Review: Empathy Inc

If you have a bad day at work what do you do to turn it around? Vent to the wife? A swift half with the lads? Switch on the PlayStation and shout horrible slurs at 14-year olds? I’m sure we all have our ways of dealing with having an absolute mare. In case of venture capitalist Joel, whose multimillion deal has just gone the way of Orlando Bloom’s character’s in Elizabethtown (2005), things go beyond your usual hectic day at the office.

Forcibly moved in with his nightmare in-laws and with hardly a penny to his name, Joel (Zack Robidas) is in dire straits. That is until he meets an old friend with a fancy new scheme in the line of VR. What if you spend some time in someone else’s shoes? Someone who’s life is less than fortunate? Would that place your issues into perspective? Thus, the conceit is born. A VR system that places you in the shoes of someone who is desolate. By doing so, your hang-ups will become more manageable. And all those proverbs and maxims people like to band about would be justified.

It all seems too good to be true in Empathy Inc, the lo-fi, sci-fi head spinner from Yedidya Gorsetman. Of course, it certainly is, as the little bit greedy and all to nosy Joel soon finds out. With a conceit that feels a little bit Primer (2004) and noir style black and white that couldn’t help but remind me of Darren Aronofsky’s debut Pi (1998), Empathy Inc is the kind of askew, oddity that you’d use to find late nights on the weekend when terrestrial tele was our media gods and you were never quite sure if you saw what you watched or dreamed it. Safe to say, trying to tell your wife or the lads over a swift half about this flick may get you some strange looks.

It’s also safe to say that this is a very confident piece of filmmaking from a film that is seeing how resourceful it can be while on a very limited budget. It’s lack of expansive or varied locations not only keeps the focus on the characters but gives the entire film an inescapable, hemmed in vibe. It’s also notable that while the film is limited in funds the film's compositions and transitions highlight an eye for the cinematic.

Drenched in punchy black and white, giving the whole exercise a touch of the noir to its sci-fi leanings, Empathy Inc’s strengths lie in its simplicity. The film gives us just enough of its lofty idea to make the story compelling. The characters may be broad, but they’re never flat. Although the actors struggle with the tasks given as the film ramps up the tempo and twists later in the film. While Empathy Inc toys with deeper themes of haves and have nots, corrupt corporate investors and the identity of the self, it’s far more at home as being a moderately thrilling sci-fi that would fit comfortably on the same shelf as the films of Shaun Carruth. Although it may not get as far under the skin.

Empathy Inc is available now on VOD via Amazon Prime, Google Play and YouTube

Review: The Martian

Year: 2015

Director: Ridley Scott

Screenplay: Drew Goddard

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, and Chiwetel Ejiofor

Synopsis is here:

There is a solid argument which considers that The Martian is a safe film. A film that answers that leaves no frayed ends. Any questions asked, are quickly answered. It’s a film with no typical conflict. Yet when Ridley Scott leaves things open ended (Prometheus) or delivers a dangerous, uncompromising feature (The Counsellor) the filmmaker is quickly disregarded. The Martian almost plays out less like a resigned “I give up” and more like a brash “fuck you” to naysayers. If it’s a safe movie you want (and the expansion of all franchises ever claim you do), then Mr Scott is going to provide the most polished “safe” movie he can provide.

For a film which holds a running time that’s safely over two hours, Scott’s ode to progressive humanity briskly moves with an unexpected swiftness. Quickly landing us within the films predicament, The Martian shows what an entertaining craftsman Scott can be. The Martian finds itself in similar territory to Unstoppable (2010), directed by Ridley’s late brother Tony. The world and set up are quickly established so the film can get on to what it really wants to talk about: Human co-operation.

Much like Unstoppable, The Martian doesn’t really have much in the way of conflict. Unlike Alien (1979), this isn’t about petty hostility paving the way for larger animosity. The Martian actually invests its time in showing human capabilities. It mines enjoyment from intelligent people doing smart and considered things.Matt Damon’s everyman likability help provide a solid foundation to the proceedings. Damon’s Mark Watney, the unfortunate interplanetary castaway, never feels like an empty audience vessel, nor does his ability to his way through particular circumstances feel like a cheat. Much of this is down to Drew Goodard spry script, along with Ridley’s direction. The heavier moments (budget talk, the science, and the media circus) never feel heavy. The film plays with the right sense of broadness in mind.

As The Martian expands, so too does the involvement of the film’s ample cast. Scott, who went under fire for his casting choices and comments on Exodus: Gods and Kings, now delivers a diverse and multi-cultural cast which spans from America through to China. Of course, there’s still complaints of the film whitewashing certain characters based on assumptions. This is also in spite of the author not being explicit with the character representation. Due to the film doing much to invest in a diverse cast, such criticisms should really fall to the wayside. It should be said, however, that a few of the films female characters seem to lack a sense of agency and felt more like a collection of reaction shots than fully fleshed out characters. Yet it’s still important to see everyone with a particular role to play, and The Martian endeavours to highlight this in the film's politics.

Such an argument is clearly observed with the role of Rich Purnell played by Donald Glover. One can debate that Glover’s role is small and collection of clichés. But we must also contend with the fact that Purnell’s role within the plot is not only pivotal but could possibly hold one of the most inspirational representation of Afro-Americans in 2015. The role of Purnell is a microcosm of the Watney’s situation as well as the film’s theme: No matter how small, you hold an importance. We hold an importance.

The Martian seems influenced from not only lesser known sci-fi such as Silent Running (1972) and Moon (2009) but also more populist features such as Interstellar (2014) as well as Scott’s own Alien (1979) and Prometheus (2013). Damon has also mentioned that the likes of Touching the Void (2003) is an inspiration.  It’s a testament to Scott’s craft on just how well he melds these elements into such a crowd pleasing compound. The Martian’s ability to make its humour, science and stakes so palatable and balanced is amongst its best features. But add to that the film’s gorgeous visuals, dynamic set pieces and dependable performances and the result is one of the most enjoyable mainstream productions of the year. Safe? Perhaps, but The Martian is a blockbuster that is willing to highlight bravery and smarts over superpowers and preordained destiny as heroic. In the current environment, it actually feels quite daring.

