Review: Blue Jasmine

Year: 2013

Director: Woody Allen

Screenplay: Woody Allen

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay, Peter Sarsgaard, Michael Stuhlbarg, Louis C.K.

Synopsis is here

The annual Woody Allen feature comes to us with a performance so strong it beggars belief. I don’t care for awards season, but for those out there who have stumbled upon this tiny blog who hold interest I will say this: Cate Blanchett should have 2013’s best actress all wrapped up. If someone else wins over Blanchett then I must congratulate them, as they've toppled a performance of some magnitude.

Blanchett’s Jasmine is a hurricane of destruction and delusion it is difficult look away from. It’s always exciting to someone take a film by the scuff of the neck and dictate things like a conductor. However I found Blanchett to be so strong, that even the other solid displays felt dwarfed.  Allen brings together a multi-faceted cast that engages well with the material. But Blanchett, she just blows them away.       

Blue Jasmine at heart is a tale about someone who can be happy with a little and someone who despairs despite once having a lot. Self absorbed and pretentious; Jasmine is a difficult character to feel for. Told in flashback, we find that Jasmine is held together by the riches of her husband.  Everything is about stature and branding. We notice she changed her name due to money. She looks down her nose at her sister and fiancé with the kind of condensation you only ever find from those who are far too privileged for their own good. There’s insidiousness in the way Jasmine feels the need to tell her sister that she can do better. At no point do we feel that what is said is done for the good of anything other than Jasmine’s self satisfaction. Little bothers her, because material keeps her warm at night. We also think it keeps her oblivious to important matters at hand.

When we find Jasmine in the present and uncover the reasons of why she’s visiting her sister, we notice just how fragile her ignorance and finance have made her. Jasmine is a fractured creature that would get on well with Penelope Cruz’s Maria, whose emotional imbalance heightened the tone of Allen’s Vicky Christina Barcelona. However while that film joyfully played with Latin melodrama, here we only have spite to comfort us.

As the film plays on, Blanchett’s pained performance breaks through so much of the films other segments. Blanchett switches from distant to destructive to switched on in a blink of an eye, and cuts through much of the humour (the support is engaging yet cartoony in characterisation) that tries to diffuse the drama. As the film continues on, we notice just how troubled Jasmine has become. I struggled with the films humour unlike the snorting and snarky audience I watched it with, who had no trouble. Jasmine isn’t pleasant, but it’s hard not to find pathos as Jasmine becomes more unhinged.

That said, Allen’s poor people are doing A-ok while rich people pay for their sins comes across a little false. Despite Allen’s provocative use of form (Jasmine is often bathed in golden hues, or blocked out of focus during certain plot turns ), he never takes his idea as far as he can. We have a conceit in which the high class wives of the financial elite have just as much to hide has their criminal husbands. Allen places a cynical turn on the phase “behind every good man is a good woman” but does little to convince us of his conviction. This loose, modern day telling of A Streetcar named desire squarely lands us amidst the spectre of the economic crash, but fizzles out without wanting to take a good clean stab at the issue. It’s too bad, as Blanchett is more than willing to make the effort.        

Review: The Kings of Summer

Year: 2013

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Screenplay: Chris Galletta

Starring: Nick Robinson, Nick Offerman, Alison Bree, Gabriel Basso, Moises Arias

Synopsis is here

 Big confession here: I’m not the biggest fan of Stand by Me. I’m truly sorry and I have no problem with whatever punishments lie in wait for me in cinematic hell. I know that’s where I’m going as I’m one of the 7 people that like Revolver. A lot. But for some reason Stand By me has never been the film that brings tears to my eyes or wistful memories of that blissful summer that no one had, yet all remember. Yet when it comes to coming of age films, give me something like Kings of Summer that apes Stand by Me, and you’ll find me lapping it up. I apologise. It’s a sickness.

Then again, The Kings of Summer wryly observes a childhood summer that I responded to a lot more, with more emphasis on that awkward alpha male fight that can happen within the family unit. The generation gap between father and son is well exploited within The Kings of Summer. Joe Toy (Nick Robinson) and his father Frank (an amusingly deadpan Nick Offerman) are at odds as there’s no buffer between them. His older sister (Alison Bree) has flown the coop, and with no mother, there’s just far too much testosterone within a small space.  It’s tough, it’s awkward and it’s so true what any young boys often feel towards their fathers; the strange belief that they have nothing in common with each other, yet consistently at odds because they’re so alike. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts deftly mines the humour of the situation perfectly. Having Joe reject the labour chores his father wants him to do, yet happily escaping to the woods to build a house with his friends to prove he’s a different man. Early on Joe considers his father as a lonely prick, but displays the same self-destructive tendencies as his father and fails to see the irony.

Bathed in golden Valencia-like photography, the film joyfully embraces quirky flights of fancy, with Wes Anderson like character interactions (disillusioning a bear to take it down!) and videogame blips appearing on the soundtrack. I guess one of the reasons I responded so much to Kings is because it holds such modern day mannerisms so well. The film happily melds a fresher look at nostalgia with more universal themes. Kings sometimes overdoes things with its use of slow motion feeling more like a needless tic than a useful enhancement towards the storytelling . The poetic licences also feels a tad strained. Ask yourself just how well you and a few friends could build a house at that age, with that amount of speed. Maybe there’s a slight hint of magic realism at play.

