Gangster Squad Review

'The Untouchables' is one of my all time favourite films, so when I heard that the narrative of Gangster Squad was almost a carbon copy, I was destined for disappointment. But this news didn't just disappoint me, it frustrated me more than anything else, having followed Gangster Squads production via a news feed on imdb I was incredibly exited, finally a breath of fresh air in the crime genre, a fresh, digital and vibrant look at neo-noir film-making with an attractive cast and a capable director. Instead what I got was a second rate remake with an erratic pace and a collection of characters I genuinely couldn't care less about.

That is not to say that it was all bad, after its opening that was obviously cut to pieces by the producers to get it under the 120 minute mark, the middle section showed some promise before falling apart again at the climax. Don't get me wrong the film was fall of clever and interesting set pieces but I don't think that's enough for me, its fine to make a parody if one is clever about it but it seems the Director, Ruben Fleischer had got a bit carried away with the style element of this feature and paid very little attention to the substance, and as any movie producers will tell you, there must be substance in order for a film to work. Might I just add that Ryan Gosling seems to be fascinated with that lighter of his to the point where it no longer was stylish but became somewhat of a guessing game whenever he entered the frame as to how long it would take for him to produce the lighter. 

Perhaps I am being harsh having been dissatisfied, as this film doesn't step into the realms of complete cinematic woefulness but I can tell you, it gets scarily close considering its cast and their capabilities. Nonetheless for all its flaws it was an enjoyable ride and succeeded in spurring me to pen my own gangster homage to be made into a short film, unfortunately it wasn't because I was inspired by Gangster Squad but I thought I can be more original than that.     

**

The Impossible review

The Impossible, one could not create a more appropriate title for such a film and that is a MASSIVE compliment. It took a heart warming true story that even Hollywood would deem 'a little unlikely' and made it human. The Impossible is a wonderfully grounding story of compassion and perseverance 

Having been immersed in the worlds of Peter Jackson and Tarantino of late, watching their movies on a loop, it was gloriously refreshing to watch a movie that made me feel small again. A superb cast of British actors depict an ordinary family pulled apart by  the aftermath of the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean on Boxing Day 2004. I mention the cast first as they were exceptional. Many are already praising child star Tom Holland along with the established Naomi Watts for their performances as the eldest son and the mother, but I believe it would be unfair to do so without mentioning the extraordinary Samuel Joslin who plays 7 year old middle child, Thomas forced to take care of his younger brother having "never taken care of anyone before". 

Whilst the actors are incredible, the director JA Bayona, a Spaniard who I know from his 2007 chiller 'The Orphanage' is equally brilliant. Using editing reminiscent of the French New Wave coupled with claustrophobic camera angles and handheld pans, the film looks hauntingly beautiful. The actual Tsunami hitting the main land is genuinely terrifying, filmed like a monster but maintaining complete realism, and the sound is marvellous, academy worthy even, whenever Naomi Watts' character is in any kind of pain, I felt every cut and bruise on her body and found myself wincing at the sound alone! 

Then the series of metaphors appearing in intricate sub plots that start to take over the movie as we begin to realise the sheer scale of the damage done, also an artistic narrative feature. It was an example of great visual storytelling and succeeded in keeping me immersed for the full two hours, which is rare for my eighteen year self, it also made the whole idea of family a bit more attractive to me - another major achievement. 

The Impossible has its flaws, the slightly annoying opening ten minutes which felt a bit detached and the cheesy score. But its irony and mocking-of-romantic-Hollywood-sentiment tone made it a masterpiece, and one that deserves success this February at the awards. This is one of the scariest films I've seen in a while and what's worse is in a completely different way, it reduced me to tears.

****

Foreign Films, Give 'em a go!

With the start of a new academic year under way and the pressure of AS Level exams but a distant memory, I feel now is the time to get blogging again, how I've missed it.  This post is not a film review, not because I haven’t been to the cinema of late, (recently saw The Dark Knight Rises - loved it, and The Bourne Legacy - pretty pointless, what did we think?) but because I have been aching to discuss something else for a while, foreign movies.  

