Review: Chosen Family

Year: 2024 (UK Digital Release 2025)

Director: Heather Graham

Screenplay: Heather Graham

Starring: Heather Graham, John Brotherton, Andrea Savage, Michael Gross, Julie Halston, Thomas Lennon, Julia Stiles.

 Synopsis is here:

With films no longer being the centrepiece of media consumption, I was surprised that I now miss genres that I’ve usually been more dismissive of. Romantic comedies are one of those genres. Once a staple of the film calendar, rom-coms feel rarer these days, with many relegated to online streaming platforms.  Such films have not been completely eradicated. However, Google a list of recent romantic comedy titles and bear witness to rather deary, forgettable titles.

Enter Chosen Family; a frizzy but mostly harmless rom-com, with the main draw being Heather Graham operating as lead, writer and director of the whole shebang. The tone found in Chosen Family is what many would expect from its director. It’s a sugar bubble of a movie. Sweet and light but with not much else inside.  It’s never afraid to look a bit silly. However, this leads to problems in the third act when the narrative wants to say somewhat serious things. Late on, the film delivers a plot revelation which hits a bum note, asking the audience to take on board a deeply emotional incident in a movie that was at first far more invested with Graham performing an inappropriate dance-off with a child. Films like Chosen Family inadvertently highlight how much of a deft touch directors have with their material.

Chosen Family is well-intentioned in what it’s trying to do. Graham plays a people-pleasing yoga instructor, Ann. A woman whose romantic life is in the trash heap, while her family pepper her with their mini manipulations. Her solace lies with her friends who stand by her through thick and thin. Even when the group have suspicions that the handsome date they’ve picked for her (John Brotherton) may have a hidden flaw. For the most part, Chosen Family has all the markings of a live, laugh, love motivational slogan come to life.

What’s interesting is what Graham has taken from a storied career as an actress, with much of the film managing to have the vibe of her multi-episode stint as Dr Molly Clock on Scrubs. Chosen Family bounces along with a Sitcom energy, packing a truckload of typical plot points and dialogue that wouldn’t feel out of place in a 30-minute, 22-episode season of a show called “Something Breezy” or similar. The film’s form compounds the televisual aspect, with Graham using repetitive drone establishing shots and standardly blocked compositions as main visual decisions. Nothing is that bad, but not much is particularly striking. Although enough of it is passingly distracting.

It helps if the viewer still has one foot stuck in the early 00s. Chosen Family is a film in which Graham’s hapless yoga instructor is doing enough to live comfortably as a rather basic gym teacher (the film nearly always has her starting and finishing lessons but rarely having her do anything strenuous), yet seems astonished at the idea of broadening her appeal using social media. Not everyone can establish popularity on internet platforms, but Graham’s character is way out of the loop. So much so that the film uses the old “she accidentally posted too much on socials” as an inciting incident for the film. There’s a naivety here, as the world is now almost trained to post every little opinion of themselves with impunity. Graham’s character is only just past the ideal age for the social media platforms the film recognises. This makes Chosen Family feel behind the curve with certain things. Don’t believe me? The black landlord who urges Ann to go on socials is a great example.  There’s a tiredness in the stereotype that leans more towards a sort of innocence than any malice.

This weird innocence is part of Chosen Family’s charm.  Ann is an amalgamation of what I think of Graham in a few of the roles I’ve seen her in. Naïve, attractive, yet strangely passive and happy-go-lucky. She’s never been a go-to actress for heavy, poignant roles, which is why some of Chosen Family feels odd late on. But her on-screen presence is pleasant enough to watch, even though much of the film seems to involve Ann asking her friends, “What do I do now?”. A sizable chunk of Chosen Family stems from autobiographical strands of Graham’s life, so it is interesting to see how Ann is conceived as a character, even though a lot around her is half-baked.

It should be said, however, that Graham picks a seasoned cast of character actors who all have their appeal. She also has the guts to give certain plot strands on slightly more melancholic terms than expected, with the film’s obvious title being particularly on point. It’s also nice to see Julia Stiles in the role of Ann’s substance-abusing sister, despite being sidelined for long stretches of the movie. But this seems to be the case for much of Chosen Family. Graham scatters a broadly amusing variety of raw materials, but nothing fits together well enough to make anything solid.

Chosen Family is available on Digital Release from 21st April.

Dug what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

 

 

 

Review: Carol

Year: 2015

Director Todd Haynes

Screenplay: Phyllis Nagy

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Kyle Chandler 

Synopsis is here:

After watching Carol, I gave myself a day or two to let the film linger.  It’s a film that likes to settle within the recesses of the mind. Its story is deceptively simple at the surface, yet the emotional connections run deep throughout. Much has already been said about the film main relationship between the elegant Carol (Cate Blanchett at her most graceful) and Therese (Rooney Mara captures doe eyed innocence in a bottle). However, director Todd Haynes’ command of the plot and its characters is so robust that I had felt involved with even the secondary characters. There’s a texture in the film that runs deeper than the luxurious fashions on display. 

While conversing with a friend, she mentioned that her mother found such a connection to be lacking. I wonder if this is due to Carol’s sexual orientation. I don’t say this as a negative. Far from it. The beauty of Carol with its subtle glances and sly smiles is just how often it pushes its heterosexual characters to the side. This must be by design. To show that while many within the film may not understand the connections taking place, they are still not things to be judged. Carol isn’t a queer text about gay rights or equality per say, but it does seem to suggest that roses growing out of the concrete needn’t be plucked. A less pretentious (and clearer) interpretation would be to say that this is a struggle for these two individuals rather than a universal one.  

Haynes' depiction of this blossoming relationship and their yearning is dutiful and precise. Once the roots are planted, the branches get tangled with everyone. The ever dependable Kyle Chandler’s heart bleeds as Harge; the heterosexual husband who struggles to grasp this new reality through anger and his own needs. A brief moments from old flame Abby (a wonderfully understated Sarah Paulson) hints not only at understanding, but heartache. Smaller supporting roles also excel. Never sounding like soundboards of a previous era, or knowing totems of this one. Haynes has entertained with this era before for his beautiful melodrama pastiche Far from Heaven (2002), but this seems far from the more broadly drawn and colourful characters from his previous venture. For me, Carol often reminded me of the isolated characters who feature in the painting by Edward Hopper. It’s doubtful that Hopper is an influence, yet Haynes’ direction and blocking of characters along with cinematographer Edward Lachman’s framing, makes nearly every person we meet feel like Hopper’s figures. Almost consumed by the industrial world around them.