Review: Jurassic World

Year: 2015

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Screenplay: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Omar Sy, B. D. Wong, Irrfan Khan

Synopsis is here

"You know, you're right. This truly was the best vacation ever. Now let us never speak of it again." – Marge Simpson - The Simpsons - Itchy and Scratchy Land episode.

It was funny to watch twitter bat their opinions back and forth while Jurassic World took the weekend/summer/year financially. Was the film Good or bad? Brilliant or Dumb? An extravagant thrill ride, or a muddled pile of murky gender politics and decades old nostalgia. I lean towards the negative choice to all of those preferences, and yet most of the entertainment I gained from Jurassic World was in wondering just how dubious it would become. By the time we reach a climax slavered in deus ex Machina plot devices. I felt a decision had been reached. Jurassic World had jumped the Mosasaurus, but audiences seem to be ok to see just how high the film would fly.

Observing the audience I watched it with, as well as the reactions from friends in my social feeds who don’t view everything in the same critical prism, it was clear that many didn’t care that the jokes missed more than they hit. Nor did they care that the film’s gender politics were less progressive than Jurassic Park (22 years old). When the Dino’s stomped and chomped, people felt there was something there. Even I got caught up in the thrill of it all. For a moment.

Jurassic World is stupid. Many have argued that it’s “meant” to be stupid. But I disagree. Implausibility and stupidity are not the same thing, although they can coincide. Jurassic World is implausible because it’s a movie about a dinosaur theme park. Fine. Yet unlike the franchises’ first entry, the piecemeal screenplay and mishandled gives us a lot of idiotic incident. On the surface, it’s “great” because Chris Pratt is handsome, the CGI is pretty and we remember the score. But while one doesn’t go to Jurassic World for debate of Cark Sagan proportions, I do dislike watching a film which takes me out of the world because mindlessness is considered the same as self-importance.

One thing I gleamed from rewatching the original Jurassic Park, is how characters faced trouble through the actions of others. Not only this, but how, said actions never felt dimly written. Dennis Nerdy’s selfishness causes major issues with the park first time round, but it never feels like a half assed script point. Two decades on, the writers can’t even be bothered to invest in decent cause and effect within the universe. In a place so vast and clearly dangerous, young kids can wander around in gyrospheres on their own.  I spent most of the film’s second half, brow furrowed, trying to figure out which imbecile considered the “plan” to take out the main threat to be a sound one. The sketchily drawn characters make hilarious dialogue exchanges the belay the hacking and slashing of the film’s patchwork screenplay.

“Do you still have those matches?” A character asks.

A memorable moment as the matches were never introduced in the first place. This is actually new information masquerading as something we the audience should have previously been told. In the grand scheme of things this is a small moment. However, it is the type of lapse that the film enjoys displaying.

Such weak control of the elements actually becomes amusing after a while. Sub-plots are picked up and dropped so quickly and heavily, that the films already shaky premise begins to quiver even more. Director Colin Trevorrow constantly reaches for Spielberg-like reverence, but seems to lack the understanding of how the man operates. Throwbacks to the previous films ring hollow and lack the detail that Spielberg would place to give the spectacle the layer of texture. Much like Super 8, we’re watching diluted imitation. It almost tastes the same, but it’s missing the ingredients.

Jurassic World does have a truckload of product placement to make in-jokes about, before realising who the real canny operators are, and falling into line like the owners of a franchise piece feel it should. This is something that the film labours with constantly. Much has been stated about the films infamous high heels, worn by a plucky, but hampered Bryce Dallas Howard. But I don’t think people would have been so bothered with this element if Trevorrow didn’t spend so much time emphasising them. It certainly doesn’t help that Trevorrow’s does this while killing another female character in an oddly extravagant and mean spirited way.  Then again, for a film that makes jokes about people wanting bigger thrills, it misses the chance to actually illustrate the vast scale of this theme park at such a critical point of crisis. What the film chooses to focus on and at what point often borders on the absurd.

For a film so dumb, it was still smart enough to take my money, I guess. Chris Pratt continues his meteoric rise to stardom. Managing to be watchable here, even when he’s not even close to second gear. Trevorrow also shows that as a director, he does handle set-piece spectacle better than many would have expected. Although the thrills and spills shown here, made me miss the earnestness of his debut; Safety Not Guaranteed. It’s a good thing that Jack Johnson is cast to help smooth things over somewhat. The cast as a whole, clearly show that they’re having a good time salting the scenery and having a good chew. Although let’s not make the likes of Irrfan Khan have a character that flip flops erratically next time yeah?

Not that such things bother the rest of the audience whose love of creature features/nostalgia (delete as appropriate) had Jurassic World become one of the highest grossing films of not only the year, but of all time. Something that leaves me conflicted. Happy to see more butts on seats at the local multiplex, but pained to see so many flock to something more boneheaded than a Pachycephalosaurus. For me, while it’s nice to see Raptors and T-Rex make another outing, wide eyed nostalgia can only take me so far. The moment Jurassic World finished. Marge’s quote was the first thing that came to my mind. I had to alter it slightly though: "You know, you're right. This film has truly made a lot of box office bank. Now let me never speak of it again."

Review: Ex Machina

Year: 2015

Director: Alex Garland

Screenplay: Alex Garland

Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Synopsis is here

I’m currently reading Dataclysm, an irreverent view of data dating, social science and human behaviour by Christian Rudder, one of the founders of OK Cupid. The book is a sharp and witty insight into how social networks, search engines and the internet are quickly revealing more about ourselves and our urges than we would like to think. Unfortunately, I saw Ex-Machina while I started reading Dataclysm and I found myself more than slightly unnerved.