Many of you would groan at the possibility of sitting through endless subtitles, because it feels like more work, however it is unfortunate that some of the world’s best contributions to cinema aren't all in the English language!  Yes believe it or not the likes of Nigeria, Brazil and China have produced their fair share of screen gems along with the more obvious French and German movies each inspiring a new wave of film-making. 

As I am fairly new to the concept of foreign films, I asked my film studies lecturer to compile a very short list of must sees and as I did in my first post, having watched these movies ill pass on the recommendations to you with my own take on things.  

1.) City of God - (Brazil) Now this is a real masterpiece and its four Oscar nominations and worldwide critical acclaim has given it a fair bit of positive publicity, not enough I feel so I'm here to give it some more.  City of God is the story of two boys growing up in the notoriously violent slums of Rio de Janeiro, one becomes an aggressive drug dealer whilst the others morals drive him into a more honest profession.  Full of struggle and using the chaos of the setting and the rich culture as a vehicle driving the narrative at an unstoppable pace, City of God is the perfect example of exceptionally raw movie-making.  Now aren't I selling it?  I have reason to. 

2.) Life is Beautiful - (Italy) This film is very much separated into two parts, almost two completely different scripts but there is one real consistency in both, the charisma and pure spirit of the protagonist.  It deals with the charm of young love and the hardship of the holocaust whilst being extremely comical, all in 116 minutes, sounds strange doesn't it?  But it’s one of those rarities that seizes complete control of every emotion in your body and with striking precision plucks at your heart strings and tickles your funny bone.  Need I say more?

3.) The 400 Blows - (France) This is more experimental than the fore-mentioned, it came at a time when Hollywood romantic cinema was the generally accepted formula to movie-making.  François Truffaut couldn't have been further from conventional, and his semi-autobiographical tale of a troubled teenage boy seeking love, attention and just about every other thing his mother deprived him of is nothing short of stunning.  I warn you, it takes patience but the concepts, ideas and the feeling of adolescent alienation so brilliant conveyed makes it all worth it.

I'm going to leave it at that for now, there's three to get you started, I'd be doing a lot of people an injustice if I didn't mention Chunking Express, La Haine and of course The Artist in these recommendations.  I will make my return to reviewing films sometime next week as I plan to go to the cinema on Monday, 'til then Stay Classy. (Anchor-man reference).  

The Hunger Games Review

It’s been a while since I’ve had the chance to visit the cinema, what with exams fast approaching and all the tiresome school stuff that comes with being a college student. Nonetheless during my two week break I found an opportunity to see The Hunger Games.  I’d like to start off by saying that I commend its bravery as a movie.  The entire narrative is dependent on the audience’s belief of the reality of the situation, without this belief from the audience the movie would fail to have any effect and the characters would mean nothing to anyone, so watching them and their near-death experiences would be pointless.  The thing is, I don’t think I did believe it and I found it frustrating because I wanted to be emotionally engaged but to be brutally honest I didn’t care about the characters enough.

That’s only one problem with it; Gary Ross (the director, also directed Seabiscuit) clearly doesn’t own a tripod because for the first 20 minutes THE CAMERA WOULDN'T HOLD STILL!  I understand that it’s meant to represent the rustic nature of the environment etc. but I really wish they would just keep it stationary for a bit, honestly they must have had the most jittery camera man ever.  It was horrible to watch and for those who haven’t seen it, I won’t even bother telling you to look out for it because it so blinding obvious.

People have said to me that it’s done the book justice given the trend of brilliant novels being turned into less-brilliant movies, I confess to not having read the book but from the movie script and what others have told me, I think it’s one of those rarities in literature that just wouldn’t work as a film.  Books exist in the imagination of the reader, whereas films present a group of people’s vision of the film, in books we challenge the reality in our heads and reason with the text to create a more real story, but in a movie all of this is done for us and presented and I didn’t believe it.  Don’t get me wrong I love movies but all I’m saying is this film didn’t work and the book must have worked so much better.