It’s no surprise that when the films action shifts from city to country, the characters seem to feel less suffocated by their surroundings and in turn, their societal trappings. Carol’s beauty lies in its small subtleties. Trying on new fragrances. A quiet drive with someone you admire. The small token gesture of a gift, or an admiration of talent. These moments can seem so typical of a romantic drama. However, the softness and slightly alien aspect of an all-female romance within such a bygone era and the shifts of tensions within the relationship dynamics makes Carol stand apart from more universal films of a similar nature. Looking back at the film’s final outcome, the final moments are both heartening and fretful. There’s elements of rejection we ignore due to what we observe on the screen. Even at that moment the film’s closure lays a shade of ambiguity that a more universal romance could perhaps ignore for surface pleasures. I found that the excellence of Carol lies in its ability to sow such seeds. It’s only after leaving the screen did the film’s deeper resonances strike me. For that I am thankful. 

Review: Results

Year: 2015

Director: Andrew Bujalski

Screenplay: Andrew Bujalski

Starring: Guy Pearce, Cobie Smulders, Kevin Corrigan

Synopsis is here:

The romcom hasn’t died. It’s just gone indie. It’s also reworked itself somewhat. Results has popped up the on streaming feed and illustrates just why the likes of Netflix have become so valuable for film fans. At its best, Results sometimes brings the type of chuckles that wouldn’t be too out of place of a more typical romantic comedy. Although the film rolls at such a peculiar pace and rhythm that it could never be sold as a Nora Ephron.

Streaming is the best place for a film like this. Its story drapes baggily over the films jagged characters. There’s no Hanks/Ryan relationships here. There is, however, a delightfully screwed up love triangle involving an all too trusting Guy Pierce, a bitterly acerbic Colby Smulders and an unkempt and schlubby Kevin Corrigan.

There’s good chemistry here, along with some nicely awkward gags. All played out in Andrew Bujalski’s strangely untroubled style. His laid back direction hasn’t changed much since his debut feature; Funny Ha, Ha (2002). Here with a larger budget, however, he shows his comfort with his craft. He’s perhaps a tad too at ease with everything. Results’ languid style can make you wonder why a film like this is as long as it is.

Not to complain too much though. Results, like Bujalski’s Computer Chess is fascinated by broken communication and the importance of repair. Before it was personal computers, this time its the physical body. Yet in the foreground, it’s always relationships that slip in between the hobbies that keep Bujalski’s characters up at night.  

DVD Review: The Duke of Burgundy

Year: 2014 (DVD Release Date: 2015)

Director: Peter Strickland

Screenplay: Peter Strickland

Starring: Sidse Babett Knudsen, Chiara D'Anna

It’s funny to see The Duke of Burgundy released now as the budding blossoms of Spring begin to bloom. The film, set over the brisker seasons, is saturated in rich autumnal tones, appears to use the chilled temperatures to hide the warmth the film creates. With the likes of Fifty Shades of Grey (opened during the chilly month of February) using a damp, overcast Vancouver, Washington as its setting, both films appear to slyly hint that while there may be no heat outside, things are definitely heated in the respective bedrooms of each films couples.

This is a slightly tawdry way to describe both films. Yet whereas Fifty Shades would wear such a tag as badge of honour, stifling giggles as it describes sexual relationships. The Duke of Burgundy, while described as “preposterous” by its own director, Peter Strickland, understands the nature of its sexual games at a far more substantial level. Fifty Shades may have captured the box office, using its sex as titillation. It is The Duke of Burgundy, which ensnares the imagination. The film's sexual sequences not only understand that less is more. The film as a whole, understands its themes far more than E. L James’ material. Both highlight dominance and submission as the main erotic practices of one particular partner. Only The Duke of Burgundy truly grasps just how tough the rigors are if trust and understanding are not involved.

That may not be what Fifty Shades was aiming for, but I’m not surprised that people have come towards The Duke of Burgundy with more favour. With no authoritarians to get in the way of the film's creation, director Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio) is free to roam within the sensual landscape of his central characters and their eroticism.  

The film; a loving homage to the soft-core euro erotica of the 60’s and 70’s details the relationship and rituals of Cynthia (Chiara D'Anna) and Evelyn (Chiara D'Anna). The couple are entomology students whose love for butterflies and insects is only bettered by their affection for each other. Each day they embark on a D/s routine that slowly erodes the couple relationship as one partner’s sexual mores become more obsessive.

Amusingly, the bare bones of the film aren’t too dissimilar from Fifty Shades. However Strickland’s skillful direction, makes exemplary use of form. Consider the fact that despite being a homage to soft-core, there’s no nudity. We see no men, yet this does not distract or deter the narrative in any way. The film's luscious visuals and high quality sound work, capture the sexual texture more than the typical, vanilla happenings which occur within the so called Red Room of Pain. Strickland’s film has a wonderful understanding of anticipation. The removal of stockings and tightness of pencil skirts do more to entice than flesh.

Beyond that, The Duke of Burgundy is a film that relies on convincing performances. Both Sidse Babett Knudsen and Chiara D'Anna are note perfect in their portrayal of a loving relationship coming under conflict due to wariness and obsessives. Although both play their parts straight, there’s clear allowance for subtle humour throughout. Even easy gags, such as the comfortably of sitting on someone’s face, are smartly delivered. Mostly due to the couples, quiet unflinching expression. Although I’m not sure if people will react as rambunctiously as I did when it came to the films (offscreen) urination sequence.

What both Kundsen and D’Anna mostly exude, however, is heart. The warmth of their relationship is tenderly observed, whereas in Fifty Shades, sometimes remained as cold as its overcast location.  It’s no surprise that the front cover for The Duke of Burgandy’s DVD mimics the most iconic image of Bergman’s Persona (1966).  It is indeed the dovetailing synchronicity of two people in love that we are meant to observe here. How often do we watch films of romance and find them lacking in such aspects? The Duke of Burgundy may lose some when it delves into the abstract (apart from the obvious metaphor, one may wonder about the butterflies). However, unlike Berberian Sound Studio, Strickland’s piece stays relatively sound from a narrative perspective. While retaining the auteurist tics (such as his analogue love of sound and looping of recurring events) that punctuate his filmmaking.

In the world of sexual melodramas, the almighty dollar is king. It’s difficult to see fans of Fifty Shades jumping their cruise ship to navigate choppier waters. However who may have found the antics of Grey and Steele lacking somewhat, may find something a touch more scintillating with Cynthia and Evelyn. With this couple's ability to read each other’s face, there’s very little need for a non-disclosure agreement.   

