Friday, 24 April 2015

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.




Thursday, 23 April 2015

Review: The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Year: 2015
Director: Joss Whedon
Screenplay: Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan SkarsgÄrd, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here:

I found Age of Ultron to be a bit of an oddity. It’s a film in which, like a Chris Nolan feature, piles on a heavy amount of exposition and characters explaining themselves in the simplest of terms. Yet when watching the likes of Inception (2010) or The Dark Knight Rises (2012), I always find myself quite satisfied with those film’s final acts. I found myself befuddled by the last third of Age of Ultron. Near the very Tony Stark devises an improvised plan to save the world, and the other Avengers comply and react accordingly. Yet once our heroes put the plan into action, I can’t say I was able to follow it.

It’s difficult to explain. I “got” what was happening in the overall sense. However, I found myself staring at the screen glassy eyed through most of the film's finale. Then again, I felt that for much of the films slightly clunky action set pieces. I never fully got with the rhythm of the film. Joss does well to balance Age of Ultron as much as he can. This is no simple task. Whedon does manage to inform the movie with a decent sense of scale (it certainly feels bulkier and more substantial than the other Phase Two features). However, the vast array of characters and the tricky issue of what to do with them all, is starting to show. I’m not surprised the film concludes in the way it does.

All this makes it sounds like I sat in the cinema with a permanent grimace on my face. Far from it. Age of Ultron excels in its character beats and developments. Whedon’s screenplay gives the likes of Thor permission become more ponderous and investigative. Hawkeye is allowed to become the human heart at the center of the team. An unlikely romance blossoms between characters and it’s not only the most remarkable element, but also the sweetest. I’m not surprised that Whedon’s character beats are the most effective aspects of the film. As someone who limited their consumption of film’s buzz and marketing to only the trailers, it didn’t shock me in the slightest that the quieter, less excitable scenes, are the ones I was drawn to.

Whedon’s sense of humour has not succumbed to the same fatigue I’ve had for superhero movies as whole (thanks constant hype!). The screenplay's punchlines and witticisms push the film along at a lively pace. Whedon also gets the best out of the cast. Both returning and newcomers. Elizabeth Oslon (Scarlet Witch) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Quicksilver) gives far more ample performances than they did in Godzilla (2014). Original heroes Pine, Downley Jr and Ruffalo, all come out the blocks fighting. Johansson, Hemsworth and Renner have the chance to show the most growth and do so with gusto. James Spader gives a delightfully quirky performance as Ultron, the A.I. with a god complex. As with Avengers Assemble (2012), Marvel’s most entertaining villains appear to be saved for this sector of its cinematic universe.

It’s a shame that the film’s narrative buckles under the sheer weight of everyone involved. I’ve not mentioned all the returning supporting cast, new characters and other characters who’ve appeared in other Marvel films and are returning. Everyone is fighting for space and it shows. Two major plot revelations occur and did little to elevate the heartbeat. It doesn’t help that every blog and film site did their best to eliminate any element of surprise. However, there’s just not enough time for everyone to breathe. I’m sure there’s a few comic fans who are happy to see everyone stuffed into the films 141 minutes. But I did find myself contemplating how well established, some characters were compared to others. After reading just how hard Whedon worked in the cutting of the film to give it a sense of order, you realise just how well he’s done to keep all the plates spinning.


Yep. It still sounds like I have too many misgivings. But honestly, watching Iron Man don hulkbusting amour and go toe to toe with the green giant is a huge bunch of fun. As is the musings of Ultron in general. There’s still much to unpack in Age of Ultron. It does seem that I’ll be leaving that to the hardcore fanboy audience. Age of Ultron didn’t leave me with an immediate wish to watch it again like the first film. But I did leave with enough of a smile on my face. 

