Year: 2011 (U.K Release 2012)
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenplay: Diablo Cody
Starring: Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt, Patrick Wilson
Synopsis is here
I found myself quite shocked at the quite lacklustre amount of London cinemas screening Young Adult. Despite a decent amount of buzz, awards and great reviews, the film only seemed to open in one or two places. In fact, bizarrely, it looked easier to watch the film outside of London than inside, with both of the shire areas (Bucks and Cambs) that I frequent, not only having cinemas showing the movie, but a decent amount of screenings in each.
I actually found myself, more shocked at the cinema situation, than Young Adult itself. The film is somewhat unconventional, with its lead performances, and has a roguish charm that comes through many of the scenes. Yet, by the end of it, much like Martha Marcy May Marline, I was only moderately satisfied. I have no issue with settling in with selfish, unlikable characters, but with Young Adult, I got the feeling that it said everything it needed to say quite quickly, and I had no other reason to stay.
The film follows the same route as previous Reitman features. We are given a character who is independent or at least believes they are, who when challenged, look for solace in al the wrong places. Reitman's film finds the same beats he's hit before and Diabio Cody returns (their previous collaboration being Juno) to play upon the same arrested development notes that did so well before. Only this time the vessel is a 37 year old mega bitch as opposed to a 17 year old snaky teen.
The character of Mavis is more than a little difficult to get to grips with, but not without a certain appeal. A deluded creature, trapped in a bizarre womb of bad reality T.V shows, diet coke breakfasts and doomed nostalgia. Much like so much of our culture recently, she is completely fixated on her perception of the past and will not let go of her childish, self serving attitudes of her childhood. Credit is due to Theron as she attacks the material ferociously, and accentuates the bitterness that such a person would hold on to. Her partner in crime, is Patton Oswalt whose Matt Freehauf is equally as damaged and regressed and the films sharpness is highlighted best in the scenes between the two.
There is a bitter-sweet nature to the whole of proceedings that litters many of the films scenes. A lunchtime scene scene at Mavis' parents has her seemingly serious cry for help laughed off, while Matt's telling line of "guys like me are born loving women like you" is one that should ring true to many a nerdy male ear. But the film's final third feels a little detached, as if it was hinting towards something before turning it's back. The films final coda gives the clear notion that while Mavis' arc must end on a pitch that leaves some warm and fuzzy feelings left in the belly. Although if we ignore the voice over and look at Mavis' banged up mini for metaphor then life may take circular turn.
All in all, the film is quite simply not greater than the sum of it's parts. Reitman is not known for his visuals and does an OK job, but nothing helps the movie stand out. Theron and Oswalt show true quality in their displays, while Patrick Wilson puts in another shift as Mr J Bloggs. Cody's screenplay has bite but doesn't have the killer payoff to leave you reeling. This said the film will make you laugh and shift uncomfortably in your seat. It's just that, if your like me you may only have to see it once.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Review: Chronicle
Year: 2012
Director: Josh Trank
Screenplay: Max Landis
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, and Alex Russell
Warning: I will not be too specific about certain plot elements, however, spoilers are bound.
Synopsis is here
Chronicle is great fun. In fact at times it's pretty awesome. I mean this in the traditional definition, as opposed to the casual modern trend. The films spectacle actually brought forth a certain amount of amazement. I was in no way expecting it. Particularly from a film, which had only been described to me as "the found footage superhero movie". Such quick branding is correct but almost gives a disservice to a film which confidently melds elements of Superman, Spideman, Cloverfield, and Ginger Snaps (or maybe the breakfast club) into one entertaining mass.
It follows the typical beats of the super hero movie, but it doesn't feel derivative. Far from it. If Cloverfield was to tailor fit Godzilla for the YouTube generation, then Chronicle feels like the extremely snug super hero costume for the same people. Establishing the characters quickly and solidly, the film does well to try and combat the some of the issues that come with the found footage sub-genre. We are given a withdrawn character; Andrew (DeHaan) who decides to place his focus into documenting what he can see, if nothing else for himself. It's clear that it keeps him occupied from all the tragic elements that haunt his life. He states that; it "creates a barrier", between himself and what's happening within him and the other characters. Not only does it help detail the obsession with filming, but you can sense the trouble brewing from such statements.