Ex-Machina holds two moments for me, which not only feel eerily plausible, but frighteningly close. One conversation is between Nathan (Issac) and Caleb (Gleeson) in which we discover how the female A.I. obtains her knowledge. The other is a grander reveal within the plot, which is almost brushed away like a small aside, yet had me wonder why certain, powerful companies have now poured vast amounts of cash into drones and robots. Ex-Machina doesn’t expand too far from an episode of Black Mirror, however the film’s three central leads, and Garland’s evocative screenplay engages with our anxieties with conversations and mind games in a way that feels fresh as well as frightening. 

Garland’s directional debut, reminiscent of Frankenstein, is a remarkable clash of contrasts. It’s deliberately paced yet we always get the feeling we’re hurtling towards something. Its cinematographer Rob Hardy shoots the film with impressive wide angles, and yet the films isolated locations and limited cast, give a grim sense of claustrophobia, much like The Shining (1980). The film lingers on the form and physique of the female Machina, Ava (Vikander) which it wants us to admire, yet the male characters Nathan and Caleb indulge in profound conversations which not only progress the screenplay organically but hint at the ugliness of human nature. This constant disharmony, which appears in so much great sci-fi, is what drew me into the film.   

The film’s leaning on the male gaze, as observed by some female writers, while feeling problematic to some, actually felt to me as an accurate portrayal of the shallowness of human beings and the ease of how their emotions can be manipulated. Also the lead female character, clearly inhabits the most agency. Garland’s film delivers us an A.I. that not only holds our knowledge but may also make better use of our mistakes and flaws. The most fascinating thing about the film however is how the combination of Vikander’s elegant performance and the great use of the film's premise, like Under the Skin (2014), has the audience question both gender politics and human connection in a deeply absorbing way. From a surface view, the treatment of female characters within the film can be seen as deplorable, and yet that is only if you consider the female characters to be “human”. If the film hits you in the right spot, you go with your gut. I do not mean this as a criticism of female writers who find some of the film's sequences problematic. However, I must stress at, not only the motivations behind the more sinister characters in the movie, but also how well the mechanisms work within the story. Even I felt perturbed by some of the aspects I witnessed in the film. I feel this is because I felt for Ava.

Dominic Gleeson and Oscar Issac create the kind of combative foil you would expect from a feature like this. Issac embraces his inner Victor Frankenstein with added boozing, gym visits and creepy dancing. It is a completely bombastic turn around from his performance in A Most Violent Year (2014). Gleeson brings his likable charm to the table. Caleb’s pining for Ava is believable and his paranoia towards his situation is palatable. Watching the three characters trade blows against each other strangely reminded me of Richard Linklater’s Tape (2001), but the resonance I felt between them was far more effective here than anything I found in films such as Her (2014) or A.I (2001).   

Ex-Machina does what good sci-fi should, which is, despite the more fantastical elements we may witness within the narrative, it never loses touch of the human element. My knowledge of the singularity may be a little light, but I found ideas the film poses to be well presented, while the way the story uses those ideas to toy with its characters and the audience to be thoroughly invigorating. Garland’s debut directional feature stride into those darker areas of our grey matter with the sort of confidence that I wish the likes of Transcendence (2014) could attain. Let’s hope Garland can continue making his science fiction so good that it continues creeps me out when I read my non-fiction.

Review: Insurgent

Year: 2015

Director: Robert Schwentke

Screenplay: Brian Duffield, Avika Goldman

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ansel Elgort, Miles Teller, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Jai Courtney, Zoe Kravitz, Maggie Q, Daniel Dae Kim, Ray Stevenson, Octavia Spencer

Synopsis is here:

After spending over four hours in the Divergent universe, watching Insurgent the day before, I can honestly say that’s all I’ll need. I don’t regret my time spent with the young adult series. The importance of such franchises within the cinematic world, is definitely not lost on me. I must, however stress that despite the film’s progression of feminine goals, narratively, as with the first film, feels cumbersome and confounding at the worst of times and predictable at best. This is the heroine’s journey at its most basic. Yet we’re constantly thrown terms and descriptions which seem awkward for even the actors pronouncing them. Within the first act of this second entry, as I found Divergent, I felt that Insurgent is probably far more memorable as a book than a film.

Such discouraging thoughts come easily due to Insurgent’s ineffective screenplay. It is a film with a mass converging of characters, all jostling for screen time, yet struggling to gain the right amount of significance that they actually deserve because the film must push on with the lead character’s “neo complex”. I don’t mean this to be a negative on the role of Tris, who is ably played by Shailene Woodley. However Insurgent is so wrapped up in the character that other, clearly important characters are criminally underwritten. A perfect example of this is with the character of Tris’ brother Caleb Prior played by Ansel Elgort (The Fault in Our Stars). Far too often the character makes grand choices which motivate the plot yet are vaguely construed the man himself. Meanwhile the film’s central relationship between Tris and Four (Theo James) convincing, yet their connections between everyone else are often weakly portrayed. Much of the plot is clearly entangled between the youthful leads and their parents, but nothing is ever given much detail or resonance.

The frustrating thing about Insurgent, as with Divergent, is that nothing seems to stick. Visually the film is slick, glossy and feels a lot more open, but is still rather more functional than stand out. I’ve seen The Maze Runner (2014) and find both Insurgent and Divergent a tad more interesting (particularly the action sequences), but still quite ordinary when it comes to the characters and their interactions. It’s a film that has motifs and scenes that will remind you of more interesting/entertaining features. I doubt anyone is surprised that the Divergent series gained a greenlight once the likes of The Hunger Games became successful. I also wouldn’t be surprised if many other favour Katniss over Tris, although both are still playing an important part in terms of female roles with agency.

For me it speaks volumes that, as me and my girlfriend left the cinema, I mention how much of the divergence test in the film made me think about Luke’s trials in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). My girlfriend, who has no interest in Star Wars, was taken back by this.  I feel one reason being, that such action packed young adult action has been aimed at guys for so long, that aspects of this franchise generally feel fresh for females whom have never been interested before. Perhaps my cynicism gets the better of me. Insurgent works for my girlfriend, I was merely taken for a ride. Like so many women have been obliged to when guys get to see boys play with their toys. So as derivative as I may have found it, it looks to be opening doors for others. So silver linings.  