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

EPISODE 25 - Child 44, The Last Five Years, Woman in Gold - 22.4.15

itunes pic
Dan Taylor hosts and is joined by guest Leslie Byron Pitt to talk the new trailers of Star Wars: The Force Awakens & Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, the UK Box Office Top Ten, and give their thoughts on the weeks new movies including: Tom Hardy's dark drama CHILD 44... Anna Kendrick in THE LAST FIVE YEARS... And finally WOMAN IN GOLD, which teams Helen Mirren & Ryan Reynolds...

from Black Hole Cinema http://ift.tt/1Hn5oRV
via IFTTT

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Article: Double No Seven: Ruminations on a Black Bond

By Leslie Byron Pitt

One of the most recent things that’s irked me has been the needless chatter about a Black James Bond. When the ramblings of Idris Alba being considered as a possible contender for Bond when Daniel Craig hung up his Walther PP7, I pretty much ignored them. As I do with so many film rumours these days. There’s never any groundings in such talk. When I used to podcast with My friend Iain, we drastically altered our “News” section as we began to find populist film sites and blogs to become cluttered with obnoxious clickbait. Whatever people thought of our Cast, we quickly realised didn’t really wish to be a part of the rumour circle jerk. We found ourselves trying to dig for more interesting conversation pieces. The black Bond Idea had me burrowing once again. Searching for film talk that’s I would find far more interesting.

Despite quieting down slightly, I found that, once again the maddening talk and so called “controversy” bubbling to the surface. Former Bond star Roger Moore had himself branded as racist when voicing his views. While Yaphet Kotto, previously a Bond Villian (and still the only black one) was suddenly found back in the news when asked how he felt about the matter

I dread to read what the comments are like on these type of articles. When a precious 50 year old franchise appears to be threatened by the horrible cloud of multi-culturalism, suddenly allow seemingly normal minded people spew their inner Alf Garnett all over their keyboards. Despite this, I too have reservations about the idea of a Black James Bond. Of course, it’s not out of any bizarre patriotic pride (for the most part). So even though Mr Alba has quelled the fire by taking his name out of the hat. I still feel I must stand up and lip off about this subject. Because the internet.

Maturity

Part of the reason, I don’t wish for a Black Bond is down to the aforementioned comment threads. I find it astonishing just how quickly things like this can turn the country into a Springfield-like mob mentality. These days, when something doesn’t go our way, no matter what it may be, people sprint to the internet to inform others that such and such is not going their way. Like a huge global interconnected network mother, the internet merrily facilitates our nonsense. I mean, hey, look at what I’m doing now.

I was previously working in Customer Service, and the angry customers first port of call was to inform me that they will be “spreading their complaint on the internet” in order to get what they want. Even if it was their fault. The same thing occurs now in the media that we consume. Not in the now quint way in which we observed Trekkies write in on mass to save the ailing show. But in a childish, petty way as they feel that creatives only allowed to listen to the audiences entitled ass.

Although the mission statement has been altered somewhat, the Daniel Craig is not Bond site still remains. It has now achieved the original boycott plans, but remains a vivid testament to how we as viewers over react when threatened with change.

If we’re not organising virtual sit-ins and expecting them to go viral. Look at how we insult people who do not agree with us:





This “debate” over the UKIP manifesto continued with Mr Bunker (Yeah, we get the reference) claiming that his first response was not racist and continuing to ask about whether the entire manifesto was read. Unfortunately the insipid way this gentleman launched into infantile conflict first as opposed to engaging cultural journalist Musa Okwonga like a grown adult, not only obviously negates further response, but speaks volumes of how many look at not just the political process. This type of juvenile outburst happens a thousand times a day to so many people, famous or otherwise. It suggests to me one thing: If this is the maturity that we look at political discourse, imagine the intelligent discussion we’d have about a Black Bond. As stated before, I dread to read the comment boards.

As much as Mr Elba would get many women drooling, Britain as a whole doesn’t appear to be mature enough to deal with even the idea of a Black Bond. I still live in a world in which black men are considered thugs and criminals by proxy in real life. Britain still sells middle class white period drama as it screws its face at post colonialism and multi-culturalism. It was only in the 60’s that landlords only had No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish signs. Just look at how the media now use Katie Hopkins as a conduit for foreign policy. Labelling immigrants as vermin and not giving a toss if they die. I mean, that’s basically what Bond does anyway, but can you imagine idea of having a Black British characterisation of this? Many can. For completely the wrong reasons. 

