Review: Cinderella

Year: 2015

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay: Chris Weitz

Starring: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Sophie McShera, Holliday Grainger, Helena Bonham Carter

Synopsis is here:

To paraphrase from another, well-loved Disney adaptation, this is a tale as old as time. This 2015 version of Cinderella is a live action take on the Disney telling of the well-known story. Despite the director’s talk of subversion, this film’s rebellion takes its form in actually being part of the status quo. Disney’s original take was made in 1950 and this version seeks to reiterate what was said before. The idea seems to be that Cinderella’s traditional approach should be able to stand tall against the more progressive themes of the likes of Frozen.

There’s been some interesting think pieces which have been quick to pick up on the film’s lack of progression. I do believe there is an importance to this, considering just how influential and successful the Frozen juggernaut has become.       

To have Tasha Robinson question the passive nature of the film is understandable. I do the same with the likes of Harry Potter or Twilight. Yet the hostility and tone towards being nice and awaiting princes at a film which is trying to be as earnest as possible about the idea of being nice is more than a little strange when we are looking at a film which is being targeted at those who are still in single digits. I’m not the biggest fan of some of the subject matter that appears within the film. Yet if I have a kid, I know I can argue my case with them. I remember my parents taking me to Sunday school, but I also remember them informing me of other religions. The same thing applies, I feel.  

I’m more worried about how much of this fairy tale fluff finds its way into more adult fare. When the likes of Bridget Jones and Sex in the City try and maintain such ideals when we have built discerning tastes and should know better than in a bland simple fantasy. One of the reasons I tend to stay away from writing about films aimed squarely at kids is due to how jaded we as adults can be towards such material as Cinderella. While I do feel that in our modern age, it would have been more interesting to have seen a female writer/director take the reign of the project in terms of agency, we are now expecting subversion in films which are clearly set up to try and deflect the cynicism we endure throughout our day to day life? I don't write to offer all the answers, but I do wonder how many kids would read such writing and raise an eyebrow.

I think my issue is that no matter how traditional this film plays things, it is still in essence a kids' piece. I do feel, however despite my previous mansplaning in the above paragraphs, I must admit that Branagh’s feature is a bland one. The film’s casting and art design show that the production had finance to burn, and it all finds its way to the screen. Kudos must go out to Customer designer Sandy Powell and production designer Dante Ferretti (a Scorsese regular) for the building of the world. We also must thank Cate Blanchett for giving the world some energy. Unfortunately Downton Abbey’s Lily James’ breathy performance and Game of Throne’s Richard Madden’s toothy charm evaporate pretty quickly. Meanwhile Branagh does little to stir the pot emotionally or visually to make the film any more the sum of its parts.

The film’s robust box office earnings suggests that we still live in a world where pot stirring isn’t the way to go. Despite feminist criticisms and my own indifference, Cinderella offers a similar stance to Fifty Shades of Grey. The subject can be questioned and yet the desires for the fantasy still remains. As bland as I may find this film as a piece of entertainment – and believe me it really doesn’t go anywhere - I do feel that Disney’s shrewdness has paid off, and not just because there is a Frozen animated short played in front of the main feature. Although having that short in front gives the target audience a powerful characteristic: The right to choose. 

Review: It Follows

Year: 2014 (U.K release 2015)

Director: David Robert Mitchell

Screenplay: David Robert Mitchell

Starring: Maika Monroe, Keir Gilchrist, Jake Weary

Synopsis is here

A friend of mine, warned me about It Follows not being “scary” in the slightest. Informing me of the walkouts he had in his screening, he was quick to label the film as pretentious. Once that word was used I was wary about his reaction. However, when the film made a splash with some of my other film friends last year at the London Film Festival, I was even more cautious. I saw one tweet from an acquaintance labelling it as one of the horror films of the decade. After finally viewing the film on the Saturday of its opening weekend. I can safely say that while I lay somewhere in the middle of both reactions, the film’s unsettling style and thoughtful subtext had me wondering about the film in fascination for a good two days.