Short Read: The Ending of the Graduate

The first time I saw the ending, I was young and naïve. My mind was addled by seeing homage’s of it in The Simpsons and Wayne’s World. I first viewed it as a heroic ending. The Boy got the Girl, the antagonists were vanquished, if only for a little while. I never really watched their faces. Nor did I grasp what the shot was trying to say. To me, it was all so very… safe.

It was only during a re-watch with my girlfriend, that my ignorance slapped me in the face. The foolhardiness of the Benjamin’s “plan”. The fact that there is no plan at all. Their faces not only show their youth, but just how lost they are at such a tentative and esoteric point at their life. I saw echoes of Mrs Robinson and her reasoning behind what she was trying to do despite her methods. In their faces I noticed their realisation. There’s beauty fading in that take, and they’re only just finding out. The moment is bittersweet. Their decision may leave them as jaded as those they’ve just left. The film’s title becomes a cruel joke. The Graduate? Of what? Certainly not Life. He has a lot to learn.

When a filmmaker can crystallise all the fear, worry, jaded and misguidedness of youth, his characters feel throughout the narrative, compile it into one moment and make this captured malaise seem so universal and iconic, it is then that we have a real storyteller. R.I.P Mike Nichols.

Review: The Past

Year: 2013 (U.K Release 2014)
Director: Asghar Farhadi
Screenplay: Asghar Farhadi
Starring: Bérénice Bejo, Tahar Rahim, Ali Mosaffa

Synopsis is here:

To say I have a problem with mainstream cinema’s addiction to broad moral arrangements would be incorrect. As budgets grow higher and international audiences become even more important to Hollywood, it’s understandable to see films appear to be more uncomplicated in their principles. I’ve mentioned on this blog, at least in one entry, how much I enjoyed some Blockbusters more simple outlooks towards its subjects.

However a film fan cannot live on It’s when films slip into more difficult territory, that I find myself more engaged. I love an entertaining diversion, but they just don’t stain the memory as much as The Past. Through such an alarmingly simple set-up, an ex coming back sign his divorce papers, this absorbing drama has a vivid poignancy which lesser films can only ever hope for. Like Asghar Farhadi’s previous film; A Separation,  The Past boasts wonderful uses of form, which only enhance the inner conflicts of the characters we observe.

You sense the film's intent from its opening moments. When we first meet Ahmad (Mosaffa), he is leaving the Airport to meet his pick up and soon to be ex wife Marie (Bejo). They notice each other but are separated by the glass window of the airport. They try to talk to each other yet they cannot hear what the other is saying. It’s a small moment that foreshadows one of The Past's main themes, the difficulty of communication. As the film continues, we observe how each character's willingness/unwillingness to communicate draws divisions between each other. As in A Separation, the games of the adults cause considerable wedges between the children, while their impulsive behaviors, keep the tensions of the elders on a knife edge.

The Past works because it’s human characters are so beautifully drawn. Bejo’s Marie is not a two dimensional shrew, but a conflicted woman whose lack of brevity, forces  the man in her life into near impossible positions. Ahmad caring qualities shine with both Marie’s and Samir’s children, yet it’s clear that his desire for a clean resolution to the situation obscures the reality. Samir (A Prophet’s Tahar Rahim) is not a dim cypher that one could easily see an American film portray him as, but a deeply torn young struck by both his past and present loves. These people are drenched in differing moral shades. Bad things happen, yet not for the simple reasoning that these people are evil, but desperate, drained and damaged.

Farhadi wraps these characters up within a Paris that feels miles away from the one we recognize in other movies.  There are no landmarks to speak of and why should there be? This is a Paris which has been "lived in". That is the romantic, idealistic view of the city. Whatever sights there could have been, are long forgotten now. All that exists now for these characters, is how they wish to deal with their past to cope with their present, yet they are constantly reminded. At one point Ahmad notices that the house he once lived in with Marie is being repainted. It’s not just the walls being painted over, but memories too.

This is Farhadi’s first film outside of Iran, but his ability to deliver rich drama has not been lost in translation. Every performance is weighted, every moment is measured and every emotion is balanced. For me the film works not just because of its densely packed compositions, but because when we add up all I see from these people and how this small segment of the relationship plays out, the film is still compelling enough to make me think twice and reconsider each person's position. Something these characters must do in every moment we are with them.

Review: Her

Year: 2013 (U.K Release 2014)

Director: Spike Jonez

Screenplay: Spike Jonez

Starring:  Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, Scarlett Johansson

Synopsis is here 

Don't call it a backlash. It's not that I didn't like Her. The ideas it brings up are provoking in the same way they are in RoboCop (1987) or Blade Runner (1982). However in watching The Lego Movie (which also plays with the ideal of free will) afterwards, I found myself more entertained by the latter’s more subversive elements. After Her, I kept asking: does this world have to be so miserable?

That's not the best way to describe Her: a film which lands us in a pastel and placid LA in which people are more obsessed with their handhelds than we see now (even in this screening I had some ignorant ass on giving off their light pollution). But Her sits us next to Theodore, a un-engaging sad sack who writes heartfelt letters to long distanced love ones, a man who provides the right emotions for other but none for himself.

As the film delves deeper into its sci-fi premise, we realise that this is computer as confessional; a personal live journal who embraces you and grows with you. You shout into the void and it responds back to you in a deeply profound way. No doubt we can see the obstacles over the horizon. Think of children.

As Samantha; the love interest and programmed operating system; Scarlett Johansson has possibly the most difficult performances she’s possibly faced (I have not seen Under the Skin yet). Even animated characters have facial tics. One of the films strongest factors is witnessing the screenplay and Johanson’s performance (in which we only see as her voice) expands as the film moves along. Samantha grows from an advanced yet empty program to a spirited personality with an inquisitiveness entirely of it’s own accord. Johansson’s husky, sensual tone not only accentuates the playful, flirty aspects of the character, but she also brings out the empathy of a being that is slowly learning of the world around itself.

This is Jones' prettiest film, the crisp, clean aesthetic sparkles and the small details that display a futuristic America has a plausible texture to proceedings. Jones' use of space is powerful but it's also quite isolating while his lead is frustratingly distancing. Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street is a sexist man a misogynistic world, but his charm has a sleazy allure to it and his antics are quick to remind a viewer of how you should feel about such a douche. While WOWS is a film which has us laugh at Belfort, Her wishes us to believe that Theodore is someone to sympathise with entirely despite his anti social world view which is much of his own creation. I don’t have to like a character to love a film, yet Theodore  lacks the engagement that would help me respond in the way that Jonez would like me to.