But before then, we see and sense the fun. As these three fast friends, discover an artefact that given them extraordinary powers, we watch them jerk about with them in a way that only teens would. In a way that we would in the same circumstance. They learn and discover more and we are reminded of that same thrill that Peter Parker had in Spiderman. While it doesn't have the same exhilaration that Tobey Maguire infused, when he first got bitten by that bitch of a spider, it's still in the same ballpark.
Yet, in the same way we would lark about if we had powers (if only I could control gravity), Chronicle realises it's that real life would get in the way just easily. As the trios powers grow, so do their issues. The film cleverly mirrors adolescence and home problems with the increasing abilities. Andrew whose background is already shrouded in darkness (dying mother, booze father) begins to fall into his own egoism.
The philosophical aspects of Schopenhauer, briefly noted in the beginning of the film start to come into play and the tension and spectacle rises. To quote Nietzsche: "If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." Andrew seems to be staring more intently than Anakin.
The film rolls at a great pace, with deeper characterisation and better story telling than bigger films within the same genre. It's almost embarrassing looking at how effective this movie is in comparison to the likes of The Green Lantern, which could struggled to even establish why we should be watching Ryan Reynolds making huge green fists. The effects are not up to Transformers standard, but the investment of what's going on allows us to overlook this. Chronicle does build to an effective and power crescendo which bypassed my admittedly low expectations and provided something that was really quite thrilling.
It's not without it's flaws. The film, like many found footage features, can't full shake off the restraints of the sub-genre. It's clear to see when the film is providing us with establishing shots that wouldn't be part of the characters concern. The film's final third is greatly entertaining but also forgets at times it's meant to be user utilized content. Also, some of the plot points not only has a distinct smell of the magical negro, but also highlight a small issue with some of the mechanics of the film.
For the most part however, Chronicle sets it's sights as a film that could gain cult status. It plays with superhero story effectively and is solidly entertaining throughout. The makers of all the next generation of upcoming comic adaptations, could do little harm with checking out what this does right.
Director: Josh Trank
Screenplay: Max Landis
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, and Alex Russell
Warning: I will not be too specific about certain plot elements, however, spoilers are bound.
Synopsis is here
Chronicle is great fun. In fact at times it's pretty awesome. I mean this in the traditional definition, as opposed to the casual modern trend. The films spectacle actually brought forth a certain amount of amazement. I was in no way expecting it. Particularly from a film, which had only been described to me as "the found footage superhero movie". Such quick branding is correct but almost gives a disservice to a film which confidently melds elements of Superman, Spideman, Cloverfield, and Ginger Snaps (or maybe the breakfast club) into one entertaining mass.
It follows the typical beats of the super hero movie, but it doesn't feel derivative. Far from it. If Cloverfield was to tailor fit Godzilla for the YouTube generation, then Chronicle feels like the extremely snug super hero costume for the same people. Establishing the characters quickly and solidly, the film does well to try and combat the some of the issues that come with the found footage sub-genre. We are given a withdrawn character; Andrew (DeHaan) who decides to place his focus into documenting what he can see, if nothing else for himself. It's clear that it keeps him occupied from all the tragic elements that haunt his life. He states that; it "creates a barrier", between himself and what's happening within him and the other characters. Not only does it help detail the obsession with filming, but you can sense the trouble brewing from such statements.
But before then, we see and sense the fun. As these three fast friends, discover an artefact that given them extraordinary powers, we watch them jerk about with them in a way that only teens would. In a way that we would in the same circumstance. They learn and discover more and we are reminded of that same thrill that Peter Parker had in Spiderman. While it doesn't have the same exhilaration that Tobey Maguire infused, when he first got bitten by that bitch of a spider, it's still in the same ballpark.
