to get the residence out of the apartments alive.

REC is another found footage film from the ever swelling pile of cheaply produced horror films, however, this one is done right. Firstly, all characters interact physically with the camera, meaning that the camera is pushed down by people who don't want to be filmed, it breaks at times, and often the sound becomes muffled or broken. Also since this camera is constantly in the live sequence of events, the action doesn't always happen centre screen, and sometimes an event can be shown by the reaction of the actors, or a description by the actors, which adds an authentic element to the found footage.

Next, the script gives the characters proper motivation to keep on holding on to the camera. I have found myself in previous films of this genre screaming at the screen; "Just drop the camera and run!" In REC they need it for the light or the night vision or just to keep their job. Another clever aspect to the film is that the characters act clumsily around the camera, the interviews of the residents of the apartment where they forget the camera is there or they don't know that the camera is shooting was a nice touch.

But the pitfalls of this film are typical of a horror film; wooden acting and an open-ended conclusion to allow for possible sequels. Valasco was the only competent performance, and even at that it was the typical downtrodden, but ambitious journalist role. The supporting cast was just underwhelming with B-movie reactions to perilous situations; for example one of the cast got part of her face bitten and she reacted initially but after acted like nothing happened. Also when the characters became zombies their direction seemed confused; some would act lively and erratic and others would be stiff and single minded. After this the conclusion felt hollow; a supernatural element was introduced with about 10 minutes left and it all seemed geared towards making further films.

Despite a handful of let downs, this film genuinely frightened me nearly throughout. Also the film was possibly aware of some it limitations and managed to keep the action condensed; edited down to 75 minutes, the fast pace means anything that broke me from the reality of the film could be quickly glossed over by my mind.

The Hunt (2012)

Who are we to judge?

[10/10 · 4 February 2015]

A small community where everyone knows each other. Kids play in their neighbours garden without question. Socialising tends to involve everyone. Seasonal events are marked on every calendar. And secrets are few and far between. This is the setting for Thomas Vinterburg's challenging film "The Hunt". In this village we follow Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen), a male kindergarten aid accused of sexually assaulting his best friend's daughter.

There are many controversial and somewhat taboo topics tackled in this film; how do we treat the worst people in our society? Are we right to act this way? Do men have control over their sexual identity anymore? What is healthy role for men to play in societal upbringing of our children? What type of person do we believe to be a paedophile? Are we over-zealous in how we protect our children? I could write until my hands bleed on I was reflecting upon by the end of the film, and Vinterburg does an amazing job at demanding his audience to answer these questions themselves.

The script is rock solid; judgement is never cast on the characters it is all very real and understated. Theo (Thomas Bo Larsen), Lucas' best friend, essentially betrays Lucas when the accusations come out. He sides with the community, he sides with his daughter, and yet we can empathise with his position. All the extreme actions that occur because of this film are treated the same way.

Also the beauty of the script comes from inferring everything; it is a perfect example of show don't tell. Lucas's construction, for example, is all shown; the film introduces him as a hunter (a traditional male role), he is sexually conservative as he is the only man to jump into the lake fully clothed, he is a meek as all the drinking games are forced upon him, and his true sexual identity is hidden as he has conversations on the phone away from people about his past and present exploits.

Mads Mikkelsen's skill as an actor plays into all of this subtlety. There is no massive scene where Mikkelsen has to sell us his motivation, Mikkelsen plays his character as it should be played, usually removed and tries to take action when it is forced upon him. The change of emotions that happen in both the church and supermarket scene are some of the best pieces of acting I have ever seen. The supporting actors are also amazing in how they deal with their character. I was especially impressed by Lasse Fogelstrøm who played Lucas' son, Marcus. His role required as much emotional range as Lucas himself. And the scene where Marcus turns up at Theo's house show so much potential, I am looking forward to seeing him in future films. I could continue talking for months about everything I liked about this film, but all I am going to say is for the next few days I am going to be incessantly recommending this to people.

Thief (1981)

A Powerful Debut

[8/10 · 2 February 2015]

Thief: Thief is a neo-noir crime film from Michael Mann; this is the renowned directors debut feature film. James Caan stars as the prisoned hardened thief, Frank. Frank nearly has his life together, finding the love his life (Tuesday Weld), pulling off big heists and moving towards retirement. However the more Frank tries to break off the ties to his criminal past, the more embroiled in the criminal world he becomes.