Review: Edge of Tomorrow (A.K.A LIVE DIE REPEAT, A.K.A All You Need is Kill)

Year: 2014
Director: Doug Liman
Screenplay: Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth
Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton

Synopsis is here:

 
Despite seemingly being marketed by a group of drunks recovering from a 7 day bender (why all the name changes, guys?), and the profit margins being more delicate than a Sony studio password, Edge of Tomorrow is a relatively fun sci-fi actioner. One that reminds you that Tom Cruise (aged 52), is still the engaging A-list movie star he was before we found out about his great battle with thetans. Hell, I'm beginning to think his belief in Scientology is part of the reason he's been able to pick interesting sci-fi projects. I wouldn't be surprised if the presence of Cruise may have switched people off Edge of Tomorrow. Yet Cruise's personal charm is one of the reasons the film works. The other (greater) reason is Emily Blunt.

Blunt, whose Rita character shows the type of urgency which has been greatly missed from female roles in the likes of Godzilla or The Amazing Spiderman 2, once again displays her amazing capability to bounce off her Male counterparts. The reversal of roles here allows Blunt to blossom even more so than she did in similar high concept features such as The Adjustment Bureau (2011), however the nature of Edge of Tomorrow's material seemingly gives a lot of the emotional resonance back to Cruise in his role of cowardly PR man cum action solider.

I do wonder what the late Roger Ebert would have felt about Edge of Tomorrow. As a critic whose interest in video games was in the minus figures, he would have been faced with a film that is heavily drenched in video game aesthetic. The source material (A Japanese novel by Hiroshi Sakurazaka) is said to have borrowed heavily of the play, die, and continue aspect of video games, as does this film. Here, I found it hard not to think I was not still playing COD: Advanced Warfare as even though neither game, nor film were looking over each other's solider, the similarities in the battle suits I found quite remarkable. The film's play on the concept of "spawning" and repeating until you get it right, isn't that original (see Source Code (2011), Looper (2012), SO many classic sci-fi stories), however Liman's storytelling direction of the material is refreshing. Edge of Tomorrow never feels like the template blockbusters the comic book films are starting to feel like, while it's commentary on how this muscle memory element impacts the protagonist has a certain perceptiveness to it.

Doug Liman is in his element here. Jumper (2008) is a mere faded memory here as the punchy action sequences carry weight while the cast interplay hold a playful blockbuster chemistry that enjoyable to watch. Edge of Tomorrow may not shoehorn itself into the classic hall of Hollywood blockbusters, its good fun but nothing too out of the ordinary. However, as a piece of light sci-fi action fare, I found it a film that deserves to find a good home audience in the future. Here's hoping the replay value goes past the high concept.

Review: Interstellar

Year: 2014

Director: Christopher Nolan

Screenplay: Jonathon Nolan, Christopher Nolan

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, Michael Caine

Synopsis is here:

I find it fascinating that Christopher Nolan has gone full Kubrick in order to bring to us what I consider to be his most heartfelt film to date. Nolan; like Kubrick, has often been considered a quite cold film maker, yet in spite of placing his clear 2001 influences on his sleeves for Interstellar, Nolan’s longest movie also holds one of his strongest central relationships. There were quite a few moments in the film, in which I found myself caught up not just in the scenes of Matthew McConaughey's Coop, his family and the intergalactic drama that plays out, but also the implications. 

Once leaving the cinema, however, unlike The Prestige (2006), Inception (2010) of The Dark Knight (2008), I found that my first impressions drifted away as quickly as they appeared. I had enjoyed the film and its playfulness towards relativity and physics. I fell in love with its ambition (a word used ad nauseam by critics/writers and myself when talking about this film) and often felt the tug of emotion when the film pulled the strings.  Yet Interstellar when I finally sat down to ponder it, never felt as complete as Nolan’s previous movies.

Thematically, I found the film enthralling, yet the concerns that many detractors have about Nolan felt more apparent here. The protracted nature of the film's structure and pacing for instance. Or the aspects of plot which felt far more convoluted than previous features did. When piecing the film together, the film often felt like a po-faced Fantastic Voyage (1966). The screenplay often played out more like a B-movie dressed up.

That is slightly unfair to the Nolan’s and B-Movies, but I did find the film's length, exposition and general sour-faced demeanour took away from some Nolan’s most majestic set-pieces, the film’s emotional core and its sense of adventure. I couldn’t care less about the science being exact. This new trend of factual nit-picking fictional films to death for accuracy, is tiresome, particularly for the likes of Nolan, who gets more aggression for his outlandish moments than others. Yet Interstellar is his biggest sci-fi sandbox and this time his need to keep everyone on the same page with exposition heavy dialogue was distracting. Particularly as I had already pieced together pivotal moments of the plot early on and found myself waiting for the characters to catch up.

Despite this, Nolan still manages to provoke interesting topics of thought. This is still a film which forces a viewer to have an opinion. The world of Interstellar is at times a compelling mixture of old school Americana and individualistic philosophy. While I didn’t think it didn’t hit that feeling of transcendence that I felt with Gravity (2013), the strength of Matthew Mcconaughey’s central performance helps realise just how large the stakes are, not just between him and his family, but with the world he has left behind.  

The dying America that has been left, is one that has decided to collectively dull down Earth’s scientific dreamers and explorers as mere delusions, in a reversal of how old school religion is sometimes viewed now.  The earth’s demise is scary for just how banal and accepting the people all are of whatever it is that may be destroying them. The Dustbowl small town America, we see is as authentic as I could imagine, but the behaviour of the people within it, also feels scarily accurate.

So do, the more fantastical set pieces. Nolan litters the film with imagery familiar to his own Inception, but still manages to provide a freshness to the action. One set piece (set sublimely to Hans Zimmer’s celestial score) involving the hard headed determination of Mcconaughey’s Coop, docking a shuttle back onto a rapidly spinning spacecraft, tingles the spine in a way little else has done this year.

With Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) said as a major influence, and its commercial objectives clearly in its sight however, Interstellar’s ambition gives way to an optimism that does appear a little forced. Abrupt character arcs and moments that were awkwardly placed in the movie finally give way to a final position that takes away a part of that ambiguity that a film of such a scope deserves. It brings the likes of a film like Alex Proyas’ Knowing (2009) into sharper focus. While a film I didn’t practically enjoy, its climax, though preposterous at the time hints at an amount of ambiguity that Interstellar takes a quarter step back from. Its closure hedges its bets somewhat.

Still, Interstellar is punctuated by small, remarkable moments of emotion resonance. While at times the film feels more surface level than Nolan’s previous endeavors, as a piece of mainstream spectacle, Nolan still sets a pretty high bar for grand adult orientated cinema. What I’ll really find fascinating is whether the film’s more engaging moments will find a way of burrowing in my psyche and finding some time to germinate. I feel there’s enough in Interstellar to do that.

Review: Under The Skin

Year: 2013 (U.K Theatrical Release 2014)
Director: Johnathan Glazer
Screenplay: Johnathan Glazer, Walter Campbell
Starring: Scarlett Johansson 

Synopsis is here

Under The Skin's IMDB score currently stands at a middling 6.5 on its user ratings. This is understandable. For detractors, the film's lyrical pace will merely frustrate. The nuanced transformation of one of the most famous and attractive woman in the world into a blank alien vessel will be ignored and criticised for its alleged flatness. The films lack of exposition will be viewed has plotless, considering how most screenplays labour themselves with tell-all dialogue.

I understand those criticisms, but I do not agree with them in the slightest. When a film has elusive as this appears on screens, people will always confront those who enjoy it and ask: Why do you like this? Truth is, like a good joke, to deconstruct this film, as I am about to do (poorly), will not give the questioner the satisfying answer they require. After watching Under the Skin, I could only exclaim that it was an "experience". A few days on as I write this, I now consider Under the Skin possibly one of the most incisive science fiction films of the year, if not the last ten. I say this with love and apologies to Gravity (2013), Moon (2008), Children of Men (2005) et all.

Beginning with a grand and opulent 2001 style space sequence and finishing with delicate snowfall, Johnathan Glazer's third feature (9 years after the hauntingly tragic Birth), continues his particular detached observations of human life with Kubrickian precision. The protagonist 'Laura' (Johansson) stalks single men with the removed glare of a terminator. She roams the Scottish Highlands in the kind of white van we tell children to stay away from. Her beauty, however, makes it difficult who the horny males she picks up, who see nothing strange with this particular picture.

Despite the pleasantries that are exchanged, there's no free candy. As the men are seduced, they're are submerged into a thick abyss of liquid. What happens to them is best left to the film to explain, although the Michel Faber novel that the film is loosely based on, explains in clearer detail what happens to these poor souls.

Much has been said about Glazer's use of hidden cameras to film the interactions of Scarlet Johansson with the unwitting Scottish locals. The placement of the cameras often feels similar to the disjointed feel of CCTV cameras not only capturing the action and realistic, awkward conversations, but also slim and strange pockets of uneasy negative space. Glazer and cinematographer Daniel Landin capture seemingly banal moments of humanity with the aloofness of a playful street photographer. The most typical aspects of human life appear distinct and unnatural, with Glazer's visuals become a primer of sorts. It's the only way I can describe how he makes some of the films most unnerving sequences seem understandable.

This doesn't not mean justified. We may perceive much of Laura's behaviour as ugly, but when the "person" you're watching doesn't run on the same notions and emotions as ourselves, we're suddenly propelled into a new dynamic. A new plateau in which vacant gaze of Laura, unlocks parts of us we keep hidden. Johansson's placid performance provides an abyss for which we can throw our own feelings of humanity into. A cold, gray beach has Laura impassively watch a tragedy play out in front of us while playing her own part towards affecting the situation. Later we hear the development of what happened and we comprehend the situation. Laura's lack of reaction disconcerts, reminding us of our basic empathy.

Glazer melds base, predatory elements with this dispassionate, alien tone to overwhelming results. The film lacks the wry humour that litters Faber's book, but extracts the elements in-between the lines to create something bleaker in its explorations. Glazer adds sequences you couldn't imagine in the novel. Alison Wilmore neatly capsules how the male gaze is subverted within the film. What makes the film so provocative is, the more time Laura spends on our planet, she doesn't just become more "human" but she also encounters the predatory instinct that lies within men when they are not controlled. A small yet pivotal scene has Laura hounded by drunk revelers attacking her van in a way that reminds us of why the feminist movement should not be silenced. The film's final third lands us in survival mode with Laura facing what so many fear before blasting off into the metaphysical.

Under the Skin has faint shades of The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) along with tones of Tarkovsky's Solaris (1972) for good measure. Despite this, Glazer maintains his own touch throughout. Laura may be extra-terrestrial, yet she holds the same narrow view of Sexy Beast's (2000) Don Logan or Birth's Anna. Characters that are so unbelievably sure of their aims and goals that anything that displays a different orientation, shatters their comprehension. Here lies the smartness in Glazer's feature, in which, despite how densely alien this being is, she still remains bound by the trappings of the creatures she preys on. Something I'm sure many of us have felt from time to time. The abyss stares back at us.

Review: Transcendence

Year: 2014

Director: Wally Pfister  

Screenplay: Jack Paglen 

Starring: Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, Rebecca Hall, Kate Mara, Cillian Murphy, Cole Hauser, Paul Bettany

Synopsis is here

I squirmed uncomfortably through a lot of Transcendance. I was slightly shocked at just how soulless the film felt. It contains hefty themes of man vs machine, techno terrorism, environmentalism and man created reverence, yet administers them with the sternness of a strict schoolmarm. Far too often I found myself siding with either the humans or the computers and was willing the film to stop being so po-faced.

For many, their main concern with the film was it’s cumbersome science, which joylessly displays itself fully in the film’s third act. I’m less bothered by this. Mostly because most sci-fi heads enjoy similar tales which also hold bad disciplines. Nor for me the film’s dispassionate treatment of its characters was what irked me the most. The actors (with Depp as the prime target) have been attacked for sleepwalking through their performances, however, Jack Paglen’s script isn’t particularly concerned with investing the audience with any real reason to give concern. The threat of technology taking over the fleshbags is something that movies enjoy exploiting, yet Transcendance does very little in imposing any menace. 