I don’t honestly think such long standing British franchise where man fights for Queen and Country can have a Black Lead fit in snugly. I’m sure the BBC still gains complaints when they dare try and arrange EastEnders to appear more like the how the East End actually looks.

The Culture

As we’re talking about the British audience and their culture. Do I, as a young black individual need to see a black male playing the blunt killing instrument that Bond is? Do I need that prickly feeling that occurs when the audience agree that's all we, as black males, can be?  This same audience that takes Al Murrays Landlord a tad too seriously? It's hard to see a something like a Black Bond when we live in a country who’s far too quick to bemoan the volume of foreign players in its Top football league and not consider the structurally weak coaching system in place when its national team suffers. At its best, British culture and entertainment and our processing of it, provokes, challenges and triumphs. At its worst, it struggles to connect the dots.

I say this because slapping in a Black Bond is the kind of annoying liberal quick fix that agitates feelings rather than provide any real progression. For instance; I'm never really surprised that these kind of conversations constantly circle around what a white audience thinks, rather than a black one. A white audience who is very quick to inform black people how to feel about racial issues. Once again, consider social media and those lovely comment pages. Yes, Black actors get asked about Bond, and who would say no to wanting to play 007? It makes for a nice soundbite and of course an actor has got to eat so they would be delighted to be offered a multi film deal such as that one. 

Me as a viewer, however, has always been ok with a White Bond, as have my parents who introduced me to the film series. My Dad’s favourite is Thunderball. He is incorrect. That aside, neither parents have ever been clamouring for a drastic change in the character. The argument, of course, is that a Black Bond would be for a younger culture. However, I personally find that ever since my first Bond movie at the cinema (Goldeneye), I’ve always found it amusing that Bond is a relic of sorts. A Black Bond is the type of sexy upgrade that negates the history of the character, which includes the books and their liberal sprinkling of racism. I don’t really want that forgotten. In fact I’d rather it be remembered so we as a culture can come to terms with just how tolerant Britain actually is.

Badass Digest writer Phil Noble Jr rightly reminds us that: “Bond was a power fantasy for an empire in decline.” I’m actually quite happy to agree with him there. I was never surprised when the likes of Jason Bourne, had the men behind Bond pull up their bootstraps and look into make the series tick again. Yet even in Skyfall, the most recent entry, the film, while very enjoyable, still had to battle against the traditional aspects that make Bond what he is. Even in Goldeneye, M was considering him a dinosaur. I’m not sure we need to see a black actor mixed up in this particular tar pit.

Let’s not forget that a Black Bond doesn’t just mean a change of colour, it also means that there would most likely be an alteration of culture as well. Changes that would provide some fascinating dynamics, but would mostly cause more problems than anything else. The overwhelming whiteness of those behind the camera. An audience, who was ready to contemplate mob rule over a BLONDE Bond. The economical hedge bets by nervous execs if such changes were to occur. It seems like a needless headache.

Of course, all this pondering means nothing to a large grasp of an audience who would possibly respond with a nonchalant shrug before a loud groaning of “IT’S ONLY A MOVIE!” And yes that would be the nicest response. Yet it’s the jumbo geeks and uber fans that will moan louder and become more disruptive with it. Is there any point of trying to place any action towards this kind of conversation, when studios are still struggling with minorities within other genres and roles? Should a studio such as Sony, whose had far more troublesome worries in recent times, fight a consistently unsatisfied audience over another controversy?   

I mean, who does this choice honestly serve? The idea of a Black Bond doesn't excite me as a Black British viewer as much a new circle of black directors. A Black Bond or five BAME writers allowed to create new exciting scripts? Give me a couple more black producers who can get projects off the ground. These things are far more important to me as a viewer. It’s better to hold wealth than to be rich. A Black Bond could possibly give us a spot of richness. The things I have just mentioned would head us towards wealth.