I really liked this film; it feels like a piece of stylised 80s captured and preserved. Chicago looks grimy, and the limitations placed on the film by its budget adds a feeling of authenticity. Also Mann being a perfectionist had career criminals consult on the tools used in the crimes and how the crimes were setup as well.

Visually Michael Mann establishes a confident tone to the whole film; lightening for scenes place actors centre stage, Mann holds shots allowing actors to perform, and cuts fuse two shots into one. The scene where James Belushi tells Caan about the death of his fence is masterful; Belushi leans into the payphone as Caan listens in the bar. Caan becomes more and more excited, even though there is a lot going on around, and the scene cuts back and forth to make it look like Belushi is talking directly into Caan's ear.

Caan also gives a great performance. Caan will always be associated with volatile characters but this is my favourite. Frank reactions feel natural; the background we are given also plays to Caan's interpretation. The scenes where Frank is confronted or his life is placed in peril, the audience can see the cogs turning, but his explosion is not melodramatic, it's terse and deliberate.

All that said a handful of things removed me from the film's universe. The idiosyncrasy of late 70s and early 80s films of having non-pertinent dialogue fell flat in this film. Frank's explanation of his past in prison was interrupted by the waitress asking him for coffee, and him complaining about the turned cream. Also Frank's confrontation with the crook who robbed his fence just peters out; having some confused and frightened secretaries looked ridiculous.

Also the supporting cast are all wooden. It is beyond me how James Belushi built his career on the back of this film; he just seems to be awkward on screen. Next, Tuesday Weld underplays every reaction; for example Caan telling her that he is a career criminal is greeted with the same reaction I would expect from someone that I told I left my wallet at home. Robert Proxsy is not menacing in the least Caan acting looms over him in every scene, and just elbows this meek villain out.

People seem to see Thief as the ghost that haunts Mann's masterpiece Heat, and there are many similarities, but I am glad Mann came back to re-interpret the themes of this film. Also this film is touched by the "Mann Curse", which is my reaction to nearly every Mann film; "It's no Heat." A powerful debut, nonetheless, and I would definitely recommend.

Snowpiercer (2013)

Fun but underdeveloped

[7/10 · 29 January 2015]

Set in 2031; 17 years after the collapse of the world's environment, a train holds the last pieces of humanity. This train, the Snowpiercer, circumnavigates the world indefinitely punching through the freezing terrain. From rear to engine the train maintains the previous world's inequality. But the oppressed are on the brink of revolution.

Bong Joon-ho's takes a unique twist on the "end of the world" science fiction movie. Firstly it is set within a limited setting, where action can easily be forced on the protagonist (Chris Evans). Secondly it allows for little exposition to set up the narrative as the structure of a train lends itself quite easily to natural exposition, each carriage allowing for something to unfold. Finally Joon-ho also grounds the film within "the now", everything is identifiable making immersion straightforward.

Visually this simplicity is maintained. Having one or two cuts during action scenes means that the eye can rest while taking in lots of information. Also having no breaks makes the set pieces visceral and tense. When the ruckus erupts on the carriage filled with soldiers you can see how fluid this style is. Also the conclusion to the film is shot so simply that the audience can purely empathise with the ultimate decision Chad Evan's character has to make and not be distracted by a bloated shot.

But the minimalism of everything breaks down when it comes to the plot. Evans' character's motivation is trite; moving forward for the sake of moving forward. Also when the film is about to end we get exposition overload; characters begin listing off previous revolutions and we are exposed to so many past catastrophes that it warps the films narrative. This makes me believe that there was an awareness when finishing the script that Curtis Everett (Evans) had been underdeveloped.

Acting in the film is sufficient. Being an action film most of the performances are quite physical, and since desperation is the main emotion in the film Evans, Song Kang-ho and the supporting cast feel caricature-ish. Tilda Swinton as Mason was the only standout performance. Being the villain Swinton seems to have fun; she plays up to the caricature, over-playing her accent and being flamboyant in movement and posture, in my mind she will be one the most memorable parts of this film.

I enjoyed this film at the end of the day. The reason why is that it did things that other end of world film annoyingly overlook; there was multiple languages, societies structures remained unchanged, and everything was presented neatly and clearly. The flaws in the film never stopped my enjoyment, and I can see this film becoming a cult classic.

A Most Violent Year (2014)

Not very violent, and about a week long.

