Review: Spring

Year: 2014 (U.K Release 2015)
Directors: Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead.
Screenplay: Justin Benson
Starring: Lou Taylor Pucci, Nadia Hilker

Synopsis is here

The most revealing I took away from Spring; the sophomore effort from directors Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, was its romance. When I say this, I do not mean romanticising. A currently popular horror trend at the moment are doe eyed tributes to the good old days. These entries are sometimes remakes, but often pastiches of past flavours that worked out previously before. As enjoyable as many of these films can be, it’s fascinating to see a horror film take as an acute left turn. If Spring takes anything from horror films from the past, it’s the emotional elements which lie bubbling underneath the surface of the likes of An American Werewolf in London (1981) or Don’t Look Now (1973). Benson and Moorhead do want their characters to feel fear, although the cause may not be the reason an audience may expect.

As with their debut Resolution (2012) Benson and Moorhead we are once again dropped into a world of slackers with their lives in personal freefall. Evan; a young man who has recently lost both parents, decides to take a trip away from America to Europe. This is partly to clear his mind, but also to avoid both the lowlifes and authorities who are looking for him. He finds himself in a remote part of Italy and in a presence of the beautiful Louise. Her hard-to-get behavior, only means Evan is more drawn towards her.  She’s smart, challenging and holds a keen sense of wit. Why is it that she seems to be hiding something from him?

What makes Benson and Moorhead stand out from the horror crowd is their disciplined focus on character. In both Resolution and Spring, the films never neglect who we’re watching and how they feel. It’s a strange turn of events when we consider the genre is now more often or not about how we watch people die. Spring is deeply concerned with Evan and Louise sentiments. Set over a five day period, the film plays out like an extended version of Before Sunrise (1995), concentrating and developing the couple’s courtship into a tender early relationship. So deliberately paced is this nurturing, one may ask where the horror actually is.

The dread does seep through. Like contamination. Spring is punctuated by short moments of beastly goings on. All of which build to a fascinating concept of genetic anxiety. But what Spring (and its creators) excel at, is the fear of nothingness. The youthful slackers they track stare into the abyss, only to have it stare back at them.  Throughout the story, the abject imagery of rotting corpses follows Evan. The film’s opening is of him witnessing his mother wasting away to cancer. Almost a call back to Chris’ junkie self-destruction, which is the catalyst of Resolution. In a modern world in which our mainstream young (super) heroes have no real sense of death, Spring carefully deconstructs the fear of the finite for those not destined for greatness. As the film progresses we gain a clear sense of what Evan has lost and what Louise (through a wonderfully controlled physical performance by Nadia Hilker) may lose.

This may feel problematic for some who are more in tune to the cattle prodded jolts of The Conjuring (2013). Even in its aesthetic; Spring’s gorgeously hazy, sun kissed cinematography betrays it’s horror underpinnings. I’m certainly sure the film's pacing of the horror will be irksome to some. Yet Spring’s investment in its characters, the sweetness of its central relationship and intelligent modern focus on universal fears that we of a younger age should hold, makes Spring an engaging and tender romantic horror film who those who are looking for something a little different.

Review: Top Five

Year: 2014 (U.K release 2015)
Director: Chris Rock
Screenplay: Chris Rock
Starring: Chris Rock, Rosario Dawson, Gabrielle Union

Synopsis is here:

A smart online colleague of mine (and actual real critic) recently informed me on how much he disliked Top Five. I’ll be interested to pick his brains on his distaste for the film, as I value his cultured perspective. Despite this I can’t say I’ll agree with him on this. Chris Rock’s filmography may be an uneven one, but here, with Top Five, Rock delivers a spirited and fun feature with a performance to match.

Top Five opens, with plain white fonts on black background while Kayne West and Jay-Z’s Niggas in Paris (both musicians are also executive producers) glosses over the speakers. An odd combination, yet one that quickly displays Rock’s intentions. The titles may not display the iconic Windsor font which appears on nearly every Woody Allen film since Annie Hall (1977), but Top Five credits give the suggestion that Rock is looking to try and follow one of his influences. Once the film opens fully, the allusions to Allen become more apparent.