The acting was good; the lead Jennifer Lawrence clearly has a bright future ahead of her.  Wes Bentley (who played Ricky in American Beauty) was brilliant although I was convinced he was Christian Bale until the credits came up.  So yes there were some positives but I didn’t believe in the story or the characters, very poor direction and the techniques he used were some blindingly amateur it became frustrating to watch. For a movie that has been called ‘The most important film in years’ it was pretty average.  I would like to give it two stars but that would put it in the same league as Breaking Dawn Part 1 and it wasn’t quite that bad, but it’s a low three stars, its watchable but I really didn’t enjoy it.

*** 

OSCARS Special (response to this years ceremony)

A good year for cinema by all accounts and a high standard of competitors for the various awards, I am pleased that The Artist won Best Picture because it really was this year’s Best Picture, it also picked up the Best Actor Award (Jean Dujardin) and Best Director (Michel Hazanavicius) as well as Original Score which was inevitable and strangely enough Best Costumes, a bit of a surprise as I didn’t think there was anything stand out in that department.  Nonetheless I am delighted that it has got the academy’s recognition picking up five awards at the end of the night.  The real surprise of the evening came in the Original Screenplay category, where Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris beat competition from Bridesmaids and the Artist (both of which I feel are better films) to claim the golden statue, I’m a little disappointed with that.  Hugo swept the opposition away in the technical areas (i.e. Sound, Visual effects etc.)  and beat War Horse, which I felt should have won, to the cinematography Oscar, having said that Hugo was visually very impressive, so not too many problems with that.  I would just like to add that I was really unimpressed with the animation category this year, whilst previous winners include Up (2009) and Toy story 3 (2010) both of which are brilliant, to have the likes of the sequel to Kung Fu Panda and Puss in Boots (an attempt at a revival of the Shrek series, a franchise that was dead many movies ago) is quite disheartening.  Rango, starring Johnny Depp, won in the end and is a film I confess to not having seen, it will have a hard job winning me over and ultimately standing tall with the past winners.

Anyway here is my one sentence summary of the movies that were up for Best Picture this year, I confess to only having seen 6 out of the 9…

The Artist – Nothing short of a work of art, beautiful film making.

The Descendants – Some very tight performances and a good story, but nothing special.

Hugo – A lovely look to the film but ultimately not that engaging.

Midnight in Paris – Oscar contender, really?

The Tree of Life – I just didn’t get it.

War Horse – Vintage Spielberg sentiment, but ET is better.

As for Moneyball, The Help and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, I simply can’t comment but I’ll be sure to add to this when I get the chance to see them.   Just a quick footnote to this post, I would like to say I’m disappointed Drive wasn't considered for any of the major awards because it is a very stylish, well-made thriller, and it deserved some recognition.  Watch this movie!

Please let me know what you think of the Oscar winners and who you would have chosen as the stand out movies of the yeard, as well as your thoughts on the nominated films and films that didn’t make it onto the shortlist that you feel should have.  

The Descendants Review

Due to its success at the Golden Globes picking up the best movie award and the best actor in a leading role award (George Clooney) I decided to remain open to the fact that it may actually be a very watchable film and the Golden Globes might just have got it right this time.  Sadly once again I was disappointed.  There are some very well done bits and some decent acting in there but overall it’s pretty poor and I am surprised the academy have recognised this as ‘an outstanding film’ because it really isn’t.

So the story goes a soon to be wealthy inheritor tries to rectify his deteriorating relationship with his kids whilst his wife lies in a coma after a serious boating accident, sounds very downbeat doesn’t it?  But this plot feature doesn’t take over the purpose of the movie, the fact that the mother could potentially die is almost pushed aside, and hangs over the film weightlessly like a drape, what’s underneath is a warm narrative about this family and how they must carry on with their lives.  The film starts off with this brilliantly written bit of narration about paradise, and how Hawaii (his home) may appear like paradise but in fact the reality is very different, as Clooney puts it ‘Hell I haven’t been a on surf board in fifteen years’ it perfectly sums up the loss of exuberance Matt King’s (George Clooney) family experiences.

There were these fantastic moments where you didn’t know whether to laugh or cry and ended up somewhere in-between, and an effortless pace to the film, some may say it was just plain slow but I liked it, it was a reflection of the easy-going nature of Hawaii but also the families struggle to hold onto what could be the final moments of their mother living on a life support machine.  It was very nicely done, however I did feel slightly underwhelmed by it, with the awareness of its Oscar nominations and my theory that Clooney is becoming the modern day Cary Grant (versatile and intelligent as a performer) I did expect slightly more.  It was all very pleasant but there were some bits where I wanted a bit more than just pleasant, I wanted to feel something and I wanted to be emotional but somehow the script wouldn’t allow it.