Yet, in the same way we would lark about if we had powers (if only I could control gravity), Chronicle realises it's that real life would get in the way just easily. As the trios powers grow, so do their issues. The film cleverly mirrors adolescence and home problems with the increasing abilities. Andrew whose background is already shrouded in darkness (dying mother, booze father) begins to fall into his own egoism.
The philosophical aspects of Schopenhauer, briefly noted in the beginning of the film start to come into play and the tension and spectacle rises. To quote Nietzsche: "If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." Andrew seems to be staring more intently than Anakin.
The film rolls at a great pace, with deeper characterisation and better story telling than bigger films within the same genre. It's almost embarrassing looking at how effective this movie is in comparison to the likes of The Green Lantern, which could struggled to even establish why we should be watching Ryan Reynolds making huge green fists. The effects are not up to Transformers standard, but the investment of what's going on allows us to overlook this. Chronicle does build to an effective and power crescendo which bypassed my admittedly low expectations and provided something that was really quite thrilling.
It's not without it's flaws. The film, like many found footage features, can't full shake off the restraints of the sub-genre. It's clear to see when the film is providing us with establishing shots that wouldn't be part of the characters concern. The film's final third is greatly entertaining but also forgets at times it's meant to be user utilized content. Also, some of the plot points not only has a distinct smell of the magical negro, but also highlight a small issue with some of the mechanics of the film.
For the most part however, Chronicle sets it's sights as a film that could gain cult status. It plays with superhero story effectively and is solidly entertaining throughout. The makers of all the next generation of upcoming comic adaptations, could do little harm with checking out what this does right.
Review: Martha Marcy May Marlene
Review: 2011 ( U.K release 2012)
Director: Sean Durkin
Screenplay: Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olson, John Hawkes
Synopsis is here:
I have all the respect in the world for Sean Durkin, the writer/director of Martha Marcy May Marlene. It's an original screenplay of a premise that you don't see that often. It is a wonderfully accomplished feature début from a technical standpoint, with some striking photography and match cuts. The central performance from Elizabeth Olson shows that she certainly looks like someone whose career looks worth following. It's not that it's a bad film in any real way. But I kept asking myself, why does it feel so inconsequential?
Personally; I wanted more, and while that's not really the films fault, I did find myself underwhelmed with it all. The films ambiguous ending that should leave chills up the spine only left me cold and limp. The whole day I've asked why is that?
It's not for the films lack of trying. Far from it. In fact there's many aspects of the film I admired. Martha, an unreliable protagonist ebbs in and out of a timeline that is shattered as much as her memory. She has no awareness of the time that's passed and neither do we as we are thrown back and forth through isolated moments, highlighting not only the confusion, but the paranoia of the situation. As the movie unravels and we slowly gain a certain amount of sense as to what happened to this poor girls situation, we realise the danger that the girl is in and how damaged she really is. The fact that Martha cannot fathom the differences between the sexual free for all aspects of the cult and swimming naked around her sisters house (where children maybe present) quietly illustrate how broken down her barriers are in the beginning.
This is not a film to show Roman Polanski, as the shades of Charles Manson and the Sharon Tate murders (as well as aspects of the Children of God) are rampant, even if unintentional. The farm that this new age cult have taken up has that same insidious intent hidden behind incoherent hippie babble and false smiles. The leader; Patrick (John Hawkes), is a master of subtle manipulation. Lovebombing and grooming his followers, Patrick comes across as everything such vulnerable and lost young people would cling to. Once emotionally deteriorated we see hints of what he wishes to mould them into.
I love the idea of all this and I find myself attracted to films like that with such lost characters such as Martha. However, any emotion found in the appears to fade as quickly she remembers them. There are hints at something deeper and more involving, but I just couldn't get past the surface. While we don't need overtly explicit scenes in a film like this, Durkin's film held me at a distance that was a touch too far too investing into anything other than a passing fancy.
The nightmares and tension almost reach a befitting climax, but at the expense of a film that hasn't really built up the pace for them. Hawkes and Olson win out on the strength of their performances and the film generates a troubling aura when the two are together. However, in the end it just doesn't do enough to be as memorable as I felt it could be. It doesn't help that after watching films like Jonestown which documents cults at their very worst, you remember that real life always has a way of reminding you that it's always scarier.