It Follows is not scary in the now more conventional sense of long banging jump scares (although one such moment is perfectly handled). The film mines great amounts of discomfort from it’s startlingly simple premise. If you have sex with someone who has had “it” passed on to them, then “it”, a shape shifting apparition, will follow you. It makes a beeline for you. It’s slow, yet unrelenting. It can look like someone you know, or a complete stranger. Once “it” has you, then it leaves your mangled corpse before moving on to the person who passed it before.

Part of the film’s strangeness comes from the various human forms the shape takes. One of the earlier scenes has us witness “it” as an elderly woman. Once you consider the films mechanics, the film becomes more disquieting. It takes forms of people these teens know and love. This not only disarms the youths, but also implies transgressive consanguinity based anxieties, which are difficult to shake off. Two of the key scenes are quick to remind you not only of the absence of adults, but also the destruction of the suburban family. A well-known component of U.S horror, which often rears its head amongst the strongest entries of the genre.

Then the film contrasts this with the way it observes teenage sexually (particularly female) and relationships. Marking them with a keen eye for closeness and rapport. While the dialogue isn't remarkable, the performances do grow as the film continues and the icky creepiness of the premise and the cold deliberate dread of the film then really takes hold. Highlighting relationships, not too dissimilar to the seemingly parentless teens who permeate the films of Larry Clark. A sense of loneliness begins to penetrate throughout. Parents are often heard but never really seen, while most of the information shared between the kids never trickles up to them, only emphasizing the generation gaps and isolation.  

The main reason the film manages to instill such a beautiful sense of dread, is its cinematography. Excuse me for my hyperbole (I’m sure you have before), but I can’t think of a horror film which lies so much fear on such precise compositions. Utilising the widescreen format (as well as autumn, suburb setting) in a way that harks back to one of horror’s granddaddies: Halloween. While so many horror films have attacked the forefront and centre. It Follows, like Halloween, understands just how disturbing things are when we’re not fully focused on them. Things don’t jump out in It Follows, they stalk towards. Close ups make us restless, as due to their tightness, we can’t peer round the frame. Innocuous background characters, suddenly pose threat when walking into the shallow depth of field.  The film becomes a “Guess Who” of the genre, gleefully recalling the “did you see that” feeling of Carpenters 1978 hit feature.

Unfortunately It Follows sometimes suffers from some frustrations. A character informs another of a certain rule and it’s broken with a hint of irony. One could easily place this down to fear and I urge you should for more enjoyment. However, the fact that characters play a little fast and loose with the rules more than once, only reminds me of just how Scream (1996) broke a generation of film goers. The film also feels more than a little indulgent at the best of times. Not all the directorial flourishes always help tell the story or build the character while the music often comes off as more jarring and incessant. 

However, by the end of the film, It Follows posed questions and feelings that, much like Kill List (2009), or Ringu (1998) provoked me with a complexity and ambition that I so often crave from a horror film. Much of the films beauty lies in the fact that despite having elements that will remind folks of Kids (1995), Final Destination (2000), Under the Skin (2014), The Terminator (1984), The Night of the Hunter (1955) or the photographic works of Gregory Crewdson, It Follows never feels like it a list of obvious homages. It never rests on its retro leanings or its laurels. It uses subtext to its advantage and does what I feel a good horror should do: make the mundane feel frightening. It Follows sets a high bar for horror movies in 2015. Unlike my friend in the first paragraph, I hope that the other contenders can keep up. 

DVD Review: Palo Alto

Year: 2013 (U.K DVD release 2015)

Director: Gia Coppola

Screenplay: Gia Coppola

Starring: Emma Roberts, James Franco, Jack Kilmer, Nat Wolff

Synopsis is here:

If Palo Alto was the first film of disaffected youth of its kind, then there’s a good bet that guys like me would be spinning the hype machine at full tilt. It’s lounging, hazy transitions and navel gazing soundtrack are combined with crisp, cool compositions. The performances from the film's leads are naturalistic and the film as a whole holds a competence, that we wish all films we watch would all.

Despite this, Palo Alto is not unique and this fact really hurts it, when watched in contrast to features such as similar fare such as Alpha Dog (2007), Perks of a Wallflower (2012) or even Spring Breakers (2013), the film pales in comparison. Gia Coppola’s film, especially suffers when compared to grander feats, such as The Virgin Suicides (1999), directed by her Aunt Sophia or Rumble Fish (1984) by Granddaddy Francis Ford. The film shows she’s learned more than a few things from her kin, but has not yet obtained that clarity of vision that comes with others in her family.