It was well directed, a very simple and obvious approach to the story with some clever edits, but nothing stand out really.  The acting was its real strength but interestingly enough Clooney’s Oscar nominated portrayal wasn’t the stand out performance for me, no, this came from Shailene Woodley who plays the troubled eldest daughter, she was exceptional and she needs another role like this to get some recognition because she was very good, and considering her experience comes from TV movies she gave a very polished performance.  The characters were likable and had some depth; even the ‘awesome dude’ boyfriend of the eldest child, Sid, showed some real wisdom.  In fact his character was reminiscent of Keanu Reaves’ in Parenthood (1989).

The thing is there have been better movies over the past 12 months which haven’t got the recognition, so to see a film like this which has got so much praise from the academy is quite disheartening, it suggests that in this industry star power and sentiment drives the critical success of a film, when there are horror movies and action movies and independent movies that need this sort of praise, the superhero genre has been very strong recently, these movies need to be nominated because then you end up with these oddities like The Descendants because the academy have a criteria which certain movies, be them good or bad simply don’t fit. 

Overall a passable movie that I won’t hurry to go and see again and I do think its five Oscar nominations are slightly unjust, and the film is a bit over rated but hey it wasn’t terrible and there were some definite positives, which actually outweigh the negatives.  Just don’t show up to The Descendants with any expectations and you will enjoy it.  If, like me, you are encouraged by media hype or rave reviews then I’m afraid you will be disappointed. 

***      

War Horse Review

It’s the move that has been dubbed “Spielberg’s best work yet” so my expectations were always going to be high.  Just days after my visit to the small Art house cinema in Richmond to see The Artist, I chose to visit The Odeon Leicester Square which boasts one of Britain’s biggest screen, this was going to be an experience at least.

Now strangely enough War Horse is a movie about a war and a horse, but there is slightly more to it, it’s essentially the episodic journey of Joey (the horse that is the War Horse) through several different owners taking him around Europe from picturesque British countryside to murky World War One battlefields.  A narrative oozing sentiment, which many consider to be Spielberg’s forte, this movie was bound to make my eyes water, but it didn’t.  The problem I have with War Horse is that it’s too episodic, having read the Michael Morpurgo novel in my youth, I would deem it an impossible book to make into a movie, because there’s so much moving around that the audience simply doesn’t have the chance to get any sort of emotional attachment to the various owners, apart from maybe Albert (the original owner).  Interestingly enough the big time film critics rave about it saying how it reduced them to tears on many occasions, but I’m a little confused, were we watching the same movie?  Because, yes certain bits were sad but I wasn’t even close to crying at any point in the film.  Maybe it’s because I’m an unemotional teenaged boy, but I cried at the end of American Beauty (2000), which my mother actually chuckled at (and really you won’t find anyone more emotional than my mother).

Anyway let’s get back to the point here, it was too busy moving around trying to be vast and trying to capture these little lives lead by the various owners that there simply wasn’t time to get fully emotionally involved with any of the characters, I felt entirely detached.  However the fact that I didn’t sob my heart out doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good film, it was a good film, although it took a while to take off, and I found myself slightly impatient in the opening third, but once the battle sequences got underway, I was enthralled, it was vintage Spielberg, like a combination of the gush of E.T and the excitement of the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, a winning combination one might suggest?  One thing is for certain it took Spielberg’s touch to make War Horse the film that it is, without his experience and clear talent for finding the right visuals to tell the story; it would be a decidedly average film.  Having said that the lead, Jeremy Irvine, was superb, and this is his first movie so he did a very decent job and I’ll look forward to his announced role in Great Expectations alongside Helena Bonham Carter.  Tom Hiddleston was also good (the guy who plays the captain, Joeys second owner).  So the acting wasn’t the problem.  I suppose my real trouble with it is I wanted so much more from it.  It is a perfectly respectable movie, but that’s all it is.  I so badly wanted it to be ‘Spielberg’s finest work and I am aware that I’ve mentioned him a lot but I do think he made the film work when it probably wouldn’t have otherwise.           