The creepy, slightly insidious way he wants to control the women (who are smarter than himself) in his life is placed to the side. Its absorbing to see how Samantha grows and appreciates the world, it's awkward to see how limited Theodore wishes to keep both his and her view. But it's fine because he doesn't have the snarky OK Cupid profile to show his darker side. The films latter half also considers the idea that not only Theodore, but we as people are sadly limiting, stunted and slightly disabled of our own view. To put it another way, Dave wouldn't be able to disable Hal.

I have similar reservations to Her as I did with Being John Malkovich. The concept is provoking but the character is selfish and self absorbed in a way that the beautiful score and future quirks cannot hide and that places me far too at odds with a character who wishes to appear pleasant. I think that's my tragedy with Her. It does well to remind us how human we can be. Then we realise the problem with her is him.

Review: Drinking Buddies

Year: 2013

Director: Joe Swanberg

Screenplay: Joe Swanberg

Starring: Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick, Ron Livingstone

Synopsis is here:

It would be easy to consider Drinking Buddies as “mumblecore getting an upgrade, but that would be a little bit of a lie. It’s been just over a decade since this wave of naturalistic, low-fi films first appeared with 2002’s noble but uneven Funny Ha Ha. However the sub-genre has been making leaps and jumps with every other entry, and much of the mumblecore crew have made themselves known names. Greta Gerwig looks set to be a generation’s indie queen. Mark Duplass has been making me guffaw in The League and Lena Dunham?  Well let’s just say Girls may become one of the most important female driven series of the tweenies (is that what we call this decade?)

That said, Drinking Buddies is a large jump from my previous viewings of Swanberg’s earlier work. While you’d be hard pressed to find a U.K copy of Kissing on the Mouth, with its rawer than butcher’s meat look at sex and relationships, Drinking Buddies has the kind of gloss that will make less adventurous film fans feel right at home. The film also features a cast that just wouldn't be seen in Swanberg’s earlier films. Credit should go to Swanberg’s prolific work and plaudits here, as now his work can commend stronger, more accomplished actors for his work (Gerwig aside of course).

The cleaner aesthetic and cast are certainly a shock for a viewer who knows Swanberg for his smaller works and not necessarily for the better. Thematically Drinking Buddies is still the kind of white first world problems I find myself oddly attached to (Yet, I’m cold to Richard Curtis...go figure), but the jump from the rugged, D.I.Y feel, to something more mainstream is a large jump and a jarring one. Not everyone will have this issue, but what excited me so often about the mumblecore movement was how the messiness of the characters lives seemed mirrored within the aesthetic. The upgrade in style does not mesh as well as before. It may just be me, but something feels missing from the piece and I really believe it’s this. Then again my favourites of the sub-genre (In Search of a Midnight Kiss, Medicine for Melancholy) have a keener visual eye than perhaps Swanberg, who appears focused on the improv work between the characters.

Like many of the mumblecore movies I’ve seen, I do enjoy how characters interact and develop. The female characters in particular. While the men are often the schluby, slacker types that we often find everywhere in romantic media these days (note the perfectly cast Jake Johnson from New Girl), the women hold a sense of control and emotion that I always find appealing. They’re smart but not always right, emotional but not needlessly hysterical. I find that if I take a dislike to girls like Olivia Wilde’s Kate (the best performance I’ve viewed from the actress), it’s never for long and it’s mostly because they truly have an amount of control that doesn’t feel held by what we expect a female character should do.  Swanberg’s choice on a heavily improvised screenplay is effective. Emotional moments turn on a sixpence, even if not as strong as previously seen.  

Drinking Buddies does work, despite the shellshock of its more commercial aspects. There’s no doubt that there is something taken away from before and that the same roughness that had me drawn to these kinds of films is missed. It’s clear from the films affectionate look at fragile foundations of bosom buddies, that this is not Swanberg “selling out” in the conventional sense. Yet give me a store brought video camera and a few actors that don’t nail there scenes as well as Anna Kendrick does, and I feel there would be something even stronger. 

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: Behind the Candelabra

Year: 2013

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Screenplay: Richard LaGravenese

Starring: Matt Damon, Micheal Douglas

Synopsis is here

Steven Soderbergh couldn't get Hollywood studios to fund his biopic about outlandish musical entertainer Liberace as they deemed it “too gay”. Despite the popularity and acclaim of films like Milk (2008) and Brokeback Mountain (2005), the conservative stigma that can follow what could be construed as a “minority” picture still lingers large on certain movies. Such issues come to no surprise. Just look at the problems I love you Phillip Morris (2009) had just getting released in the U.S.

Soderbergh’s REAL final U.K. theatrical release (I mistakenly stated Side Effects in a previous review) takes him back to the dazzling bright lights of Vegas to capture the chaotic relationship of Scott Thorson and Mr Showmanship himself.

I must admit I have an odd sense of frustration as to the Studios resistance to Candelabra. But I have to admit that much of it stems from what doesn't get blocked in any way. Consider the fact we've endured the dubious antics of The Wolfpack for two sequels, with their bickering bromance allowed the characters be as bigoted about sexuality as much as they please. Or remind ourselves of the constant barrage of weakly scripted rom-coms that have leads with little to no chemistry with each other. Behind the Candelabra is sharper, wittier and warmer than those films and yet the sexual orientation of the characters still caused enough drama to ensure that the film had a certain amount of production issues with the film not only have to look for funding but also “relegated” to television for its U.S release. No matter. These days, television is often where all the decent drama is at.

The silver screen however, allows us to see all the gaudy visuals in all their glory. I don’t want to upset the hardcore film fans as much as I usually do, but seeing Candelabra on digital projection was a delight. Lights and sequins sparkle and glare in the frame, while the amber glow that has cropped up in Soderbergh’s recent movies appears again, bathing characters in a shimmering artificial sunrise.  In this light, diamonds catch the light so bright that you could be blinded as badly as Liberace’s dog; Babyboy. Amusingly, it is Babyboy that is the catalyst which helps cause solidifies the connection between Damon’s Scott Thorson and Liberace (Douglas). It soon becomes a relationship which is starts out as caring but descends into one of dependency.