Palo Alto isn’t bad. This collection of vignettes, based loosely on James Franco’s book, which meander around tales of casual sex, boozing and angst, is high on detail. Intimate moments are thoughtlessly mentioned during games of “I have never”. Uncomfortable announcements of virginity are made in front of the opposite sex by acquaintances. An act of oral sex in a parent’s bedroom sharply cuts to one participant gargling with mouthwash. Such drolly noted elements are well highlighted by Coppola which capture the looseness of these teens and the hang ups they hold.  

The neatly caught moments are small and the film holds less feeling than a decent episode of One Tree Hill. Films such as The Way Way Back (2013), The Spectacular Now (2013), and The Kings of Summer (2013) have performances equally as affecting. Meanwhile the likes of The Duplass Brothers, Joe Swansberg and the mumble core movement stripped back the aesthetic so much, in order to capture the rawness that inhabit their youthful (although usually slightly older) protagonists. The Mumblecore movement also brought more naturalistic, improvisational performances to the table. On the other end of the spectrum, Gia isn’t aiming for the dirt under the nails view of the like of Larry Clark, whose scuzzy debut; Kids (1995) held a similar wandering narrative, but still manages to connect with audiences 20 years on.

Palo Alto’s pastel pretty imagery and high school angst are relatively entertaining and the young cast handles themselves well against the Californian backdrop and high class cameos who flutter into scenes. However, it doesn’t deliver any new perspectives in the coming of age sub-genre which would place it into the upper echelons. Gia’s film may find its way into the hands of a hard-core group of followers who will find something in its scenes to praise. Yet after watching Sophia’s sly comment on alienated youth and materialistic values (2013’s The Bling Ring), it looks like Gia, while heading in the right direction, needs to take bigger steps.

Review: Hugo

Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: John Logan
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Mortez, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee

Synopsis is here

To many people I know; Martin Scorsese is the "gangster guy". When the name comes up, most think Casino over The Age of innocence or Mean Streets over Kundun. So when Hugo was announced, the film was considered to some a major departure. It's not. In watching Hugo, I realise that this family film has Marty DNA richly ingrained. Those who know Marty from Goodfellas may feel a note get struck when The Great Train Robbery is referenced in the film. The sense of history and that roaming camera betrays the films position. Add to that the themes of film restoration and referencing and anyone whose read at least one interview of the man can see that this is Scorsese in personal mode. There's a lot in here that we've seen from the man before but under different guises. However this is not an ode to "trashy" genre like say Shutter Island, or a glitzy throwback to the golden age ( The Aviator) but a love letter to the very beginnings of cinema.

That Scorsese uses James Cameron's game changer (3D) to help construct this actually quite fascinating. The tool considered to some as the future of cinema (lets not bring up that 3D has been tried before in the past) is being utilised to help try and enrich the past. As a film viewer who doesn't have much time for 3D I will admit that the 3D is a vaguely interesting element of Hugo. Like so many (if not all) these 3D features I'm still not convinced of it's story telling aspects. I don't find putting on those ill fitting plastic glasses to watch a film helps make it a more immersed experience. However the 3D does enhance the Paris landscape somewhat. The thing is, I'd still be invested in the film's visuals, anyway as the film is gorgeous to look from the start. From the beautiful glass house "castle" of George Melies to the visual reference of Harold Lloyds Safety Last, to the set design of the station where most of the action is based. This a film that is beautiful to look at and very reminiscent of the jaunts of Jeunet

It is that beauty that kept me involved as the films first act is uncommonly unfocused and quite not very involving. From the opening prologue the film feels slightly disjointed and it's difficult to get a hold on the material. The film becomes much more comfortable in the second act when the film's plot and talk of silent cinema come into the foreground. This is great from a film student, cinephile, point of view. From a family film perspective however, the wish to combine the history of silent cinema into a film in which children are the main demographic places it in a similar place as fellow movie brat Spielberg with Tintin. We get a film which seems to be intended for children or family but seems to be more in touch with the geek crowd. Critics have given the film high praise and why wouldn't they, the history aspect caters to them. But the films awkward marketing and the U.S release of the film; placing it up against The Muppets when the week after had no wide releases, appears to betray a certain apprehension. In comparison to the opening act of Pixer's Wall-E which manages to combine aspects of early silent cinema, new age tech gimmicky and story and still keeps focus on the intended audience, I wouldn't be surprised if Hugo gets the same mixed response from kids that I saw from Rango this year.