The British countryside was shot beautifully and might I add all on location, and what I found interesting was that it was shot on 35mm film, which in the modern digital age is rare but it certainly added this feeling of nostalgia, and the movie had this glow about it which was very enchanting.  Oh and the horse, I almost forgot to mention the horse, yes the horse was good too, not quite in the same calibre as the Jack Russell in The Artist but further proof that animals can act.  In fact there was this very painful scene where Joey gets caught up in barbed wire and the way the horse moves and the sounds it makes does make the audience feel very uncomfortable whether that’s down to the camera work or the horse itself, is another matter, but I feel that was done very well and (without trying to give too much away) there is a certain scene concerning a windmill which is just cinematic genius.

Anyway that’s War Horse for you, a very sound picture that’s worth a watch but don’t expect anything ground-breaking.  Let me know your views and reviews of War Horse or any other movie you’ve seen this week on my Facebook page, just hit the like button and get writing (instructions of how to find it at the top of my homepage).        

****

The Artist Review

It became apparent to me that The Artist would be a surprisingly difficult movie to track down, despite the nation-wide hype and critical acclaim to what has been dubbed the film of the year, you would think the local multiplex would show it, how wrong could I be? My search took me to an Art-House cinema in Richmond which is quite away from where I live, having said that I told myself I had to see this movie and I can tell you, it was worth it.

The Artist is one of the rarities in contemporary cinema where it takes a concept, like the fact that the movie is silent and doesn’t use it as a gimmick but that very detail enhances the film. You’re probably a little confused if you haven’t heard about it yet, so I’ll explain the premise. Essentially it is about the death of the silent era and therefore the death of George Valentin’s acting career, and the birth of one Peppy Miller’s, but there’s a twist, the movie is silent and shot in black and white, not only this but the director, Michel Hazanavicius filmed it in ‘Academy Ratio’ which probably doesn’t mean a lot to most of you, but it’s basically the aspect ratio that movies used to be shot in during the silent era. This gives it a whole new dimension, given all these changes the film feels very natural, which does work in its favour and I hope that this will be accepted by the mainstream because this film really does deserve success.

It’s very hard to put your finger on the defining aspect of The Artist that made it so beautiful, the acting was superb with both stars showing their knack for physical comedy and story-telling, the direction was wonderful and there was this brilliant symmetry to the film which was a recurring feature, and the script was exciting and accessible, but I think the reason why it was so great, was its charm. It was magical, I was emotionally engaged in the narrative and being a fairly monotonous teenager that’s very hard for a film to achieve and it did so brilliantly. There are some inevitable problems like the plot felt a bit cliché at times, but any hint of what may be considered conventional is broken by the simple fact that every other characteristic of The Artist is so different to anything else.

As you may have heard it features a quite outstanding performance from none other than a dog, who not only has exceptional comical timing but a versatile set of acting skills. The comic Jack Russell   very much steals the show, demonstrating his doggy tricks with precision. All sounds a bit serious really for a dog, I guess what I’m trying to say is ‘be prepared to fall in love with Uggie’. 

The class and cinematic knowledge Michel Hazanavicius clearly has just oozes out of every shot and the music is just such a beautiful addition to it, and largely contributes to the ease of the film, without it, The Artist would feel slightly static so a major hats off to the Director and the composer, Ludovic Bource who does a marvellous job. The best film of last 2011 by a country mile, if it still counts as a 2011 film, if not it has set the benchmark very high for anything that is to come of 2012.     

It is so different and fresh and exciting, please please please go and watch this movie, it is a true modern masterpiece and you will not regret it. Be patient let yourself sink into the silent world and enjoy it as an entirely different experience to anything you’ve seen before.