The city wandering and cultural pondering that inhabits Top Five as its characters travel around New York, typically suggest Woody Allen. Yet it’s hard not to consider the likes of Linklater’s Before Sunrise (1995) either. It’s Rock’s focus on hip hop music, black comedians and racial politics however, as well as alcoholism, which pushes the typical, white middle class 1st world problem dynamic to a new paradigm. We don’t often see this type of populist cinema deal with people of colour and when they do, they don’t have the backing.

What’s bothersome is that Chris Rock’s film happily shows how hard this has been missed. Rock is no Allen. He’s certainly no Linklater. But Top Five’s warm charm and great conversational chemistry between the unconventionally appealing Rock and the sorely underrated Rosario Dawson is immensely refreshing. Meanwhile the film as a whole, is set around Afro-American/Hispanic culture and never feels like it “loses” the so-called universal appeal that producers fear goes missing in “urban” features. Despite the character's professions and statues, both Rock and Dawson manage to retain the reliability of both Andre and Chelsea respectively.

The film’s weaknesses are apparent. Some of the crasser jokes hold some decent comedic timing, but feels like they’ve been shoehorned into the wrong film. Meanwhile the plot’s various threads start some efficient conflict, yet are too often left unexplored. Gabrielle Union’s celebrity wannabe is flat, but it's clear she could do more with it. More could easily be said about the film commentary about criticism and how it affects artists. Particularly at a time where the internet has pulled the discussion into sharp focus.

Despite these blemishes, Top Five continued to be delightfully entertaining throughout. Rock, whose attention is clearly more on the screenplay and performances, hires Chilean cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro (Melancholia) to capture New York at its most vibrant. Claro bathes the scenery in glossy soft lighting which compliments the energetic qualities of the cast. The film’s knock around screenplay (possibly with large quantities of improvisation) is consistently enjoyable. So much so it cheerfully distracts the fact the clear fact that Rock is once again directing himself flirting with two of the most attractive black actresses’ currently working. Such elements should be smugger than they appear. However, Top Five is far more interested in keeping you smiling. By the way: Pharaoh Monche, Vast Air, Biggie, Jay-Z… and Q-Tip. Subject to change.

Review: Boyhood

Year: 2014
Director: Richard Linklater
Screenplay: Richard Linklater
Starring: Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, Lorelei Linklater

Synopsis is here

Describing Boyhood feels like it should be a gimmick. A fictional chronicle of a boy’s life from age 5 to 18, filmed with the same cast over a period of 12 years. Collaborated in a way in which we are literally watching the boy (Ellar Coltrane) grow up in front of our eyes, as his parents grow older. The parents are actors we know and have seen in films from before, so to see them slowly alter and change, plays havoc with our knowledge of them as performers. If we place the film's plot down in words, its uniqueness seems to fade. The narrative strands are not particularly out of the ordinary. Though to watch the film play out is to watch a cultural marvel due to its conceit. The ambition is not in the words, but on the screen itself. Linklater’s Before trilogy only hinted at the ambition. Boyhood helps cement his place as one of the most valuable documentarians of modern relationships.

Boyhood does what Linklater's films love to do: have people talking. The film lets things play out in the simple, natural way we often expect from the filmmaker. We watch the kids natter about childish things, and their (unmarried) parents argue. We note the hint of determination in the Mother (A never better Patricia Arquette), and the brashness of the Father (Ethan Hawke). The conversations they have may not be exactly like the one your family have had, but they certainly feel like ones a family would have. There’s a beauty in how Linklater gets such engagement in the seemingly mundane. It also makes the small rises in conflict (involving divorce, alcoholism and sibling rivalry) feel so profound.

It’s after we get comfortable with the quirks of these people does the subtle power of Linklater’s direction occur. The use of form found in Boyhood is beyond grand in scale and thought. Music choices and product placement are suddenly valuable time signatures. They not only tell us the year we’re situated in, but help signify the cultural changes and growth of this boy’s life. Is Coldplay’s Yellow an obvious choice of song? Easy to sneer at now. Yet that single feels synonymous with the year it was released, as does Mason’s sister murdering Oops I did it again. By the time we reach Lady Gaga on an iPhone, Linklater has subtly shown us the gradual shift of what media has changed (or stayed the same) and how it’s consumed.