While the film doesn't have as much charm as I expected, there's a sincerity that flows through the film constantly. The film (read Scorsese) is clearly in love with cinema. For someone like me it's hard not feel a chill as Ben Kingsley's Melies explaining a film set as thus: "If you ever wonder where your dreams come from, look around: this is where they're made."  Hugo is a film that believes that cinema still has a certain power behind it. A highlight of this is a flashback situated in the middle of the film showing Melies creating one of his features and the ideals behind it. Similar scenes include the reacting of the first viewing of "Train arriving at a station" or when Chloe Mortez's character first witnesses a film for the first time. These moments seem lost and miles away when we now consider that we take the moving image for granted so easily nowadays. Hugo plays out like how those adverts which talk about "cinema only being worth seeing at the big screen" should play out. Scenes in which peoples love of cinema not only gets them to emote but come together are some of the films better moments.

This is fine for someone like me to go on about. Hugo tries to hack into that reason in why I love the cinema the way I do and to be honest I admire Scorsese's approach. The films lavish look, the nostalgic asides to story telling and dream making, the historical aspects that coincide with the story. It all falls into my romantic view of films and filmmaking; that it is more than just a happy go lucky diversion. That's fine for the 27 year old that I am now, but would the 8 year old approve? That I am not sure of.

Review: The Spy Next Door

Year: 2010
Director: Brian Levant
Screenplay: Jonathan Bernstein, James Greer
Starring: Jackie Chan, Billy Ray Cyrus, George Lopez

The plot Synopsis is here

If your a follower of this blog, you should know not only do I write reviews here but I also co-host a film podcast at Geek Planet Online. The show (Cinematic Dramatic) allows me to yell even more pompously and pretentiously than I do here. Due to my ranting, my Co-host Iain decided that followers of the podcast should suggest in the forums which "bad" flick I should watch this week to talk/rant about along side the main review I Love You Phillip Morris. The boards decided to inflict The Spy Next Door on me and in a bizarre turn of events; I found myself enjoying Jackie Chan's children adventure a lot more than the aforementioned ILYPM for the simple reason that it knew what it was and did what supposed to well enough.

What did it do? Well it had Jackie Chan despite being past his prime, pulling off nutty stunts. It had a cheesy script that made no sense but still had enough cheap shots to amuse a loser like myself. Expecting the film to be a life changing piece of cinema is like the kid that gets picked last at football to score the last minute cup-winning goal. But it works fine as a dumb piece of knock around fun.

Why did it work? I guess it was the physicality of it all, watching a Jackie Chan family film with stunts that are still done by the guy despite being in his mid-fifties is still ten time better than sitting down with The Pacifier or Are we there yet? Chan's grinning face and slightly less daring feats than before get us through the film. The film is sub-par but Chan's charm is still quite high with me and sometimes it's that alone that make certain scenes palatable.

The rest of the film? Pretty much tosh to be frank. There's some risible child acting, Billy Ray Cyrus shouldn't be allowed near anything to do with film and Brian Levant's direction and editing of the action seem to be trying it's hardest to ruin what ever excitement that is generated from the medium flying stunts (not really high flying as Chan is clearly not in his 20's anymore). Yet with these issues in tow the film is still just about passable. It's sweet but not too saccharine, its heart is in the right place and it does what it's supposed to; which is of course keep kids quiet for 90 minutes and hey presto it works! Of the all the naff films that come out for children these days, I'd rather sit through something like this than the next CGI filled, Pop-Culture clustered, Animal Yakking, Dreamworks nonsense. I'm sure my kids (when I get them) won't mind if I showed them this either...I think it could only be the once however.