However Kings of the Summer does everything with an innocence and honesty not unlike the films that have come before it.  It doesn’t hit the heights of Draw Barrymore’s criminally under seen Whip It, nor is it as highly strung as Perks of a Wallflower. However it was hard for me not to finish Kings of Summer without a grin. Now out on home media after some terrible distribution issues on the cinema front. The Kings of Summers has a soul I would happily kill for as I try to get the cinematic gods to forgive me for my enjoyment of Guy Richie.  

Review: Riddick

Review: Riddick

Year: 2013

Director: David Twohy

Screenplay: David Twohy

Starring: Vin Diesel, Katee Sackhoff

Synopsis is here

If there’s one thing I enjoy about Riddick, it’s that the character is a survivor.  The story of Vin saving his baby is an interesting one worth noting. With the rights in his power and his credit as producer, Vin now has the chance to slim down the bloated and dull elements that made Chronicles of Riddick such a misshapen beast. The character of Riddick fared better in Pitch Black, a solid Sci-Fi B movie that I found adequate, yet was embraced by many.

Making the third Riddick entry, a smaller scale picture is a decent idea. Yes, there may be less money involved, but in all honesty who really thought the character of Riddick would thrive in that more large scale environment?  Like Dredd, having Riddick exist to live out these smaller, more self contained adventures is a good way to go in a world where so many larger scale “epics” feel that they have to destroy a city to get viewers to care.

Some of the more needless mythology is stripped down in the beginning of this third adventure with most of what happened in the second film reduced to a near pointless cameo appearance. We’re given Riddick in a near desolate world, having to having to survive as well as he can off the land. A difficult task as most of what inhabits the land seems hell-bent on trying to kill him.  This is perhaps my favourite section of the film. To have our main character on his own for so long, with almost nobody to interact with, tackling the elements is quite a brave thing to do in this day and age. Riddick seems to hint that it’s a film that willing to take a few risks. Then the rest of the cast turn up.

The film’s tone shifts, but not for the better. The harsh environment moves to the background as a quite boring bunch of stock characters come forth and talk about things that aren’t particularly interesting, while Riddick employ a stalk and slash affair that does little to stand out (save one head splitting sequence). The films climax appears to be a throwback that may engage bigger Riddick fans than I, but by then I was too drained of interest from what had happened before. Oh and then there’s the whole sexism argument that’s cropped up.

Yes, there’s been talk of strong talk from British critics stating that the exchanges with Vin’s Riddick and Katee Sackhoff’s Dahl character reek of horrible, vulgar sexism. I don’t wish to dismiss this issue. I feel the issues that females have in media is bad enough, when we jump into sub-cultures such as Sci-Fi it often gets much worse.  However looking back at the film and listening to an interesting counter-point from a good and wise friend, I did wonder why it’s this film that appeared to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the likes of Helen O’ Hara. I do believe she has a point that the writing of the Dahl shows a frustrating doe-eyed change that occurs with the film that feels tonally off (than again Sackhoff’s performance is surprisingly off key). Yet looking at the likes of better movies which work around the same pulp and are way more popular often don’t appear to gain as much scorn, particularly now.  Considering the likes of Escape from New York or even branching off to the works of Agento and De Palma (whose work is currently being strongly revised), Riddick seems to getting slammed a hell of a lot.

Not to say that the film is not at fault. Riddick at one point makes a comment that makes him sound more like an adolescent tweeter faceless lipping off to a feminist journo than a badass. But I found myself considering that the film is so bland that crappy sexual politics is the only thing that could spark any conversation of this film.

Despite holding a certain amount of B movie charm and Diesel obviously having a fondness for this project, I found that Riddick held such a lack of interest, that the talk surrounding the film was far more interesting than the film itself.  Do I find the gender issues problematic? Yes, but with that said I’d rather Hollywood get off its arse and create a Wonder Woman I’ll remember then helping Vin Diesel and David Twohy bring about a slightly offensive Riddick film that will most likely be forgotten. 

Review: Pain & Gain

Year: 2013

Director: Michael Bay

Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris

Synopsis is here:

Based loosely on an even more insane true story, Pain & Gain finds Michael Bay at the height of his excesses. The film is homophobic, xenophobic and sleazy in all the ways we expect a Bay film to be. Yet as the film isn't aiming dubious messages at the world’s youth (see Transformers), the blow is softened somewhat. The nastiness of the story the film is based on is in fact perfect for a director like Bay who revels in the delinquency of it all. The film is full of discrepancies (composite characters, altered facts) but it doesn't seem to matter. In his own cartoony way, Bay has crafted a film that at its highest points satirises the desperation that infects some who chase the elusive American Dream. It’s Scarface by the way of The 3 Stooges.