*****

Forces Film of the Week – The Social Network Review

As a religious ‘Facebooker’ I was very interested to see the story behind the site. Now just to kick things off I am a massive Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, 2009) fan, so when I found out about his involvement I was confident that I would be going to see a well-acted movie at the least, not only is The Social Network well-acted, its well-directed, well-written and well-made. An accomplished film by all accounts. I was ultimately surprised at how engaging the narrative was, I mean a story about an unsociable, unlikeable geek hiding away in his bedroom making a website doesn’t really sound thrilling but the sub-plots, the undertones, the witty script just make it a quite brilliant piece of work. Now I won’t ramble on too long but it is really worth it, if you are interested in Facebook or the alienation of adolescence or strapping young rowers with German surnames (I think that covers everyone) then watch it.  It won academy awards and deservedly so and has a quite brilliant set of performances, certainly one of the best movies of 2010 and it really did have competition. BFBS 1 (Friday 20/01/2012 19:00 UK time)  

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Review

After a heated argument with my family, a convention of Christmas time in my household, I stormed out with a few hours to kill. I sought sanctuary in the warmth and comfort of my local cinema, preferring a cinematic experience to aimlessly wandering. Despite the variety of options which included the third instalment of the Alvin and the Chipmunks series, I went with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Having thoroughly enjoyed the first one, I began to question whether or not Guy Ritchie was pushing his luck making a second. Nonetheless I tried to remain open to the claims that it would match the solidity of the first.

I am pleased to announce it most definitely did. Robert Downey Jr returns as Britain’s favourite detective with Jude Law assisting him as Dr Watson. Now I remember people suggesting a homo-erotic relationship between the two in the first movie which I simply didn’t see, yet in the second this ‘bromance’ becomes more evident as the plot centres on the married-couple intellectual sparing amongst the central characters, which works very well as a concept. The complicated pre-war mystery unfolding is simply a sub-narrative but the significance of the movie is Watson and Holmes’ relationship throughout, involving the emotional challenges of ‘letting go’ of those dear to us.

(SPOILER ALERT) The story goes, a criminal mastermind who also happens to be a genius sets up a series of crimes around Europe in an attempt to start a world war, when it becomes apparent that Holmes’ partner Watson has become a target in retaliation to Sherlock’s investigation, he is forced to intervene in Watson’s honeymoon plans. Accompanied by a young gypsy lady called Sim (Noomi Rapace) the trio begin a chase across Europe to solve the crime and stop the villain before time runs out and political havoc is ensued.

I thought it was at least as good as the first and was very well done. I enjoyed the industrial sound scheme, continued from the first, where the movie feels very mechanical which bares relevance to the time (1900s and the Industrial revolution) even Downey Jr’s accent is vaguely mechanized; he speaks in a very low tone where he swallows his words, which I really like. Jude Law is very good and overall the acting is pretty sharp, I especially enjoyed Stephen Fry as Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft, which may seem a little odd but weirdly enough it is conceivable.
 

I also loved the clever direction and the slow motion used which really gives us in insight into the genius’s mind. The narrative is very well thought out and feels complicated enough to be a Sherlock adventure, the Mulroney’s (Kieran and Michele) do a very good job of that. What really impressed me though was the historical relevance. Now inevitably it is completely made up but it did feel hauntingly real and I liked that a lot, that and the various elements of Sherlock’s character like his methods of deduction, as new ones are introduced, for example his study of graphology. The bogus disguises were also very comical and I found myself conscientiously looking out for Holmes whenever he wasn’t in the foreground of a scene.
 

As my inspiration for this blog, Mark Kermode, has said Sherlock Holmes 2 proves that Guy Ritchie can make a decent movie, he just shouldn’t be let near the scripting process. But as a Director he is clearly very capable and deserves some recognition for that. I’m not saying he should win awards but some critical acclaim would be nice. Perhaps a Golden Globe is in order, as I don’t consider them an award; I see them more as a good review in trophy form.

The only problem I had with it is it did feel remarkably like the first, which is fine because I enjoyed the first, but I just wanted it to pull away from it a bit and stand on its own, although maybe I would have been disappointed if it had been any different. It’s certainly one of the films I enjoyed most this year along with Horrible Bosses but would I rate as my film of year? Probably not. It was good but not brilliant and will be one of those films that I will pick up from the reduced shelf in a few years and enjoy again, but I won’t rush out to buy it when it comes out on DVD.  

***