[3/10 · 25 January 2015]

A Most Violent Year stars Oscar Isaac as Abel Morales; an able, moral capitalist, in a corrupt 1981 New York. The film centres around Morales trying to acquire a oil storage facility that will allow him to expand exponentially, but will put him heavily in debt if it falls through. However, everything out of Morales control interferes with this acquisition.

Being familiar with all the literary influences for this film made it boring: Oscar Isaac staring across the bay; The Great Gatsby, "The noble capitalist"; Ayn Rand, are the two that jumped out at me. Consequently, the film feels derivative; even the plots progression follows themes that have been exhausted. About 10 minutes into the film I knew how it was going to end, and even how every scene was going to end. Just to point it out; "Able Morals" here is going to finish everything as ably and morally as possible.

The historical context also film drains the film of tension; Reganominics was on the horizon, the cleanup of New York, the breaking up of the unions etc. You almost know who is going to be a thorn in Morales side next. You may pick on me for being pedantic, but this film takes itself very seriously, and everything in the film is deliberate, and when you know what they are going for the film loses so much of its veneer.

This is also the first film I have seen directed by J. C. Chandor and he did a great job establishing tone. Chandor always places Morales in powerful positions on the screen, he also uses gold tints to give a sense of decay and tackiness. He, however, repeats scenes and this added to my boredom; I think there are 4 running scenes, 6 power exchanges, and many, many negotiation scenes.

Acting in the movie was suffocated by everything else. Oscar Isaac has only one motivation in the film; be as stoic as possible. Sometimes he cracks and the emotions are lost in how little impact the rest of the film has. Jessica Chastain character might as well been called Lady MacBeth, and she does make a commendable attempt at adding depth to the character, but I disdained the cliché. All the other actors are just background noise, and secondary characters felt wooden.

This is an uninteresting movie, that never fully develops, has no satisfying conclusion, and breaks no new ground.

A Serious Man (2009)

A typical Coen Brothers film

[7/10 · 25 January 2015]

A Serious Man, by the Coen Brothers, tells the story of a physics lecturer (Michael Stuhlbarg), Larry Goepnik, as each part of his life crumbles around him; making him question everything he once had faith in.

Once again Joel and Ethan delve into ancient texts to tell a modern parable about the disconnect between religion and science using the Book of Job as their mirror tale. Each tragedy shows us how Larry is torn between his profession and his heritage. Stuhlbarg's interpretation of this character is the strongest part of this film; little nuances of touching himself and, a definite sense of discomfort throughout made me empathise with Larry in every scene. Even the facial movements of Larry illustrates the strain being placed upon this man.

The dialogue in the film could be poetic at times, but there was a constant drive towards narrative, and it left me feeling removed from connecting with anyone but Larry. The scene where Larry is being told by his wife's lover that he has to move out felt comic but cold, and the majority of other scenes kept this tone. And since the plot was a bit episodic, this made the tragedies feel unreal and repetitive.

The Coen's direction also felt tired compared to their other films. Typical Coen brother tracking shots, their usual portrait shots, action shots contained to one characters reaction; nothing new. The care and inventiveness that I would usually expect wasn't there. I suppose it being the fourth film from the two in a three year period, they just didn't seem wholly engaged in it. One particular scene where they are tracking a shot down a hall to a crying woman as her crying gets louder, it didn't add any further character development and wasn't interesting but felt like a "Coen" shot.

Thematically the film was alright, and there are some interesting things that could be analysed, but it was was underwhelming and at times a bit vague in what they were actually trying to say. The ending of the film was indicative of this; 2 interwoven scenes concluding two plots, adding more tragedies to Larry's life but giving nothing to the audience except these tragedies and a feeling of resignation. Being this direct in the treatment of your subject can be dull, and I was left unsatisfied.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Good, not Great

[8/10 · 19 January 2015]

Oscar Season and Birdman by Alejandro González Iñárritu is the first 2015 "Oscar-buzz" film I have seen. Iñárritu chronicles Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) attempting to gain credibility as an actor by writing, directing and acting in his own Broadway play. Thomson is haunted by his past action hero persona, dogged by his fans, loathed by theatre critics and undermined by his celebrated co-star Mike Shiner (Edward Norton).