The film has a twinge of Sunset Boulevard (1950) about it, as Thorson absorbs himself deeper into Liberace’s peculiar universe. Medicine for blind dogs soon becomes a web of expensive gifts, plastic surgery and chauffeuring Liberace to his gigs. Liberace from the start; calls Thorson Babyboy. Wonder why that is.

The film takes on similar story beats to films like Boogie Nights (1997), The People Vs Larry Flint (1996) and Goodfellas (1990), showing the relationship at its peak at the 70’s before spiralling into chemically enhanced chaos. The film swings wildly from gleefully camp to startlingly toxic as Liberace digs his claws and ego further into Thorson’s personality. A plastic surgery assignment has Thorson losing his sense of identity as the Liberace continues to mould Scott in his own being. At least he doesn't look like Dr Jack Startz (A scene stealing Rob Lowe), who’s horrifically static, cleaved face gazes vacantly as he describes the procedures of surgery. Yet the emotionless visage of Startz hints at an unfortunate life Thorson may face.

Candelabra is a film of performances; with the whole cast delightfully showing off their talents. Damon balances naive and lost as easily now as he did in his younger days. Douglas is brilliantly nuanced as Liberace, with his downtime (due to cancer) allowing him to perfectly capture an absorbed and talented showman, lost in his own world. The supporting cast is a who’s who of solid character actors (the aforementioned Lowe, Dan Ackroyd, Scott Bakula) who take on the smaller roles with the same effectiveness as they would with their larger ones.

There’s a fabricated sense of family to proceedings, with characters being quick to love and quicker to drop. Parentage is a large aspect of the film with some of the films cruellest blows and emotional damage involving the mothers of both men. The way the maternal relationships between these characters play out, reveal much about why the couple treat each other the way they do. At one point Liberace’s mother wins big on one the slot machines own by her son. Nothing pays out, and Thorson has to go around anyone available to try and acquire some cash.   

Despite this, the main relationship that lies in the centre of the film manages to maintain a sweetness to it that slips in-between the cracks of the ego, drugs and tacky excess. There’s a connection between the two that they clearly didn't gain with anyone else. It is clear that the film is completely taken from Scott Thorson point of view but maintains a civility within such a turbulent relationship. Behind the Candelabra shares the same chintzy nature as Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby (2013). What makes Soderbergh’s effort stand out, is the balance of tenderness with the toxicity. 

Review: The Great Gatsby

Year: 2013
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Screenplay: Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce
Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton

Synopsis is here

The Great Gatsby gracelessly bounds into screens hoping to bowl you over with its brash, over egged delivery. It's loud, proud and happily declares itself in every scene. Much like the other works of director Baz Luhrmann, Gatsby takes a headstrong, music video approach to its material. Lavish long curtains bellow in the air, cameras swoop and swoon as mass parties Charleston away to modern hip hop and RnB. 

Despite its jazz age setting, The Great Gatsby reminds me more of a 90's hip hop video more than anything. To situate F Scott Fitzgerald's classic take of the deterioration of the American dream with more modern sensibilities is understandable and considering Luhrmann's previous works, near justified. Unfortunately 2013 Gatsby; despite the modern parallels it could lean on, is less about the damnation of decadence and all about the melodrama. Much of Luhrmann's techniques do much to heighten the romantic triangle that lies within the film. However the metaphor that lies within Fitzgerald's work is quickly lost in favour of the director's own excess.

Instead of a slow intoxication of the era, we are slapped across the face with hectic hip hop editing, over arching performances and mishandled music choices. I would be the first to defend the likes of Jay-Z in a modernisation of the material. The rappers lyrics and lifestyle do a certain amount of overlapping with the jazz age wildness. However the choices placed, often jar with the party scenes we witness. Unlike previous jukebox collages put together by Luhrmann, the mixture does little to gel. 

The film is so busy submerging us with information overload (remixed modern music, crowded visuals, over exposition at every turn) that we often lose track of the characters of the piece. From Gatsby to Carraway every character is painted in broad gloss, when it's clear the more could and should be brought from them. Such motives were fine when we were given the star crossed ciphers that occupied Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, as the sources were suited. Gatsby keeps hinting that more could be done, yet Luhrmann seems more attracted to the richness of riches than anything else. 

We gain little from wide eyed straight man Tobey Magurie who delivers everything with little nuance. Mulligan fairs better, bringing a deceptive sweetness to Daisy while DiCaprio and Edgerton wrestle well with Luhrmann's outrageousness and attack it with gumption. Yet despite all its fancy posing and posturing, there's little satirical eye to the events. The film quickly descends to a simple romance that was explored stronger within Luhrmann's earlier works. The film is so busy visually that it gleefully slaps the words of the novel on the screen for no other reason than constant re-alliteration (and perhaps because it looks fancy in 3D). 

One has to look hard for moments of wry sharpness through all its grand gesturing. But witness a party scene in which Nick Carraway is introduced to the infamous Gatsby and gazes admirably at him while everyone is too busy glaring up at the fireworks. Gershwin plays in the background in what almost appears as a keen reference to Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979), a film with its own bittersweet (yet not as tragic) love triangle. It's a brief moment of intoxication. One that Gatsby could do a lot more with. 

Review: Cloud Atlas

Year: 2012 (Released 2013)
Directors: Tom Tykwer, The Wachowskis
Screenplay: Tom Tykwer, The Wachowskis
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw, Zhou Xun 

Synopsis is here

The moment I saw the trailer and read the blurb about Cloud Atlas, I knew what the film would become. If you were to find the date I saw the trailer last year, I stated that the film would polarise the audience, probably struggle to make what is considered a decent profit but become a much loved feature in its later life. Right now, it’s polarised audiences and just about gained back its 100 million pound budget. Now it's got a lifetime for people to look back and reflect on what it's trying to say.

I feel in ten years time, I will revisit Cloud Atlas to see if it speaks to me with more clarity. Right now, at the current moment, I feel its message gets lost. Cloud Atlas is heavily bogged down with its 21 Gram-style execution. While the latter film was more concentrated with its focus, the three directors of Cloud Atlas push the bar with its ambition, abandoning hand holding for blind faith in their conviction. If you've never heard of the book the film is based from and what it entails, you could find yourself just as lost as if you were to enter The Twilight Saga during its final entry.

Quite simply; Cloud Atlas doesn't suffer the ignorant lightly and demands you keep close watch at all times. The film cares not if you cannot stay with the pace. It's strange that such a film worries so little about its audience considering its central theme. It's idealistic (and naive) view that how love is the key to conquer all is something we've seen with simpler narratives, and Cloud Atlas acts as if all viewers read from the same hymn page. To say David Mitchell to the man off the street, will most likely get a conservation about Peep Show started, and yet Cloud Atlas plays as if the book is as well known as blue skies. This will not concern everyone, however, the film's disregard for simple entry points and hectic, mosaic like structure do frustrate. 