Elsewhere; we watch young friends fleeting away in wide shots, only to be sharply cut from the view. When the family move away, the Mother swears they’ll be back to visit, yet we never see them again. Does Mason? Ask yourself about some of the people you knew at similar ages and how your relationships ended. But its accuracy of how Mason’s viewpoint is portrayed that’s so impressive.

The characters seem unaffected by the slow evaporation of time and yet they slowly succumb to realisation. We watch Hawke’s immature, forthright young man morph into a figure of some maturity (sweetly symbolised by what he drives). Mason’s Mother takes a hint of determination and utilises it to help shatter a typical outlook of the single mother. All the while, the human landscape changes. We see the beginnings of Bush’s war before we witness Obama placards on lawns.

How Linklater keeps hold of these strands and textures is remarkable, but his ability to keep the drama as honest as he does is astonishing. As facial features and certain elements of personality grow and form, we’re still aware of their flaws. It’s amusing to see Mason issues finishing homework follow him throughout his life, but it’s notably perceptive to view his Mother’s trails in relationships. Repeat patterns of ill behavior follow and flow through the family in the same way that it flows through our own. The conflicts never feel bogged down or over dramatized, while every performance is instinctive no matter which part of the time they occur. As stated in other reviews, could Linklater have any clue at just how well Ellar Coltrane would carry a film that would span his adolescence?

That said, this is the kind of film Linklater has been working up to. From the Errol Morris vibe given off in Bernie (2011) to the feeling of nostalgia that comes with Dazed and Confused (1993). By the time we see Mason in his teenage years, he’s well on his way to being the type of gentle philosophizing Linklater protagonist we’ve seen in Waking Life (2001) or the Before series. Yet in all of the films I’ve seen of the director, I’ve never experienced something that plays with such conviction of its scope and understanding of its textures. Cinephiles will be well aware of the similar features (Up series, The Apu Trilogy, Truffaut’s films of Antoine Doinel), yet the intertwining of the cultural observations that Linklater uses, make this a landmark that deserves a place to stand with them. At a time in which Hollywood is wrestling with its love/hate relationship with arrested development, Boyhood stands out as one of the most mature and moving films about adolescence and family I’ve seen in a long time. Can the U.S keep Richard Linklater safe, please? He’s a cultural asset.

Review: Before Midnight

Year: 2013

Director: Richard Linklater

Screenplay: Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

Synopsis is here:

In other films they are Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. With Richard Linklater, they are Jesse and Celine. It’s hard to envelop characters so well that the actors literally become them. Here in this third entry into Linklater’s long running romantic saga, Hawke and Delpy once again slip into these characters as well known as the shoes on their feet.

The audience knows this couple as well as the actors do. Many have grown with them from film to film, and to know them is to love them.  It’s difficult to enter the scene now, three films in. I've spoke with some who have tried and found it odd. Of course, it’s like interrupting an intense debate unannounced, just to try and attempt to start the conversation once more. Ever watched Harry Potter/Twilight in the middle of the series, with no prior knowledge? It’s that sense of confusion.

But to those in the know, we've had another nine years pass and we catch up with Jesse and Celine at a new turning point for them. Now approaching forty, the starry eyed views and dreams of the two have dulled slightly, yet their passions have remained.  Their hopes and fears have changed and matured and we now see the couple at the most distressed and at points, their most emotional.

Richard Linklater has never been known for visual flights of fancy, but once again, like previous works, he and the cast; show off the beauty of words with an elegance that many romances never seem to achieve. Before Midnight only really adds up to around 6 scenes (give or take), but the sharpness of the dialogue reveals an unbelievable amount of depth. The headstrong nature of Celine and the laid back American goofiness of Jesse have not left their personalities. Instead their traits have helped pushed their relationship into new pitfalls with the actions of their intimacy effecting who they are and who they may still come to be in the future.

Linklater has always been a director who understands the elegance of conversation and it once again shows here. The camera leisurely strolls around the characters, taking in the beautiful Greek sun as the couple once again delve into what they relationship means to them. We never really move away from a mid-shot (the trademark shot of the series) but we never need to, so absorbing are the performances.