The movie relishes in turning the mirror on its audience, its cast, its crew and its critics. While this can be fun at times, it easily swings right round and is heavy handed. The symbolism that Iñárritu choose becomes so obvious he might as well have been in the theatre asking me: "Have you got it yet?" This over-emphasis makes me wonder how much influence Iñárritu had over the final cut as it seems that it was purposefully cut and marketed as "Oscar bait".

Cinematography in this film is magnificent, everything is cut to look like one constant hand-held shot. Iñárritu employs simple but clever cutting techniques, such as letting a door close fully to allow an actor to walk back through it to start another scene. This is the real fun of the film, it creates a great sense of the theatre and continuity and this is something you will see many others trying to imitate.

I loved the acting in this film; Michael Keaton just blew me away with his range in the film, it would be almost shameful for him not to win an Oscar. The supporting cast was equally impressive, with Norton playing probably the richest character I have seen him play in awhile. The subtly of Norton's performance comes from his character never really breaking his stage persona, and once again this adds so much depth to the film. Watts and Stone, however, were lumped with clichéd characters and while their performances were impressive, the limited female presence in the film left me irked.

Script-wise the film is a bit shallow. It's a simple plot whose end is transparent from the beginning, it works, but some careful attention could have made it much tighter. The dialogue can be hollow; sometimes this is intentional and other times its distracting. In my opinion possibly chopping off 10-15 minutes would have allowed a smoother flow to the film.

Overall, mostly funny, condescending all too often, and I have a feeling that I am either going to love or hate by this film by the end of the year.

The Babadook (2014)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 17 January 2015]

Babadook is the debut feature length horror film from Lars Von Trier disciple; Jennifer Kent. The film is also the adaption of an earlier Kent short called Monster.

In this film we are shown the lives of Sam, a mentally troubled child, and Amelia; a windowed orderly on edge from the constant disturbances of her son and the death of her husband. Horror in the film stems from the breakdown of reality between Sam's nightmares and the stress Amelia suffers looking after Sam. Vehicle for action in the film is the appearance of a red book titled The Babadook, a sinister Gothic style book that depicts the demon hanging over their lives. And the plot progresses with Sam and Amelia trying to escape this demon.

The script is obviously in three acts, and there are pacing issue as a result. Characters change abruptly, and the usual "tension- release-tension" method for psychological horrors is over-used. Scares in this film are mainly jump scares; and this style can make the more frightening elements of the film lose gravitas. Also considering the film is designed to have a particular Gothic feel, with oppressive elements such as dark clothing and dreary sets, this oppressiveness of Sam and Amelia's lives bleeds into every aspect of the film, once again distracting from the actual horror.

My main quibble with this film is how derivative it seems, and in my opinion, Kent directly lifts certain themes and scenes from Von Trier himself. Antichrist would be so similar in direction, set and tone that the overlap shows that Kent possibly worships Von Trier and has no other real influences. Another major problem with this film is it lacks any subtlety or subtext, and it can be quite disengaging when things are expressed so literally.

There are some merits to this film; a strong second act and realistic performances from the two main actors. But to me this film just feels like a lost opportunity, Kent had plenty of good ideas but I was just disappointed by Babadook, it felt like a movie where the director was too engaged and couldn't see the glaring flaws.

Sunshine (2007)

Flows like concrete

[6/10 · 13 January 2015]

Danny Boyle's Sunshine is a psychological thriller that investigates the impact of deep space travel on a crew assembled to save the world. The film develops around the fact that this is the second attempt to re-ignite the sun with a nuclear bomb by a ship (cringingly) called the Icarus.

Boyle tries to plum the depths of human philosophy throughout; pessimism, empiricism, Christianity, Eastern religions etc. etc. However this kaleidoscope of views just clutters the film and can at times bring the pacing of the film to a standstill. Dialogue in the film is just as clunky, sometimes the crew talk to each other like human beings, other times they shoehorn their beliefs in and it all comes across as contrived. Also the film feels schizophrenic when it comes to plot; the first two acts are psychological, the last act feels like a slasher flick. Such a rapid change in tone in the film was distracting, and the conclusion to the film barely resolved the films main plot lines.

Casting for the film was definitely one of the stronger points of the film. Considering what nations have space programs and what type of professions would be sent into space, this definitely felt well thought out, and well executed. Apparently before the film even started the cast was made spend a significant amount of time with one another (16 months) and this certainly gives a natural feeling of connection and tension. The script, however, extremely limits the actors impression on the film. While I did enjoy especially watching Cillian Murphy and Chris Evans, it just felt like they were crushed under the weight of a bad script.

