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: Mama

Year: 2013
Director: Andres Muschietti
Screenplay: Andres Muschietti, Barbara Muschietti, Neil Cross 
Starring: Jesscia Chastain, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, 

Synopsis is here:

Mama is no reinvention of the horror wheel and I didn't expect it to be. To be honest I was happy enough to see this, along a few other titles, giving more attention to more "old school" tactics as opposed to the gore on the floor sightings of recent times. In fact, just the simple act of placing the economic crash of 2008 within the narrative, gives the film a framework, that similar films often wouldn't bother about. Even though such an event can date a film, Mama is at least interesting enough to claim that such occurrence would allow desperation to seep into households.

Such anguish sets the tone well for Mama, which like it's fellow stable mate Don't be Afraid of the Dark (Both hold Guillermo del Toro as Executive Producer), weaves a sad (yet patchy) fable of lost children at the hands of broken adults both past and present. An awkward info dump informs us that a ghost is an emotion, bent out of shape and doomed to repeat its mistakes again and again. The film's strength is that it knows what makes these ghost stories so appealing. If only more horror films tapped into their more human sides.

The film has its head screwed within the first two thirds, drip feeding us simple yet satisfyingly creepy moments. A static shot of Annabel (Chastain) doing the chores completely unaware of the disturbing occurrence inches away is a delight. As always, the less we see, the more perturbed we are about the whole experience and as we slowly learn more, we also chip away at the lead characters tough exterior. It's easy to see where the arc of this rebel rocker chick is going (it's a film call Mama and we see her reluctant for babies from the get-go) but Chastain is so balanced in the role she makes it engaging, even when you (or the jealous paranormal entity) wish to throttle her.

However, as is the case with all many of this type of affair, once the film lays all its cards on the table, we realise that the hand wasn't as strong as we first expected. Sub-plots fizzle out and the final reveal of Mama herself is less fearful than desired. Annoyingly Mama's final third is frustrating and loses much of the films good will from before. That said Mama should be a decent enough one watch for first dates so they can snuggle up together and see some extreme problems when it comes to child rearing. 

Review: Stoker

Year: 2013
Director: Chan-wook Park
Screenplay: Wentworth Miller
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman, Jacki Weaver 

Synopsis is here

In my opinion, Stoker makes Kim Jee-woon's mediocre actioner, The Last Stand even more of a bust than I had previously considered. The bullish and assured direction that is shown scene after scene in Stoker, tells me that nothing was lost in translation with this piece of work. Everything that needed to be placed on screen is there for all to see. No transgression is diluted, no scratch left to itch, just a grubby psychosexual thriller that seeps under the skin.

For me, a lot of the unease I felt comes from the heady brew of vulnerability, hormones and identity crisis I felt for the lead character of India; a young girl who loses her father (and best friend) in a tragic turn of events (on her 18th birthday). Her closest male bond broken, we see her fragile nature come to the fore. Symbolised with a simple egg cracking scene, we quickly see the damage take it's toll. There's no help from the mothers side (an on form Kidman), she's too far gone. It seems a void needs to filled.

Once again, we're thrown back into the Southern Gothic (see also Beautiful Creatures, Killer Joe, Beasts of the Southern Wild) where the landscape is melodramatic and senses and emotions are heightened. The humid haze of the south appears to be the perfect sandbox for the likes of Park, whose production is drenched with rich, scrumptious detail and a near unbearable foreboding tone.

The fashion in which Charlie trickles into the lives of both mother and daughter is intoxicating. Manipulating with an emotional wrought mother with drives and cooking is one thing. But the intellectual seduction of India is laced with such terse sense of danger. To have such incestuous intimacy is taboo enough, however, the grave stench of necrosis that Charlie brings with him only ramps up the tension. Particularly as India, a girl now becoming aware of her own sexuality seems she may have a penchant for the dark. A piano sequence delights in it's deviousness.  

Some have detailed how much of Stoker feels derivative, particularly as it's writer Wentworth Miller (Prison Break) borrowed liberally from sources such as Dracula (see the title) and Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt for the screenplay. Clearly I see their point, and yet there's something so forceful about the how the images are display that I bypassed such things. Elsewhere; Mia Wasikowska hits the right balance of angst, while Matthew Goode brings the similar sense of menace that Robert Mitchum held in The Night of the Hunter (1955). Kidman's portrayal of damaged goods is a sly reminder of how good she can be with the right material. Watching the mind games unravel may not be surprising to some, but I found them consistently engaging.  

With the so called summer films begin to seek out other months to grab hold of the all mighty dollar, I thank goodness for the likes of Stoker still being allowed to be made and brought to theatres. With so much cinema focused on the pockets of teenage boys (things that go boom), I am still fascinated in the many movies that invest in adolescent girls even when they are not the audience. They have been recently the focal point of the likes of Winter's Bone (2010), Whip It (2011), Hanna (2011) and Excision (2012). Please don't mistake my shock as debasement in anyway. I just find a certain depiction of the teenage girl to be an exceptionally defining image within the movies I watch. The brew of vulnerability, sense of identity, guts and hormones nearly always bring involving and entertaining stories. I add Stoker to the pile. 

Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

Year: 2013
Director: John Moore
Screenplay: Skip Woods
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney 


Synopsis is Pointless

Certain friends of mine will know of my abnormal anger towards The Omen 666 (2006), in which I labelled at the time: "the worst film I've ever seen". I was so incensed that I launched into a torrid tirade of abuse about the film, it's sleepwalking characters, subpar scares and lack of any drama before storming out of the cinema fit of rage. Looking back, I overreacted for dramatic effect and looked like a bellend. If I had acted now as I did then, I reckon some clever dick would have filmed it on their phone, and I could have gone viral.   

Seven years have passed, and I've become older, wiser and slightly mellower (Although my podcast co-host may say otherwise). Over these years of further film viewing and reflection, I released that while John Moore's version of The Omen may not be the worst film in the entirety of cinema, that screening marked a point in where Hollywood's crass, cynical view on us as "consumers of product" hit a peak within me. I had seen through the looking glass and found a film with absolutely no heart behind it's conception. This was my Alien 3. A film only made because of a date (released on the 6th of June 2006), rather out of any shed of artistic value or integrity. There are many that will not agree with my opinion on the film, while there are others that will be quick to inform me of other such contemptuous cinematic products before or since. That's fine, but I'm sure every film viewer has their "moments" and this was one of mine. 

Such an act of competent yet soulless filmmaking has forever marred my view of the movies director. I have avoided John Moore movies for the simple fact that much like how many see the Len Wiseman's and Brett Ratners of the world, I see Moore as simply a "jobber" director. A man who can handle a crew, set and cast well enough to bring in whatever script is shoved in front of him. So what you get is an action film with Bruce Willis as lead and Die Hard in the title, but not a Die Hard film. 

You see, time is of the essence and the studio need something with Die Hard in the title to make money over the Valentine's Day weekend. Valentines Day? For Die Hard? Yes, for you see it looks clear to me that one or two people didn't have as much faith in this fifth entry as the original, which was of course a summer blockbuster. Like The Last Stand and Bullet to the Head, it seems that the golden oldies may not rake in what they used to when compared to the superhero kings of the present box office. If I'm correct, then it's very easy to see why this Die Hard film has been release in the cold harsh dead zone of February as opposed to challenging for the title of king of summer.

A Good Day to Die Hard is a mess of an action movie. A barrage of near pointless, unintelligible set-pieces melded together with little more of a dental floss thin amount of plot holding it together. Skip Wood's mangled screenplay has little to no care as to what makes it's lead character so appealing in the first place. We remember not only the action beats of the original film, but the affability of John McClane himself. A workaday cop in the wrong place at the wrong time, his intimate chats with fellow cop Al, and his strained but affectionate relationship with his wife displayed his vulnerability. The original film further highlighted this with its simple moment of having McClane walk barefooted on cracked glass. Much like Spielberg and Lucas' Indy, this man was just like us, we wanted him to get through this. That wasn't just "80's sensibilities" or the like; it was just decent building of character.

Now we have a John McClane who is more like a high street bank than your average Joe. This guy is simply too big fail. Watching Willis going through the motions, with no emotion, surviving everything like a bald Terminator is heartbreaking. There's little risk and the stakes are incredibly low this time round as the screenplay pathetically tries to tie everything together in a gabbled plot that cares just as much about it's ludicrous (and blatantly obvious) double crosses and dullard villains than making John McClane the unfortunate hero his once was.

So we come back to Moore, a hired gun who directs to do a job. In football terms he is a utility player of film maker. Here he works with the sketchy template give to him and does little to inject the same verve found in other action films let alone Die Hard movies. We are quickly shoved into a incomprehensible car chase sequence and the film never lets up. The crashes and bangs rapidly begin to bore because neither the film’s director nor screenplay care about any nuance towards its story or character, it merely wants us to see Willis survive near death experiences repeatedly while referencing unearned homage’s to not only Die Hard films, but other films in Willis body of work. 

But this is the issue with film-makers who don't seem to regard history with any importance. Standing on the shoulders of giants with disregard to the foundation, frequent hark backs to wittier films is one thing, but it's annoyingly inane handing of Russia also shows that Americas old enemy deserves more than this, even in films. This even lacks the camp get up found in the likes of Salt and Hanna. Then again despite how one may feel of those films, Directors Phillip Noyce and Joe Wright respect us enough to try and tell a story. John Moore's Die Hard has been created merely to show up on time. It's Alien 3 and The Omen 666 all over again.  

I decided to watch this instead of watching my football team (Arsenal) lose yet again against formidable opponents (Bayern Munich). This could be consider sacrilege, but as a fan, you know when your beat. You also know when you need a utility player, an ugly piece of work to is only there to fill a hold and do a job. They don't belong in this franchise. Die Hard started off as a star striker. Relegation may beckon.

Cinematic Dramatic 4x22 - Not A Good Day To Die Hard

The Dramatics are about to discover that a bad day can really make a bad movie in the case of the fifth Die Hard outing. It really isn't A Good Day to Die Hard. Maybe Warm Bodies can ease the pain....



via GeekPlanetOnline: Cinematic Dramatic http://www.geekplanetonline.com/hosting/originals/dramatic/?p=episode&name=2013-02-25_cinematic_dramatic_4x22__a_good_day_to_die_hard.mp3 Unfortunately, you will have to copy and paste the link to listen or use the handy links on the side!