It's only once we get into the swing of all the narratives and arcs that we get used to the rhythms of the film. Tom Tykwer's (Run Lola Run) beautifully composed score soon provides a solid motif to follow and as the film slowly pieces together we begin to bond and connect with a few of the many characters on display. Unfortunately, Cloud Atlas lacks the intimacy that can found in the likes Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, with the latter film saying more with its 20 minute creation of life (and perhaps morals) than Cloud Atlas can muster with its many multi-faceted stories and individuals. The fractured nature of Tree of Life also reminds us of our flaws and how those we love resonate within the memory. Cloud Atlas despite is huge scope, lacks the same kind of engagement.   

Cloud Atlas also has issues with of makeup and performances. I have little issue with the films "yellowface" claims, as the film's use of makeup do not debase or belittle. The prosthetics are key to the central themes of the piece and are clearly based in a similar realm to theatre. My problem is not all of it works. At times I was wowed at some of the work; other moments I was biting my lip to stop unintentional giggles. The same goes for the performances. I can't say that any of Cloud Atlas features Hugh Grant's best work. Same goes for Halle Berry who fluctuates from story to story and never keeps the same level of captivation. Hugo Weaving is also quite one note. Despite this, we must say thanks to Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent and Ben Whishaw who either provide the strongest moments of humanity or humour within the film. 

But much depends on how you feel about the films pacing and time spent within the many plots. I felt like many bookworms who fret when their favourite literary works are adapted into film form. There's a feeling that the novel allows appropriately breathing space between certain arcs (of course you can put the book down), and allow other details to penetrate deeper. We need to get hold of these people and in essence to fall in love with them. Cloud Atlas did little to bring such a bond. As the pieces spiral closer together, with the films editing, visuals and soundtrack working hard to get the emotions to gel, there still feels like there was far too much leg work to be done within the opening segments. Such disorientation can make or break to a piece of work like this. But perhaps people like me just need a little more time.   

Review: Warm Bodies

Year: 2013
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Nicolas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry, John Malkovich

Synopsis is here

A recent episode of the MAMO podcast in a throwaway comment about the box office, placed a simple what if that really struck me until I found myself sat in the fourth row awaiting Warm Bodies to start. In reference to some studios knee jerk reactions to "underwhelming" box office, the hosts posed the simple question: What if the twilight series stopped after one?

The first entry (2008) entered the market and made a respectable chunk of box office change (Over $300 million). But it's the sequels that really opened eyes (and wallets) with the second film, New Moon, making enough money to clear a third world debt. Summit Entertainment had unlocked a box office "secret": teenage girls enjoy going to the movies too (also called the Titanic equation). Since the series ended, it's no surprise that the fantasy female teen market seems to be a big thing these days. It's no surprise that Hollywood harboured it's energies into the likes of The Hunger Games (2012). So when something like Warm Bodies hits the silver screens, it's quite clear that it's not aimed at me at all. Despite this; like the brains that lead Zombie 'R' (an industrious Nicolas Hoult) pleasingly snacks on, Warm Bodies is easily digestible fodder. For an outsider, the film is not as painful as one might think. 

For me, Warm Bodies is mostly due to the charm of Hoult, who throws himself into a role that is tougher than you think at first glance. Inspired by the physical acting of Jonny Depp's Edward Scissorhands, 'R' is a performance that garners expression from the expressionless. Combined with a dry and witty narration from Hoult, 'R' really carries the film, coming off as a undead Wall-E (check his hoarding skills), 'R' is a much more active protagonist than I ever expected, showing more passion than so many recent heroes. Hoult and the screenplay's often humorous observations, do well to paper over the films weaker points. As amusing as Warm Bodies is, it happily trundles along blissfully unaware that the films meet-cute overstays its welcome. So much so that you release that the film lacks not only a second act, but any real lasting conflict. Warm Bodies may not be Shakespeare however, when your film alludes to Romeo and Juliet, it's important to remember that conflict and strive is vital.

When Warm Bodies focuses on anything other than the musings of its main zombie, it beings to suffer. It's leading lady Julie (Teresa Palmer) turns from outgoing battle chick to thankless distressed maiden trophy extraordinary quickly, while the films last act is one brought on with very little build up or risk. Director Jonathan Levine has tread similar teen waters before, but with denser narratives and stronger themes. Due to the films target audience, Warm Bodies does much to sanitise the very fact that it's a romance about dead people. Anyone looking for any real depth in the subject (if you are a little bit odd) would be better off getting hold of the likes of Dellamorte Dellamore (AKA Cemetery Man) or otherwise. 

But if you know of the previously mentioned title, you probably won't be too bothered with Warm Bodies, a film which is much more primed to give the Twilight crowd another supernatural fix of the zombie flavour. For me, I was relatively entertained by the undead antics of Hoult and co. Interestingly; I was told afterwards that the novel is not a humorous one. I must say thank goodness the film injected laughs; otherwise this review would have ended on a much more sour note. 

Review: Sightseers

Year: 2012
Director: Ben Wheatley
Screenplay: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe, Amy Jump
Starring: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe

Synopsis is here:

In 1996; school disco halls everywhere were loud with the sounds of awkward shuffling and the heartfelt warbling of Gary Barlow and co. Before disbanding in 1996 (and reuniting in 2006), Take That released their cover of the Bee Gee's hit ballad "How deep is your love". The couple we follow within Ben Wheatley's Sightseers would have been around 16 at that point. I'm sure that you can imagine either of the two, sitting alone, mouthing the words. All the while, their friends (if any) were victims of cheeky gropes and similar tomfoolery.

Upon watching the film; I found myself asking: "Is anyone surprised that two people like this would find each other?" I certainly wasn't. Nor was I surprised. Due Tina and Chris being in such a young, developing relationship, their passion is what you call...intense.

Said intensity is key for a director like Wheatley, and perfect for a movie like Sighterseers, a film which, like Four Lions, revels in thorny issues for its comedy. It's Natural Born Killers (1996) by way of Dear Deirdre; gleefully wrapping it's lovers on the lam narrative around Fargo-style eccentricities. The film even inverts the impotency issues that Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) delved into. It's not like neither character can articulate their lustful thoughts (just take a glimpse Tina's knitted, crotch-less panties), but there's a drollness in that while Clyde excelled in looting paper, Steve can barely place his thoughts down on any. Beatty's Clyde may not have been able to get it up, but you sense he may have had enough charm to write a book.