A Future?

Of course, if we really need more ethnic minorities playing in this universe, would it kill the studios to have a Felix Leiter spin off? I’d happily buy tickets to an espionage thriller with Jeffrey Wright as the lead. It could be stylish, possibly more cerebral and could play well as not only an unconventional choice, but as an original product based only slightly on existing material.

The annoying thing about Bond, with the rights being owned by Sony, we face a bigger problem than Race. We see Bonds British culture in its cast and crew and location of Pinewood. Yet profits flow back to the U.S. Think about that. How British are these films anymore in the most basic sense?  Before we start mucking around with race, it would be nice for Britian to look towards gaining a decent sense of film culture (not dominated by Hollywood) and a fully functioning film industry in Britain which doesn’t live so precariously via tenuous links once more. With the lower budget British gangster film doing well for British film (which happily displays a solid sense of diversity) wouldn’t it be nice if a forward thinking bright sparks could look towards building similar models before evolving the system? I may be a ridiculous idealist, but imagine if we were able to grow such models. In my rose tinted vision, we wouldn’t need to bother the Sony behemoth, because we could have something else to look forward to. If however, we actually do achieve the right amount of harmony to have a Black Bond, with a well written new history and an open minded audience...Chiwetel Ejiofor?

Monday, 20 April 2015

Review: Child 44

Director: Daniel Espinosa
Screenplay: Richard Price
Starring: Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Noomi Rapace, Joel Kinnaman, Paddy Considine, Jason Clarke, Vincent Cassel

Synopsis is here:

I often find myself getting into conversations of adaptation, with a good friend of mine whose and avid consumer of books and film. Our talks usually debate about how a film can keep hold of the book's spirit. It can never be the book. It’s not that medium, nor should it aspire to be. Not every element can make the translation. Filmmakers must traipse through the difficult task of pruning and trimming in order to gain the right fruits for the film to bear. Child 44 is a film in which clearly somebody wanted all the fruits to grow. Due to this there’s far much to pick. It is then when we yield rotten berries.

A telling review of the novel by Angus Macqueen, hints the story’s commercial aspirations, but also describes the writer Tom Rob Smith’s desire to encompass so much of Stalin’s Russia into the fiction, that it becomes difficult to take the book too seriously. While I cannot fully pass judgement on the novel. I can say that it’s hard not to feel similarly about the film.

Child 44 is quite simply a thriller that doesn’t thrill. It alludes to richness by placing forth a multitude of sub-plots, but does little to give them decent resolutions. It suggests relationships with depth, but does little to build on them. The film suffers from the same irritation that comes with Michael Bay’s Transformer Movies, in which length is believed to be a decent substitute for scale. The film's setting and historical background should provide intrigue. Yet this is clouded by drab conversations in dubious faux Russian accents and multiple scenes which grind the pace of the film to halt. Moments which should be revelations, never build to the vital discoveries the film purports them to be. This is mainly because the film never allows such moments to breathe. The elements of the overstuffed narrative come across just as cumbersome as the films clunky action set pieces. The film’s climax ends up in a muddy quagmire, which amused me, as this is how I felt about the piece in general.


Directed by Daniel Espinosa (Easy Money) is more than capable of crafting taut, commercial thrillers. Safe House (2012) is a solid example of that. Here, however, his talents seemed bogged down by a predictable screenplay (a rare misfire from scribe Richard Price), which holds a truckload of moving parts. Despite the valiant efforts of its brooding cast, so many of the film's characters feel on the periphery of the narrative. There’s a nagging feeling that one or two players had more moments left on the cutting room floor. Then again, this could have made Child 44 possibly longer. Which for myself, could have been more torture than being sent to a gulag. A contrived line? Perhaps. But no more than what Child 44 deserves. For the same price of a ticket, you could purchase Fritz Lang’s excellent M (1931) on Blu Ray, which not only deals with similar issues better, but is nearly 30 minutes shorter. The value of economy, eh?