Director: Sean Durkin
Screenplay: Sean Durkin
Starring: Elizabeth Olson, John Hawkes
Synopsis is here:
I have all the respect in the world for Sean Durkin, the writer/director of Martha Marcy May Marlene. It's an original screenplay of a premise that you don't see that often. It is a wonderfully accomplished feature début from a technical standpoint, with some striking photography and match cuts. The central performance from Elizabeth Olson shows that she certainly looks like someone whose career looks worth following. It's not that it's a bad film in any real way. But I kept asking myself, why does it feel so inconsequential?
Personally; I wanted more, and while that's not really the films fault, I did find myself underwhelmed with it all. The films ambiguous ending that should leave chills up the spine only left me cold and limp. The whole day I've asked why is that?
It's not for the films lack of trying. Far from it. In fact there's many aspects of the film I admired. Martha, an unreliable protagonist ebbs in and out of a timeline that is shattered as much as her memory. She has no awareness of the time that's passed and neither do we as we are thrown back and forth through isolated moments, highlighting not only the confusion, but the paranoia of the situation. As the movie unravels and we slowly gain a certain amount of sense as to what happened to this poor girls situation, we realise the danger that the girl is in and how damaged she really is. The fact that Martha cannot fathom the differences between the sexual free for all aspects of the cult and swimming naked around her sisters house (where children maybe present) quietly illustrate how broken down her barriers are in the beginning.
This is not a film to show Roman Polanski, as the shades of Charles Manson and the Sharon Tate murders (as well as aspects of the Children of God) are rampant, even if unintentional. The farm that this new age cult have taken up has that same insidious intent hidden behind incoherent hippie babble and false smiles. The leader; Patrick (John Hawkes), is a master of subtle manipulation. Lovebombing and grooming his followers, Patrick comes across as everything such vulnerable and lost young people would cling to. Once emotionally deteriorated we see hints of what he wishes to mould them into.
I love the idea of all this and I find myself attracted to films like that with such lost characters such as Martha. However, any emotion found in the appears to fade as quickly she remembers them. There are hints at something deeper and more involving, but I just couldn't get past the surface. While we don't need overtly explicit scenes in a film like this, Durkin's film held me at a distance that was a touch too far too investing into anything other than a passing fancy.
The nightmares and tension almost reach a befitting climax, but at the expense of a film that hasn't really built up the pace for them. Hawkes and Olson win out on the strength of their performances and the film generates a troubling aura when the two are together. However, in the end it just doesn't do enough to be as memorable as I felt it could be. It doesn't help that after watching films like Jonestown which documents cults at their very worst, you remember that real life always has a way of reminding you that it's always scarier.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Review: The Grey
Year: 2012
Director: Joe Carnahan
Screenplay: Joe Carnahan, Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Starring Liam Neeson
Synopsis is here
Joe Carnaham is a director I have time for but find myself at a loss with his recent movies. I missed his debut feature Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane but found his second feature Narc immensely enjoyable. The A Team and Smoking Aces are high energy distraction pieces that do what they're meant to do and nothing more, but I always have the feeling that they could have been more memorable. Right now, I cannot for the life me tell you anything that happened in those films.
For me I get the feeling that with those films, that while the budget got bigger, the focus seemed to sway slightly. So much "stuff" had to be packed into Aces and A Team, that when it starts spewing out, you don't know what to put your attention. The A Team; with it's nostalgia monkey on it's back, reminded me why I enjoyed The Losers more. While Aces, was a mass ensemble piece that had a lot of names in the cast, but didn't spend any real time with them. A frustration as when Carnaham does allow his characters to breathe (Narc) he gets something out of them. The final aspects of Smoking Aces featuring Ryan Reynolds' character hint at something the film never really looked at wanting to achieve.
With that in mind we come to The Grey, a pared down nature action thriller; which, could have been leaner, but doesn't pull back with it's punches. Canaham's film (which at times borrow tropes from the horror genre) works because it cares about the plight at hand as opposed to filling the feature with trivial flash.