Pfister does transfer his keen visual eye in his direction with sharp macro imagery of accumulating in droplets and contrasting them with the vast, detached open spaces we’ve witnessed in Christopher Nolan’s escapades. The crisp visuals, however, are perhaps at the detriment of the screenplay and performances. The image of computer circuitry trapped within a dream catcher is a provocative one, but feels weak when we combine with the distant performances and cumbersome screenplay. 

The fact is we’ve seen these themes work better in more substantial features. It’s hard not to look at Kate Mara’s Bree and be reminded of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s alt-rebel games maker; Allegra Geller, in David Cronenberg’s greasy Existenz (1999). The film's main conceit should of course prod viewers in the way of Frankenstein (1931), but Transcendance doesn’t even have the scenery chewing mania of Kenneth Branagh’s 1994’s adaptation let alone the clean and simple terror of James Whale’s original. Transcendence talks a good game about the god in the machine, but forgets that the enjoyment of these stories is the hysteria and emotional response we gain from the folly of man. Sure looks nice though. 

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: Gravity

Year: 2013

Director: Alfonso Cuaron

Screenplay: Alfonso Cuaron, Jonas Cuaron

Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris

Synopsis is here:

What I write here is information you can take or leave. My reviews are not so much about “telling people what to watch”: a belief which that many people feel about the idea of reviewing and criticism.  No, I write to merely state a personal view on whether or not a film works on me based on my own values, prejudices and otherwise. If one shares similar attitudes, enjoys and agrees with me, that’s the humble reward for my so called work.

I mention this because I know not everyone will feel like I did about Gravity, but that's fine. I’m so often on an island when it comes to my film taste I’ve set up my own coconut selling store.  But I’m still naive to think that honesty is key and I wholeheartedly believe that Gravity is one of the most moving and life-affirming films I have ever witnessed.  Beyond the films slight narrative and unsurprising plot elements is a film that is simply breathtaking in its execution.

Gravity not only squeezes tension out of each minute of its runtime, giving full weight to the hostile environment these characters inhabit and displaying their fragility, but the film, like others of Cuaron’s, grounds the film with a heart that pulsates it’s humanity on the screen. Cuaron notes his intentions with small visual cues (note the religious artefacts set up almost like a gag), but the ground work is done here by Sandra Bullock.  An actress whom I’ve never really given my full attention (although I love her work in Demolition Man), blind sides us with her powerfully expressive display. She has been formidable in her more expected roles, but here she has such forcefulness in her physical performance we realise that despite the thinness of character on the page, we understand her fears ad emotions by even just the slightness of gesture. Clooney’s work is mostly one of a voice of reason. Bullock not only does all the heavily lifting but does so with such astounding ease, it’s made me realise just how much I’ve been missing from her previous works.

With so many films asking inviting us to watch heroes save the world, what makes Gravity stand out is its wish to show somebody save themselves. The film roams in the same realms of the likes of Buried and Cast Away, but Gravity’s setting, performance and direction invigorates the dynamic. We see Earth, our planet; hovering in the distance in such a way that you feel you could reach out to it. Yet it’s clearly so far away that it seems to taunt our characters, mocking our frailty. When we see what may happen to Bullock’s Ryan, we get the very real feeling of the risks she must take and the enormous effort she will need in order to survive. I watched the film in 3D and marvelled at how the filmmakers use it to illustrate the depth and dimension of the infinite. This is the first time that I did not muck around with the glasses. I found myself too enthralled with the film and what I felt it was saying. Matt Zoller Seitz states the film evoked the imagery of The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), I was reminded of the imagery of Bergman with close up’s that staring into the void. Searching for meaning within a seemingly hopless existance I found myself so into the headspace of Ryan, I asked the same questions that she asks herself. Unlike many other films of its type I’m not looking at the mechanics, scientific inaccuracies aside, this feels organic. When films get like this, we been to fret for the character in a unique way. We don’t called the actors name, we call out for the character themselves. I muttered to myself at least three times.

This was the effect Gravity had on me. My popcorn sat uneaten and my fizzy pop was left, going flat.  I created new creases on the inside of my jeans at each new set piece.  There are moments of humour in Gravity but often I didn't laugh. I was trying to regulate my breathing. Terror has never been so alluring, so beautiful and yet by the end I found myself moved by the experience. Its technical prowess is there for all to see (many have asked how did they achieve what they did) but beyond that is a simply tale of morality that shook me to the core. This year has been a tough one for me and took these 90 minutes to reinstall a faith in me that has been missing for quite a while. We all find ourselves staring into the blackness, Gravity confronted our (read: my) fears in a way only a few other films have. As I said before, not everyone is going to feel the same way about Gravity and that’s fine. I fully get if you came here for a normal film review and came across ponderous nonsense. You can take or leave the information. I will say that after the film finished I walked home I did so in silence. I refrained from jamming my headphones in my ears. The heavens opened and I listened to the patter of the rain on the ground as I walked. During the 30 minute journey I didn't mind getting wet. I was just happy to be alive.

Review: Riddick

Review: Riddick

Year: 2013

Director: David Twohy

Screenplay: David Twohy

Starring: Vin Diesel, Katee Sackhoff

Synopsis is here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: The World's End

Year: 2013
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright
Starring; Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsden, Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike

Synopsis is here

I loved The World’s End not just because it features my delightful hometown of High Wycombe*. That was an added bonus. No I loved The World’s End because as a Wright/Pegg/Frost fan, I felt the trio’s final “Cornetto Trilogy” entry may not their most quotable. It is however, their most mature in terms of theme. In terms of getting their man children to grow up, they don’t entirely pack away all their toys. But there’s a clear growth in their writing and craft that stands out throughout this sci-fi pub crawl.