There is a small break from structure that we've not seen in the previous films, with new secondary characters gaining more screen time. Yet even then, this only benefits the emotional resonance that takes place. One of the most interesting elements of Before Midnight is that now older and wiser; more people enter and influence the lives of these people. The beauty of the film is that no matter who enters their orbit, it is always Jesse and Celine doing what they do best.  Even now; with many considering this to be the end of the journey, Linklater’s film leaves us with a shot of ambiguity. Leaving the couple, and us wondering what lies in store for the years ahead. 

Review: 2 Days in New York

Year: 2012
Director: Julie Deply
Screenplay: Julie Deply, Alexia Landeau
Starring: Julie Deply, Chris Rock, Albert Deply, Alexia Landeau, Alexandre Nahon, Dylan Baker

Synopsis is here

I wasn't surprised that my girlfriend could not get into Julie Deply's ditzy comedy. After half an hour, she gave up. It's a rom-com truly not for her tastes. A fan of the likes of Serendipity, I was not at all shocked that Deply's messy view on life, love and relationships got her. And not in a good way. Not a negative on my other half at all, but the romantic movies that she enjoys always lean towards the comfortable. Everything slotting into place, like a Disney feature. Deply, star of films such as Before Sunrise/Sunset has a far more disordered approach. All the better, says I. With so many comfortable romantic comedies languishing in the realm of diminishing returns, 2 Days in New York's disorganized yet light hearted resonance is a well needed shot in the arm.

Filmed in a very free wheeling, intimate style with its point of view is squarely set with it's bewildered lead, 2 Day's in New York has a zaniness that I did not expect. However, outlandish moments in the film that would sink other romantic comedies are invigorating here, purely because Delpy's Marion is a more in touch human being than the Heigl-types that have invested the romantic domain. Her oddball point of view is displayed in its purposely erratic editing, we connect to Marion as she tries to connect with everything else. Even when she fakes a brain tumour to try and stabilise an antagonistic encounter. We are with her because we can relate. Relationships of all kinds can be tricky.

The theme of relationships are cemented with the film main motif of art mirroring life. Marion; an artist, is selling her soul as part of an installation. Along side this, are photographs of Marion in past romantic relationships that have not worked in the past. From the start we see how her frustrations stem from making such thing try and work. What have her relationships done to her soul? Even if she doesn't believe in it enough, why is she selling it? Futhermore, who would want it?

The torment continues as Marion's father (Albert Deply) and sister (with boyfriend in tow) appear out of the blue and descend a truckload of dysfunction with them. Her sister, Rose (Landeau), brings with her a sibling rivalry that hasn't evolved since adolescence. Walking around scantly clad to warm the blood of the men around her and boil her sisters. Her father, is a kind but misplaced man, who doesn't fit well with the hectic city life he finds himself in. The less said about Rose's boyfriend (Nahon), the better.

The family's arrival, clash with relationship between Marion and her live in boyfriend, Mingus (Rock). The harmony is destroyed by a barrage of miscommunication through the language barrier, culture and New York's blurred lines of racial identity. Rose's boyfriend, Manu, with his Public Enemy t-shirts and chatter about Salt n Pepa, is bemused at Marion's ability to find the only "brother that doesn't smoke". Manu's observations are often key despite being politically incorrect. Reminding the audience of the typical established roles and traits that Afro Americans are often viewed by.

The film balances smart and insightful relationship issues, with a good humoured comedy of manners. Deply's desperate housewife tries to balance her sexuality, motherhood and bohemian lifestyle along side her quirky family, but it never talks down, or condescends, and much of its humour comes from a believable and grounded place. Such discipline continues with the casting of Chris Rock. Playing against type, Rock is a refreshing as an actual loving partner who doesn't fit into the mainstream, overtly masculine archetypes often portrayed by granite chinned mouth breathers.

The overall tone of the film; for lack of a better word, is playful. And while the final third descends into silliness with a infamous director cropping up and racking up hipster points, even then, it doesn't fully leave the general feel of the film. 2 Days in New York manages to be just as light as so many of its ilk and yet still happens to look at healthy interracial relationships with a keen eye, as well as the often troublesome role of family and how it ebbs and flows. One hopes that their girlfriend gives it another chance.