Such a stripping of gimmicky reminds us that Carnaham is an appealing director visually. He and cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi kept me on my toes with the stark beauty of the Alaskan backdrop. they capture the near hopelessness that these men will face. When bad things happen (and they do, often) Carnahams camera doesn't look away, instead it lingers on the pain unflinchingly. A scene featuring Neeson giving clam to a dying moments after the plane crash is grim and uncompromising. At times I found the film difficult to watch, in the way a good horror film should be.
However, other times the film is difficult to watch because of haphazard editing. Action sequences featuring The Greys main threat; the wolves, are choppy, awkward and hard to decipher. in fact those scenes (while featuring some effect jump scares) are really mangled close lumps of flesh and cgi. The film works better when the focal point is firmly placed on the men, and the clam before the storm. The mirrored balance of the gang of rouges and the animal hunters that trail them bring out some of the best moments of the film.
The characters involved aren't complex at all but it's the actors that are cast that give them the humanity that's needed. We are told that these men are men that are unfit for mankind. To drop them in such extreme conditions, we witness what spurs them on and what drives them. Small, tender things, many stemming from their relationships with women or family. That their alpha male machismo is not only threatened by such forces of nature but asks them to relate back to such softer moments, hint at the difficult contradictions of masculinity that Narc probed at times. Liam Neeson; a man whose been kicking ass and taking names since 1990 (Darkman) brings the grounded leadership and awareness that such a role needs, while Frank Grillo provides sufficient conflict in the human ranks.
I'm not the best when it comes to Man vs Nature features. In fact my copy of Southern Comfort is still in my cupboard unwrapped, I haven't seen Deliverance in years and The River Wild has never pipped my interests. But The Grey is the perfect type of feature to see out a chilly January. Canaham's retreat back to what made him a worthwhile prospect, that human aspect, makes us want to stand by these characters through the harshness of the terrain in front of them.
Director: Joe Carnahan
Screenplay: Joe Carnahan, Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Starring Liam Neeson
Synopsis is here
Joe Carnaham is a director I have time for but find myself at a loss with his recent movies. I missed his debut feature Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane but found his second feature Narc immensely enjoyable. The A Team and Smoking Aces are high energy distraction pieces that do what they're meant to do and nothing more, but I always have the feeling that they could have been more memorable. Right now, I cannot for the life me tell you anything that happened in those films.
For me I get the feeling that with those films, that while the budget got bigger, the focus seemed to sway slightly. So much "stuff" had to be packed into Aces and A Team, that when it starts spewing out, you don't know what to put your attention. The A Team; with it's nostalgia monkey on it's back, reminded me why I enjoyed The Losers more. While Aces, was a mass ensemble piece that had a lot of names in the cast, but didn't spend any real time with them. A frustration as when Carnaham does allow his characters to breathe (Narc) he gets something out of them. The final aspects of Smoking Aces featuring Ryan Reynolds' character hint at something the film never really looked at wanting to achieve.
With that in mind we come to The Grey, a pared down nature action thriller; which, could have been leaner, but doesn't pull back with it's punches. Canaham's film (which at times borrow tropes from the horror genre) works because it cares about the plight at hand as opposed to filling the feature with trivial flash.
Such a stripping of gimmicky reminds us that Carnaham is an appealing director visually. He and cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi kept me on my toes with the stark beauty of the Alaskan backdrop. they capture the near hopelessness that these men will face. When bad things happen (and they do, often) Carnahams camera doesn't look away, instead it lingers on the pain unflinchingly. A scene featuring Neeson giving clam to a dying moments after the plane crash is grim and uncompromising. At times I found the film difficult to watch, in the way a good horror film should be.
However, other times the film is difficult to watch because of haphazard editing. Action sequences featuring The Greys main threat; the wolves, are choppy, awkward and hard to decipher. in fact those scenes (while featuring some effect jump scares) are really mangled close lumps of flesh and cgi. The film works better when the focal point is firmly placed on the men, and the clam before the storm. The mirrored balance of the gang of rouges and the animal hunters that trail them bring out some of the best moments of the film.