Literacy issues aside, Steve (a quietly sinister Oram) is a messy quagmire of lust, rage and loneliness, desperate to introduce Tina into his world of caravanning, local sights and premeditated murder over trivial incidents. Tina (a superbly comic Lowe), a withdrawn young woman, living in the palm of her controlling mother (a callback to Wheatley's 2009 film Down Terrace), seems to become more besotted by Steve due to his method madness. Is she intoxicated by the violence she's encountered? Or did the darkness just need to be awakened? At one point, Tina is insulted in a way that seems exaggerated at one point, but feels on point later on. We're never really sure about the two, other than their passion. Clues are laid, like Kill List (2011), Wheatley suggests things, but he never runs for an easy answer.

The holiday is often the test of the relationship and it is no different here. The relationship slowly degrades as their unstable personalities clash and circumstances close in. But Wheatley has coated the situation with such rich British idiosyncrasy that he manages to unlock mirth within the macabre. He toys with British politeness and tolerance in a way that reminds me of Serial Mom (1996), John Water's camp subversion of the suburban American Household. Sightseers's is angrier than that, and has more to comment on. The films cinematography is quick to highlight just how entrancing The Lake District can be, and yet it's is completely lost on these murderous characters. It is lost on us as well, as we're too busy indulging in their darkness. But there's the joke. We watch the observational comedy, smirk at the all so true moments with passersby and secretly delight at the couple’s murder spree and we forget how their intentions seemed good. 

What I love about Sightseers is just how passionate Chris and Tina are about themselves and what they do, even if it's completely immoral. The observations found in the script are not only infinitely quotable but often endearing, although; you would probably be a little more pensive with a Daily Mail reader. The film’s title, holds a certain irony to it, as the films climax suggests that the Chris and Tina themselves are "nice enough" to visit but not the type of people to stay with. They're the type of couple that is considered "just a bit off". The final decision made by the couple is sweet, humorous and yet haunting. It asks the question that Gary, Robbie and the rest of them were banging on about, back when we only had two lonely singleton teens. How deep is your love?

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.

Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love

Year: 2011
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Screenplay: Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore

Synopsis is here

It's a film that has date movie stamped all over it and I'm sure most twenty something males wouldn't even bother catching this flick, even if they are die hard Carell fans. But whether I'm right or wrong with my gross generalisation I have to say that Crazy, Stupid Love is a very warm and fun loving feature that's enjoyable because it feels like the makers of the movie actually watch similar movies and tried to find out what works and what doesn't.

I'm not surprised that as a rom-com it works, as directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have tried their hand at such endeavours before. Their début feature; I love you Phillip Morris was a film I wasn't completely in love with, but had a decent core relationship at it's core. Crazy, Stupid, Love is equally as smart with it's heart and does well to show these characters as flawed, yet relatable. Where I found Phillip Morris to be pretty bland in terms of how the story plays out, Crazy, Stupid, Love takes a well known track but does well to change the scenery. Where I predicted the end of Phillip Morris from a mile off, with this I still had a good time wondering where these people where going to take me.

It helps that the film spends a fair amount of time with most of it's characters and gives them a certain amount of grounding. As the film switches and swoops between characters with sub-plots at times interconnecting and colliding, we never feel too short changed about someone else, even when the films twists are at their most convoluted. It's unfortunate that twice in the movie however, we get two sequences involving Emma Stone and Julianne Moore that sat awkwardly to me for all the wrong reasons. I won't lie and say that part of this is possibly because I'm a slightly selfish twenty something male who doesn't believe that certain characters honesty at that point shouldn't have amounted to the reactions given. In fact both felt like a screenplay bait and switch in order to forcibly manipulate character affections to the audience. The scene with Stone is particularly cumbersome as the other character involved isn't written as well as he could have been.

However the characters (that matter) are not only well constructed, but also well cast. Carell whom I feel has had a patchy film career, carries the film well and his relationship with Julienne Moore is one you can get behind. You could say Moore is slumming it here considering some of the high class work she is usually known for (I always feel more people have to see Far from Heaven), but she is more than effective here. The film does well to try and make sure that you don't hate either character, although you may finding yourself being less than subjective (very dependant on what I mentioned in the above paragraph). Emma Stone once again shows how much of a likable and charming presence she is one screen while Gosling has a lot of fun as this Hitch-lite character who goes though a slighter more predictable arc than everyone else but still manages to hold his own against Carell at the best of times. The banter between the two (and a great Marisa Tomei in support) bring about the best comic moments.

It is also worth noting that Crazy, Stupid, Love is a film that looks as sharp as one of RyGos' suits. Something which you don't expect from many rom-coms is the filmmakers to really take note at what your taking in visually. The film's not has simple but effective visual motifs to illustrate the distance between characters but it also has a rich colour palette and uses soft focus in a wonderfully dreamy way. Strangely it's use of such a technique, particularly in relation to the sub-plot it appears with, reminds me of a John Hughes feature. I don't even think Hughes ever even used such elements, but the strange mix of the cinematography, the "normal" characters, and the good natured feel of it all for whatever reason invoked such memories.

Much like Extract; Crazy, Stupid, Love works well as a film about communication (or lack there of) and also reminds us that relationships are about not only utilising said communication with the other person, but also allowing ones self to be open to conversation. Simple scenes such as Gosling and Stone staying up all night talking, or the small heartfelt moment involving Carell and Moore outside their sons classroom during parents night are the type of scenes that can sink or swim romantic comedies (some don't even bother with such moments.) but when used well, they make the difference between a screenplay going though the motions, and something worthwhile. Crazy, Stupid, Love feels like a film that spent time revising what went well before to make sure it doesn't get pulled up for lack of interest. Because of this, I invested interest.

Review: The Adjustment Bureau

Year: 2011
Director: George Nolfi
Screenplay: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie

Synopsis is here

Is awards season over for another year? Because here's a late entry for "most misguided film comparison". The Adjustment Bureau (based in Phillip K Dick's The Adjustment Team) has had a quote plastered on the posters (attributed to Total Film) labeling the film "Inception meets Bourne". Regardless of whether or not it was a hasty quote slapped on by the mag because of what they knew at the time (I do not have the issue and I ain't looking for it) or it was a a touch of lazy writing picked up by lazy marketing people, it's clear to most people that the quote is WRONG.