Bay mines all the techniques that make many hate him, but his excessiveness only seems to aid the film. The forever roaming camera captures these exasperated characters in heavily saturated colours. The extreme close ups capture every ounce of sweat drenched anxiety that befouls these despicable creatures. The canted angles and hectic cross cutting only seem to serve the skewed views of these criminals.  Even the multiple voice over narration from nearly every character in the film, plays into the mania of it all. Like soulless vultures; the various voices (full of juxtaposition as opposed to what we’re seeing) highlight the hollowness of these people.

It’s easy to hate Pain & Gain because it captures the vapid nature of its characters acutely. Delving head first into the griminess of its story, the characters talk in infomercial platitudes. They take work out breaks when the grisly shit hits the fan. Bay throws this amped up aggression right in our faces and doesn't let, but I never found myself aligning myself with the characters. I felt there was more than enough distance for me to pity their ignorance and laugh at them then with them.

The films humour is often hit and miss, yet when the lurid nature of the piece hits the right spot, there is an amusement about it that will tickle a few. Bay still really needs to reign in his bizarre issues with homosexuals (there was no elements of this in the actual story), while his attitudes to race and females are still as crude as ever. However, I must maintain that some of this works towards the characters we are observing. To sanitize the nastiness of this story would be a disservice. Fact is, as grim as the tone of this movie may be; it’s still not as nasty as what actually happened.  That Bay manages to mine something “enjoyable” out of this, says more about me than anything, but there’s something in the blackness of it all that entertained me. I've said it before; you gotta laugh, or else you’ll cry.

Pain & Gain looks to attack the worse aspects of American materialism in plain sight. From the garish colours, and over indulgent direction (although Bay has eased up on his editing), to the arrogant, dunderhead performances (Johnson’s relapsed, meatheaded addict is a highlight) of the main cast. Everything plays into the sordid mentality of culture that’s able to cultivate sociopaths and all of this is wrapped within a high octane package that only Bay could deliver. I have to admit that after the 447 minutes of robot smashing that Bay gave us, Pain & Gain seems much more toned down and focused in its action. Again, nothing hits the peaks of some his earlier works, however compared to the fallen revenges of the dark of the moon, everything is little bit more engaging. I guess one of the reasons is that Bay isn't shilling this to adolescents.

Review: Insidious: Chapter 2

Review: Insidious: Chapter 2

Year: 2013

Director: James Wan

Screenplay: Leigh Warren

Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barabra Hershey

Synopsis is here:

My viewing relationship with James Wan (director) and Leigh Whannell (writer) isn’t a great one, but it’s not a terrible. Despite originally being a massive fan of Saw upon its release, the two have done little to wow me since their début. There’s no doubt that the relationship is a fruitful one. Between them; their films have made serious bank at the box office.  It also didn't surprise me that due to Wan’s ability to wrap action orientated shoots quickly, he’s taking on the next Fast and the Furious film in time for next year. I do hope however, that Wan gives us a stronger effort with that massively budgeted franchise than the limp wristed entry we’re given here. I found Insidious: Chapter 2 not only nonsensical (time travel? Honestly?), but it’s also tedious as a horror movie.

Critic Mark Kermode has noted that film’s like Insidious: Chapter 2 are horror films for people who dislike horror and I’m inclined to agree, to a point. Wan is clearly cine-literate and Chapter 2 borrows liberally from the likes of The Shining (1980), The Astronauts Wife (1999), The Entity (1982) and Poltergeist (1982) for many of its scenes but does so in such an obvious way that you feel that Wan is hedging bets that his audience doesn't know or no longer care about the films that he’s borrowing from.  Wan then strips each reference of the atmosphere that made the films what they were and instead fills very sequence with protracted BOO moments that annoy rather than unsettle.

It’s strange that one of the producers on this feature was Oren Peli; a man whose claim to fame was orchestrating the extremely popular Paranormal Activity, a film’s tension was provided by capturing those disturbing hours where seemingly nothing happens. Peli knew just how uneasy someone could feel due to the power of stillness. Insidious: Chapter 2 betrays this by manhandling the viewer whenever it can. The camera pans, scans and zooms to absolute distraction, while the films score and loud bangs invade your eardrums at very moment. It’s all more than a little too much.

This may not have been an issue if the characters and story we were observing were compelling. The films confounding screenplay is never particularly interesting when Wan actually utilises downtime. Not only happy to rip off nearly every cliché in the book, the films cardboard characters have to utter some extremely tin eared dialogue. A conundrum soon appears. We have a film that’s often too loud to get the best of out of it, yet when it actually quietens down...it’s not worth listening to.      

Going back to the idea established in the second paragraph, films like Insidious: Chapter 2 seem to be catering to a generation who believe that true horror is how high the popcorn flies. The worrying aspect is not that these people dislike horror, but that the factors behind what is considered a scary movie have shifted. With one of the current arguments about cinema being the “second screen experience” and whether or not there should be special requirements for those who can’t be torn away from their social networks. It is no surprise that we are given a film with no real narrative, but exists to make the viewer jump to attention every other minute?