Visually this is possibly is one my least favourite Danny Boyle films. Some of the sets are quite striking, and the CGI is used quite sparingly, and gives a gritty visual tone to the film. The hand-held camera shots though, felt clumsy, one scene in particular feels like the camera fell and they just kept on shooting. Some of the imaginary and symbolism also felt hackneyed. I am use to heavy Christian symbolism in Boyle movies, but this one literally felt like a check-list, and I felt myself mentally ticking them off as them came along.

Despite all this I am not saying that I hated this film, it is possibly one of the better films of the disaster movie genre. However compared to other Boyle films and other Sci-fi films; this movie smacks of mediocrity.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Life itself

[10/10 · 11 January 2015]

Charlie Kauffman's Synecdoche, New York feels impenetrable, abstract, and removed yet I was moved to tears by it all. Why? It felt "brutally honest".

Set in Schenectady, New York, the film follows Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a neurotic theatre director, as his life disintegrates. As things slip away Caden wins the MacArthur fellowship, and vows to create an original play, a work of "brutal honesty". Caden, however, lives in a bubble of his own thoughts, removing himself from his loveless marriage, making connections with those around him cold and awkward, and constantly he is searching for lost time. In his play we see Caden, examine the regrets of his life, and reflect intensely on what he should've said versus what actually happened or what he believed to have happened.

Kauffman handles Caden with a great deal of intimacy, allowing for a connection where there should be none, as Caden is so self-absorbed. Camera angles for Caden are nearly always close or portrait, any transitioning shots or establishing shots are also almost exclusively from Caden's point of view. The cinematography and set design mixes magical realism into the movie and gives a dream like quality to everything.

After plot and direction, things like acting and pacing become a bit harder to judge. How do you critique an actor that seems to be playing himself? If the pacing is designed to depict life, is the pacing of life intangible? Or is the medium of film unable to fully encapsulate the "pace" of life? This is all designed to force a personal response, and I can see people having varying opinions on this film, from boring to engaging and pretentious to being exact.

Tone of the film would be generally be considered depressing, but to me there is something life affirming about it, as if to say I am not the only one he feels the human condition so intensely. The closing scene of the film reminds me of a rich life lived, and the absence of this richness is stark and shocking.

Thematically there are so many ideas explored in this film. "Ce n'est pas une pipe" to how much can artist influence interpretations of his art to what is the human condition and how do you live a good life. Over a week later and I am still trying to warp my opinion to fit round the film.

A comic I read recently describes most how the film feels to me: "Life and death have been in love for longer than words can describe. Life sends countless gifts to death, and death keeps them forever."

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Simple and Moving

[9/10 · 8 January 2015]

Isao Takatha's Grave of the Fireflies details a brother and sister living through the fire bombings of Japan during World War II. The movie elegantly depicts the relationship between the two children, and uses the many tragedies they encounter to pace the film.

Despite the weightiness of the topic, the brilliance of the film comes from the lightness of the interactions between Seita (the brother) and Setuko (the sister). The films dialogue convincingly mixes the inane quality of children's conversations, and the inability for these immature characters to process life or death situations; Setuko's hallucinations and the trip to the doctor both play between these divergences in dialogue. And the writing never strays from a simple plot, delivered beautifully.

Animation in the movie varies in style; crude to wonderfully colourful. The richness of this style comes to the front in several scenes, particularly the opening and closing scenes. Nonetheless, the aesthetic strength of the film has more to do with the cuts and edits Takatha has implemented. Jarring cuts for visceral reactions, multiple angles within action scenes, and long shots for some of the bonding scenes.

I watched the English version of this film and the only let down of this film was the voice acting. The actors delivered their scripts as if they were being spoonfed each line. Setuko's voice lacked any emotional resonance and Seita's voice never broke at any point in the film, despite having to deal with some extremely complex emotions.

My verdict on the film, however, is that it touched me in similar manner to Kilmov's Come and See (1985) without being confined to a strictly definable piece of time. While Klimov's film deals almost entirely within the constraints of the horrors of WWII, Takatha merely uses the war as a backdrop to show how youth is loss to us in times of extreme horror. Also the symbolism, themes explored and the imagery used in every scene will definitely make me return to this film.