I noticed the intent straight away when we are introduced to our lead character Gary King (Pegg) whose development is even more arrested than 2004’s Shaun. No video games or dead end jobs here. There’s not even a girlfriend who’s sick and tired of his shtick. King honestly believes that his life will not be complete until he and his friends finish what they started nearly twenty years ago. A 12 pint pub crawl around their old hometown haunts. His reluctant friends think otherwise but give him the benefit of the doubt. Upon arriving back however, they realise some humanity threatening differences have occurred.

Wrapped in its sci-fi shell is a film that amusingly illustrates where its characters, creators and core audience are now. Approaching or at the wrong side of 30, The World’s End looks at how these three groups are trying to fit into a changing and ever connected world. Both Shaun and Hot Fuzz (2007) also touched upon this with their love for anti-establishment rebels. However the focus here is sharper. Mostly because King and his crew, like their creators are now a little more lived in. The World’s End is their biggest dig at modern age conformity. King’s friends all married and safe, half realised dreams now monotonous facts and figures. Even today’s chain pubs, which all look the same, get tarred with the same brush. The indictment of this is wry. That this condense, overly plugged in world is strangling the character out of us. Not an original thought, but one happily reconstructed with a keen British eye and endearing love for the sci-fi which came before it.

Wright, Pegg and Frost once again reference the living hell out of the film. We see nods to The Day the World Stood Still (1951), The Stepford Wives (1975), They Live (1988), The Omen (1976) and quite possibly Stakeland (2010). Of course the largest reference is Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978), which is observed not just in the visuals, but the subtext. Like all good sci-fi; The Worlds End is all about humanity, and much like the aforementioned Body Snatchers, The Worlds End broadly tackles discrimination with a knowing wink which only these three could provide.

It's a pity that despite this The World's End is a very "white" film considering of its subject matter. I found it particularly interesting how Gary King, despite being quite an unlikable character is treated against the likes of the council estate hero Moses from Joe Cornish’s Attack the Block. Both fight or humanity’s right to be and their own individualism yet it seem that Gary can easily be brushed off as a lovable rouge despite his shady past. Problematic opening sequence aside, it seemed that John Boyega’s Moses has a larger uphill battle to win an audience over despite Gary’s age and history. Whether this has anything to do with class representation, or the general audience reliability to The World’s End actors/writers would be an interesting subject to delve into. Mostly because I believe Boyega sells the drama and complex nature of Moses better than Pegg does with King. I must also add that Shaun of the Dead’s Kate Ashfield still provides strongest female role of the Cornetto Trilogy, with Rosemound Pike having very little to do. In fact; the lack of Jessica Hynes (actress and writing partner on Wright and Pegg’s Spaced) has now become more noticeable. A Daisy Steiner isn’t needed within the film’s framework, but if I saw one, I would appreciate it. These are however mere observations over outright negative criticisms of the material. It’s hard not to get mad at a film which not only has beautifully choreographed fight sequences (the bathroom scene is inspired), but a film that litters its fight scenes with WWE moves. It’s those touches that endear me to the Trio’s work.

With all this talk, I forgot to add that I actually found the film funny. Choc-full of actual gags (please note all you U.S ad libbers), witty one-liners and an amusing main conceit (End of humanity? Of Course we Brits would be at the pub!) , the film does more to satirise male fears in one scene than all three Hangover movies. I know of one or friends who are quite possibly sick of the sight of Pegg and Frost. I however, still get a kick out of their antics. Pegg; whose has grown to become a star in his own right, often feels a little naked without Frost and it was warming to see the two together with none of the chemistry lost.  

For me; The World’s End is quite simply high calibre action sci-fi with fluid action set pieces and trademark word play that made Pegg and Frost a household name to so many. I doubt this will do anything to turn non fans but those who have been with the trio since spaced should enjoy the final trip into the blood and Ice Cream world.

Review: Star Trek into Darkness

Year: 2013
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood, Paul Weller, Alice Eve

Synopsis is here

At least one film academic or critic is bound to be a little perturbed by the opening of JJ Abrams’ space rock opera in which an action sequence involving a tribe of "native" aliens begin to hail praise and worship on the enterprise with its corn fed, all American boy captain. Things only become odder when we delve deeper into this second summer package of the revamped star fleet. Particularly as much of the film relies on concepts of this group of explorers becoming more heavily armed to combat what looks for be an impending war. It's obvious that the filmmakers are not making any profound commentary such moments. Thinking about the 2009 entry, I'm reminded at how well race was displayed. But believe me when I say this, someone will say something.

That aside, I was far too happy to see what would happen to these next to care too much about such moments. Star Trek displayed enough love for the original series that it did not feel like a smash and grab number. It did so with a jazzed up, youthful but well picked cast that really held everything in place. The banter put in place along with the timing of the cast were of course half the fun of such a film. This new Star Trek was less about diplomacy as it was for trying to put a zing in mainstream summer blockbuster viewing. So here comes the difficult second album. Star Trek set the bar quite high as a piece of fluffy fun and now, its sequel "into Darkness" now has the job of either levelling for exceeding expectations.

For me, I found there to be something underwhelming about this recent venture. Something not sitting right as   I sat stuffing popcorn into my face (could be the reason). Four years ago, Star Trek was a shiny and glossy thrill ride. However; while Abrams hasn't changed too much to the proceedings, he doesn't make the evolutionary jump I had expected. The small lull I felt in the first film has expanded here. After a beguiling start which looks set to match the leap into chaos we found with The Dark Knight, I found myself more than a little distracted with the films second act. If it wasn't bogging you down with plot (not all of it feels needed) then it's slapping you around the face with another frustrating to follow action sequence.

Much of the film feels more about its loud bangs than its large characters. If not for the forcefulness of the films villain,  the film could have really lost its way. It's hard not to enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch as he expertly demoralises his foes with the utterance of one word. However, he is nearly lost amidst all the pulling of the strings the script and Abrams must do. An example is Alice Eve, who seems to be rivalling Rebecca Hall as most unfortunate bright young actress in a big blockbuster with little to do. When the film resets its focus upon the couples and groupings which made the 2009 entry what it was, the sparkle comes back.