Such dodgy wordsmithery (copyright LBP) can cause frustration because it paints the wrong picture of the film. However, in terms of much of the film's marketing, we can clearly see that painting a true portrayal doesn't appear to be a high on the list. Sure enough, checking out some of my friends facebook status over the weekend roused alarm bells.

The only ties to Bourne is that the film has Matt Damon claiming an aspect of his life (Nolfi also wrote Ultimatum). There is little to no relationship with Nolan's extravagant feature; however, one of the most fascinating aspects of The Adjustment Bureau is that it has grander themes than Inception. Dreamworlds are one thing, but fatalism? The film may have the upper hand.

Despite this, The Adjustment Bureau is mostly confined to the frames of romance. In watching the film, it appeared to be more of a melding of A Life less ordinary, Serendipity and Minority Report than anything else. Those who have looked that mesh of films in disgust/confusion shouldn't click close on your windows just yet as despite being softer than one may expect from it's trailers and tv spots, The Adjustment Bureau is an enjoyably lighthearted piece of fluff. One that has funnier than it should be and has a romance more palatable than a thousand Katherine Heigl/Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey (delete where appropriate)  features. Inception is way more effective with it's beefed up sci-fi action and mind breaking visuals/effects. What TAB has however is warmth.

The center of the feature has a relationship that not only feels tangible (the chemistry between Damon and Blunt is smooth and natural.), but due to the sci-fi element put in place (with it's explanations rightly placed in the shade) we are able to get over certain tropes that can often derail cinematic romances. The film does have that "movie love" touch to it, however, the way it's is placed as part of the films universe works.

In fact much of the movie works. Despite the fact that the last third comes off as quite trite, the film rolls by at a pace brisker than the running time suggests and holds a core relationship that's worth bothering about on a Friday night out. Nolfis climatic scenes have a great energy to them that unfortunately goes limp with it's last moments but it's not enough to truly deter the film as a whole.

Those looking for something more substantial with the ideas of fate and free will, may be very put off by the light touch placed on such deep themes. However The Adjustment Bureau is a fun distraction which once again reminds me that Anthony Mackie needs to be given something substantial in the future.

Review: I Am Number Four

Year: 2011
Director: D.J. Caruso
Screenplay: Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, Marti Noxon
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Dianna Agron, Teresa Palmer

Synopsis is here

I took a quick scan of the I Am Number Four novel wiki after watching the movie and although one should not take Wikipedia as the gospel, this entry had me stumped. Why is it that the wiki of the novel appears to be more appealing? I'm not joking those who are really that interested should take a look for themselves. Almost any aspect that looks like it give off the slightest bit of attraction has been sanded down smooth. There's nothing edgy here; and while I don't expect cutting edge wit and inception like plot turns, when your film is being toted as "Twilight with Aliens" you should be bringing something to the party.

Unlike the misery-fest bestows that vampire saga, I Am Number Four does try to have something that resembles a human relationship...I say human when I may mean interplanetary. Our John Smith is an Alien and so has to behave as such. This can explain some of Alex Pettyfer's board n bland responses in certain scenes. However, the chemistry between John and his love interest Sarah (Dianna Agron) has a small amount of spark. It's enough to make the vanilla experience of the film less painful to bear. In fact if the film had the balls to bolster the narrative, rise the character stakes or at least give us interesting secondary characters I may have had more time for it.

Alas D.J Caruso's film is plain Jane of a film which builds to a crescendo of cliche and pre-predicted  moments. The second we see the gray hairs in Timothy Olyphant's sideburns, we know where his future lies. It doesn't help that the screenplay believes that the best way to divulge information is by dry exposition as opposed to visually or even with any type of wit in the words. D.J Caruso takes it up a notch in the action stakes later on in the film but with the foundation being so shaky it's hard to take any real notice. 

Let's not lie to ourselves. This film was almost destined for my indifference; described as "Twilight with Aliens" and produced by one Micheal Bay, the film was hardly going to appear on my favorites of the year. However, to be honest why would it? While not a grand masterpiece, it's also not a film for myself in terms of target audience. But the problem still remains that while Twilight has many faults, it has a certain sense of scope. I Am Number Four has a central relationship that is more likable than Bella and Edward as it's not based on games, manipulation an a naff explanation. However this alone does not excuse it from it's generic origin story execution.

Review: Never let me go

Year: 2010
Director: Mark Romanek
Screenplay: Alex Garland
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley

Synopsis is here

Never let me go has the issue that I feel most avid book reader fear. Despite being proficient from a technical viewpoint (with a lovely use of muted colours), and having a strong cast that really holds it's own with the delicate material, Never let me go is missing something. I haven't read the book but it feels obvious to me that some of the nuances that Kazuo Ishiguro are missed somewhat. Maybe the films reveal is a bit too quick. perhaps the performances just don't tug on the heartstrings, or the grand themes are all a tad too subtle on screen, I'm not sure.

Still, there is a lot to enjoy in this taut and restrained piece. Like other good sci-fi, Never let me go is as much about the human condition as well as the tropes of the genre. As we gradually learn more about these characters way of life, we're not only slightly unnerved but we begin to feel for these people. Their character is drained from early in life and as the emotions inside them began to stir, so did my hope for them. There's moments within the film that are quietly heartbreaking. In many love stories, we cheer because the characters rebel against the social norms placed upon them. Their fight for love is what we go for.  In Never let me go, we lament because the fight has been taken out before these young people can even acknowledge what they're feeling. This gives the film such a fresh and unique feel from so many dramas.

And yet still something in Garland's adaptation stops me from truly falling for this movie. After a quick read of the novels synopsis I realise that there's been small changes to the narrative that dull an already muted plot, and lessen the impact one of the films more powerful scenes. The films restraint; while welcoming also causes slight problems in finding warmth within the films characters. There are moments that truly call out for it, but the mood is so subdued it may only be those who are really connected to Ishiguro's prose who can get the most out of it. 

There are three solid performances to enjoy however, with Mulligan, Knightly and Garfield all getting into the right brain space for the immature and naive players. Garfield especially rounds off a great year with a performance that almost taps into that emotion that bubbles under the surface. Kudos must also go out to the child casting as the kids not only look like their older counterparts, but give solid, watchable performances.

I've said before that is the film gets me interested enough in the book then it's done it's job. Never Let Me Go does enough to warrant my interest into heading to Waterstones and purchasing a copy of the novel. The problem however, will be that the books prose will be be rich enough for me to really get into the piece.