The characters involved aren't complex at all but it's the actors that are cast that give them the humanity that's needed. We are told that these men are men that are unfit for mankind. To drop them in such extreme conditions, we witness what spurs them on and what drives them. Small, tender things, many stemming from their relationships with women or family. That their alpha male machismo is not only threatened by such forces of nature but asks them to relate back to such softer moments, hint at the difficult contradictions of masculinity that Narc probed at times. Liam Neeson; a man whose been kicking ass and taking names since 1990 (Darkman) brings the grounded leadership and awareness that such a role needs, while Frank Grillo provides sufficient conflict in the human ranks.
I'm not the best when it comes to Man vs Nature features. In fact my copy of Southern Comfort is still in my cupboard unwrapped, I haven't seen Deliverance in years and The River Wild has never pipped my interests. But The Grey is the perfect type of feature to see out a chilly January. Canaham's retreat back to what made him a worthwhile prospect, that human aspect, makes us want to stand by these characters through the harshness of the terrain in front of them.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Review: The Descendants
Year: 2011 (UK Wide Release: 2012)
Director: Alexander Payne
Screenplay: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash, Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller
Synopsis is here:
It is said on The Descendants IMDB trivia page, that George Clooney went for the role of the womanising Jack in Alexander Payne's last movie, Sideways. Payne decided ultimately that the role should go to someone lesser known (Thomas Haden Church). In my view, it worked. I wasn't distracted by any stardom at all and Church pulled off a fine performance that combines well with Paul Giamatti's sadsack Miles, and won an Oscar nomination to boot.
Seven years on, and Clooney finally gets his chance to work with Payne in The Descendants, a dysfunctional family feature, which judging by the material and Payne's previous work (Election, About Schmidt), should be a clear bread and butter deal for all involved.
However, The Descendants; a film full of great small moments, gorgeous photography and a superb supporting cast filled with bright young things (Shailene Woodley) and wiley veterans of the game (Robert Forster on brilliant form) is lacking somewhat. For me the reason appears to be Clooney.
I'm not against George Clooney in the slightest, I think that he is an movie star that; much like Tom Cruise, is treated with ignorance because they do not often fall upon gimmicky quirks and do not give the same types of performances that you expect from seasoned character actors. When they are given something in which their charm and charisma are give a chance to show prominence (Clooney - Out of Sight, Cruise - Magnolia), they really do excel in the role. Here Clooney tries his hardest to pull off something more workaday, more everyman and while he still manages to pull off a few nice moments, he feels like he's trying to squeeze into a role that is marginally too tight for him. It just didn't fit right with me.
It doesn't help when everyone else is wonderfully cast and clearly have their game faces on. Woodley and to a lesser extent Amara Miller play the two sisters of Clooney's Matt King with just the right balance and pitch. They're not brats, merely difficult children dropped into a complicated situation. They act out accordingly, and there's a subtle sense of growth with Woodley's performance that really stands out. Elsewhere, Robert Forster is knocks an emotional monologue right out the park. So much so, that it's still the strongest scene I remember, hours after watching the film. Perfectly capturing the complexities of the issue at hand.
But it's scenes like this that stand out the most in Payne's film. The opening narration reminds us that just because people live in "paradise" doesn't mean they experience it. It doesn't make the pain any less real. This awkward and convoluted situation only seems to be made worse as these characters are painted against the beautiful backdrop of Hawaii. The opening shot is of a close up woman beaming happily as she rides the waves in the motorboat which causes her unfortunate accident and the upcoming chain of events. This is the only time we actually see her concious, as the coma she is placed in not only renders her silent, but creates an enigma around her as we witness all the characters react with each other due to what they know and what they don't.