As I've said before, I'm no TV Star Trek fan so this no fanboy rant or retort. However, it does feel that Abrams has missed a trick slightly, giving us a villain that really ups the stakes but nearly forgetting some of the essence that makes John Harrison such an interesting prospect. There's still some fun stuff here, with Abrams and Co still having fun poking in and around Star Trek lore and the final act having a decent emotional payoff. But all in all, the film feels more than a little overblown. Here's hoping that Abrams regains a bit of composure for the third entry. 

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: Sound of my Voice

Year: 2012
Director: Zal Batmanglij
Screenplay: Zal Batmanglij, Brit Marling
Starring: Brit Marling, Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius

Synopsis is here:

There is a certain something that peaked and kept my interest about Sound of my Voice. I think much of it stemmed from Brit Marling's unnerving performance as a leader of a pseudo-scientific basement cult. Her role as Maggie is a charismatic one in a similar way to John Hawkes' role in Martha Marcy May Marlene. Their soft spoken voices are laced with a sensuality that makes it very easy to understand why young intelligent people, fall deeply under their charms. The waif like Marling isn't some drop dead stunning starlet, but there is a temping allure in her voice that attracts you to her. You want to tell her secrets. When one character exclaims that their partner gets an emotional orgasm when speaking to her, it doesn't sound as absurd as when written on paper. The reason why cults are so scary is that they seduce the mind. The body falls quickly afterwards.

Oh, if only all of the movie was as enthralling as this. Sound of my voice gets you going with a teasing prospect and then leaves you by the way side. Part of the problem is that compared to other recent movies about cults, it doesn't have the energy. Compare this to the aforementioned Martha Marcy May Marlene, and you realise that the performances of the protagonists just aren't up to scratch. Place it side by side next to The Master, and you see that no scene matches the same kind of intensity or foreboding. Some scenes ignite interest, some drag, but at least the film gets points for reaching. I didn't find myself as distanced as I did in Martha Marcy May Marlene. Maybe because it didn't feel as much as an exercise.

Unlike the Manson folk edge of Martha Marcy May Marlene, and the Scientology leanings of The Master,   Sound of my Voice seems to take a more direct sci-fi route, which may remind some the Heaven's Gate cult.   Our protagonists infiltrate the group in order to try and make a feature film exposing it. The leader; Maggie, claims that she is a sickly time traveller, who is preparing them for an upcoming "event" that will reshape the earth radically. The group meet up repeatedly and prepare with cleansing rituals, purging "intellectual bullshit" metaphorically through spewing up apples and other oddball exercises which remind me slightly of the episode of Peep Show where Mark joins the Rainbow Rhythms dance class to try and pull Sophie. There's a more than a small amount of silliness about one or two of the exercises, however, they do help show just how deep these people are involved and how willing. A scene in which our male lead, Peter, is subtlety broken down by Maggie is a pivotal and telling one. Maggie's ability to say just the right things to stimulate him is quietly troubling.

Unfortunately, it's not surprising, as the route in which our leads go, is telegraphed quite quickly. The scenes between them do little to elevate the story emotionally, mostly because while these characters are vulnerable, they're not particularly interesting. The film lacks the forcefulness that comes into play in other cult movies. Because of this, it imbalances the films climax, I didn't actually mind but yearned for more punch. If only everything was as compelling as Marling. A co-writer of the film, it feels a little like she wrote the best parts for herself.

Review: Looper

Year: 2012
Director: Rian Johnson
Screenplay: Rian Johnson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels

Synopsis is here:

I've more than enjoyed the films of Rian Johnson in the past but always felt in the back of my mind, that he was a filmmaker who was very quick to show that he has smarts. Brick had its Filmore-equse high school noir plot and jargon, The Brothers Bloom was a breezy heist movie that almost felt too light on the con itself and that may have over done the quirk. To say his movies have limited appeal is incorrect, however, as much as I've taken pleasure from Johnson's movies, I've not been surprised that the fan base has been quite niche.

Looper is Johnson's most pleasurable film, and its interesting that it takes the twists and turns of sci-fi and time travel to supply his most emotionally satisfying tale. The film holds a clear understanding of genre, a well constructed world and a hearty grip of the mechanics.  Johnson toys with the dynamic, but not enough to distance, and not lightly enough to make it feel gimmicky. All the elements of the story are utilised and it's focus on character create a thrilling and surprisingly affecting update to La jetee and 12 monkeys. Those who want all the detailed minutia to play out can watch Primer. Looper is more likened to Source Code, in that everything is built well enough to wrap the viewer up into the pace and bluster of it all.

Johnson still keeps his brow raised slightly, using a constant ticking clock motif and cyclical nature of the sci-fi at hand to create an engrossing backdrop that contrasts the three main character motivations. We have a young buck preoccupied by only his future goals, a hardened old man, blinded by the pain of his past and a juvenile right at the tipping point of his life. Johnson strategically plays these characters against age old themes of sacrifice and the ideal that our actions may help a greater good in deeper ways that we even know. 

Bruce Willis is not at all new to what's playing out (see 12 Monkeys) and gives that that credible world weariness that we now know him for. Joseph Gordon Levitt has a more burdensome role, having to play a more intolarent version of the same character and as well as mimic Willis from a physical preceptive. He doesn't fully look the part but there're moments in which Levitt is doing more than an effective impression. Emily Blunt is the emotional anchor of the film and puts in a bankable performance, although elements of her relationship with Levitt could have been stronger on the screen. Piper Perabo, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels provide solid support.

The film stumbles in it's middle act. We have quite a few characters and suddenly lumped with more background to get through and this all effects the main charge of it all. However, the film get itself in gear for a very impactful climax, which balances the scale of the implications with what we've learnt from the character during the story. Johnson's film has a great time travel hook,and a solidly believable world to place it in (I love the eye drop drugs and solar car ideas) but what makes Looper such an enjoyable watch is that Johnson keeps an eye on the human element, something that good sci-fi should nearly always do.