This is where the film works best, and why the moments with Forster and Woodley are so affecting in their own way. We see such an overview of this woman in the films 115 running time that when we see their responses to the grief we warm to them. But it's strangely why Clooney didn't hit the spots with me. As the film goes on, I don't sense the weight or burden on his shoulders. Such a role would be difficult to cast and even harder to put across on screen. Clooney, whose managed to lose himself in roles (Syriana, his work with the Coen's), is just slightly off key. He doesn't feel so much Matt King, more Clooney trying to schlub up.
But it's hard to be the everyman epicentre in a picture like this, with a screenplay that nails those private issues of family so well. Late on, we are given a line by Beau Bridges that reminds us that blood is only thicker than water when money isn't involved. The line rang so true, I scoffed louder than usual. But it is that what Payne does well. Next time, however he may wish to see what a lesser actor is up to.
Director: Alexander Payne
Screenplay: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash, Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller
Synopsis is here:
It is said on The Descendants IMDB trivia page, that George Clooney went for the role of the womanising Jack in Alexander Payne's last movie, Sideways. Payne decided ultimately that the role should go to someone lesser known (Thomas Haden Church). In my view, it worked. I wasn't distracted by any stardom at all and Church pulled off a fine performance that combines well with Paul Giamatti's sadsack Miles, and won an Oscar nomination to boot.
Seven years on, and Clooney finally gets his chance to work with Payne in The Descendants, a dysfunctional family feature, which judging by the material and Payne's previous work (Election, About Schmidt), should be a clear bread and butter deal for all involved.
However, The Descendants; a film full of great small moments, gorgeous photography and a superb supporting cast filled with bright young things (Shailene Woodley) and wiley veterans of the game (Robert Forster on brilliant form) is lacking somewhat. For me the reason appears to be Clooney.
I'm not against George Clooney in the slightest, I think that he is an movie star that; much like Tom Cruise, is treated with ignorance because they do not often fall upon gimmicky quirks and do not give the same types of performances that you expect from seasoned character actors. When they are given something in which their charm and charisma are give a chance to show prominence (Clooney - Out of Sight, Cruise - Magnolia), they really do excel in the role. Here Clooney tries his hardest to pull off something more workaday, more everyman and while he still manages to pull off a few nice moments, he feels like he's trying to squeeze into a role that is marginally too tight for him. It just didn't fit right with me.
It doesn't help when everyone else is wonderfully cast and clearly have their game faces on. Woodley and to a lesser extent Amara Miller play the two sisters of Clooney's Matt King with just the right balance and pitch. They're not brats, merely difficult children dropped into a complicated situation. They act out accordingly, and there's a subtle sense of growth with Woodley's performance that really stands out. Elsewhere, Robert Forster is knocks an emotional monologue right out the park. So much so, that it's still the strongest scene I remember, hours after watching the film. Perfectly capturing the complexities of the issue at hand.
But it's scenes like this that stand out the most in Payne's film. The opening narration reminds us that just because people live in "paradise" doesn't mean they experience it. It doesn't make the pain any less real. This awkward and convoluted situation only seems to be made worse as these characters are painted against the beautiful backdrop of Hawaii. The opening shot is of a close up woman beaming happily as she rides the waves in the motorboat which causes her unfortunate accident and the upcoming chain of events. This is the only time we actually see her concious, as the coma she is placed in not only renders her silent, but creates an enigma around her as we witness all the characters react with each other due to what they know and what they don't.
This is where the film works best, and why the moments with Forster and Woodley are so affecting in their own way. We see such an overview of this woman in the films 115 running time that when we see their responses to the grief we warm to them. But it's strangely why Clooney didn't hit the spots with me. As the film goes on, I don't sense the weight or burden on his shoulders. Such a role would be difficult to cast and even harder to put across on screen. Clooney, whose managed to lose himself in roles (Syriana, his work with the Coen's), is just slightly off key. He doesn't feel so much Matt King, more Clooney trying to schlub up.
But it's hard to be the everyman epicentre in a picture like this, with a screenplay that nails those private issues of family so well. Late on, we are given a line by Beau Bridges that reminds us that blood is only thicker than water when money isn't involved. The line rang so true, I scoffed louder than usual. But it is that what Payne does well. Next time, however he may wish to see what a lesser actor is up to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)