POST TENEBRAS LUX (Carlos Reygadas, 2012)

Posted on May 2, 2013 by MoodyB

post tenebras lux

Starring: Adolfo Jiménez Castro, Nathalie Acevedo, Willebaldo Torres

You may like this if you liked: To the Wonder (Terence Malick, 2012), The Banishment (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2007), Keane (Lodge Kerrigan, 2004)

Translating as Latin for “light after darkness”, Post Tenebras Lux is an unconventional story that centres on Juan (Castro) and his middle class family who have recently moved from the city to rural Mexico. With them we experience the stresses and strains of their relationship as well the inevitable conflicts that arise from a wealthy family moving into a huge house that is surrounded by many living in poverty. While we witness this we also witness flashes forward and backward to a school Rugby match in England, A sordid sex club for couples in a spa and an image of a red CGI satyr devil like creature walking through the couple’s house. We also witness a local AA club and its various members including a man referred to as ‘El Siete’ (Torres), a man with his own addiction and family problems that will ultimately become involved with the problems of Juan and his family.

The opening scene of Post Tenebras Lux is a child’s dream as they walk through a field as the sky gets ever darker; this is then followed by the CGI red devil like creature walking through the house. We already know we are not in for an easy ride in terms of narrative structure and conventional story telling. In my view, Post Tenebras Lux is one of those films that are a different experience meaning different things to different viewers. I therefore apologise in advance if I fail to actually review this film in a conventional way. Though I will start by stating that I personally thought it was a perfect example of deeply involving and thought provoking film making. I would also strongly recommend seeing this film at a cinema as the sound design is exceptional.

When it comes to films that perhaps require a degree of thought and attention, I just try to watch it with an open mind and try (with admitted difficulty) to avoid drawing any premature conclusions. For a film like Trance I never tried to second guess what was going to happen or the inevitable big twist. Whereas for To the Wonder I thought about what the story was about after I had seen the entire film and could analyse the narrative as a whole. For me, due to the ‘unconventional’ narrative of Post Tenebras Lux I just sat and watched trying to avoid interpreting anything. I tried to leave interpreting and analysing till when I could analyse the film as a whole as it would then make so much more sense. There are plenty of moments when you are a little unsure of whom anyone is and what is going on, so it is therefore best not to think too much about it and just take the information you are given. When the film has finished you are in a much stronger position to be aware of the context of every scene. This is particularly important for a film such as Post Tenebras Lux as it not so much about a clear A to B story, but themes and ideas that dominate the narrative.

Unfortunately the word ‘complex’ or when saying you ‘get’ a film are words banded about far too often for my liking. It feels that these days a vast majority of the human race like things labelled clearly and to fit neat and tidily into boxes. Films are most definitely no exception and when a film can’t quite fit nicely into some kind of category it seems people are almost scared of it. If a film does not have a nice tidy little conventional narrative a vast majority of people quickly label it as ‘pretentious’ or  ‘making no sense’ without even giving it a chance.

In my view Post Tenebras Lux is not a complicated film, it is unconventional in terms of narrative structure compared to a classical Hollywood narrative yes, but that is not the same as complicated. For me, this film just shows real people in everyday situations, with the occasional metaphor. For me there is actually nothing to, as people seem to say ‘get’. It is not about that at all, and that almost misses the point in my view and destroys what the director is trying to depict, especially as Post Tenebras Lux is apparently autobiographical.

We all have our own personal ideologies, philosophies and views on life. In my view, with a film like Post Tenebras Lux your own personal experience of it and one you get out of it depends on those ideologies. This idea can of course be applied to any film, but especially films like this which simply depict real life. All this film presents is non judgemental subjective depictions of real life situations, held together by a perhaps unconventional narrative. We see people do bad things, good things both to themselves and other people as well as animals and nature. However, they are just shown and never judged. It is therefore us the viewer that judges them with our own unique and personal set of ideologies and prejudices. This therefore makes the experience of the film and our own interpretation of what the film means being very personal and unique to every individual viewer. We are almost the protagonist and we may well have our own character arcs too as films can sometimes change certain views or perceptions we may have. Haneke is a perfect example of this with films such as Funny Games and Hidden where we the viewer is basically told off by the film.

In a film such as Post Tenebras Lux we are shown various characters from various socio economic backgrounds and thrown head first into their lives. We are given no information or introduction and we inevitably form our own opinions of them. We of course get some information as the narrative progresses but has our tendency to label people already influenced our opinions on certain characters? It almost feels to me that these days the average film viewer panics if they are not spoon fed all the necessary facts straight away. This once again leads to the complicated or ‘pretentious nonsense’ label. As I said earlier I try to just watch then interpret and analyse at the end.  Of course I am only human so some of my personal ideologies and views will inevitably affect my experience of the film.

If you have certain views on people or society then you will personally find that Post Tenebras Lux is basically about those views. How the phrase ‘light after darkness’ is applied to what happens within the narrative will indeed vary between viewers, just as what some of the metaphors perhaps mean. Maybe Reygadas has his own personal reasons for them being there but by producing a film of this structural nature he has produced a film is also personal for us. Some would argue the scenes not involving the couple have very little to do with the actual story of them, but it is the couple that is part of a bigger story. Also the story of the family and the story of El Siete are linked and theories as to why they are and how it refers to the title will I expect vary between viewers. This is once again proof of how film can be thought provoking and emotionally engaging as well a great source of debate. Indeed I am sure there are many that disagree with what I have just said (If so please tell me). I do find it both upsetting and disappointing that just because it is not ‘conventional’ (whatever that really is?), Post Tenebras Lux is labelled as complicated and therefore people are put off watching it. Art is about pushing boundaries and defying convention, being engaging and thought provoking and being open to interpretation. It seems that a vast majority of people just do not want film to do that anymore. Of course film is a source of entertainment and I know I will thoroughly enjoy Iron Man 3, but sometimes I feel it is important for a film to feel that little more personal.

My personal top 10 of 2012 included no blockbusters for the simple fact that as much as I thoroughly enjoyed many of them, they were simply instantly forgettable. Characters and situations that a viewer can personally relate to provide a thoroughly more involving and personal experience of watching a film, but it seems that anyone given a substantial budget is scared to even attempt this.

When I saw this at the cinema four people walked out. This was due to a particular scene that was very sexually explicit. It was also the only scene that was sexually explicit, but it was not there for the sake of it. Some may argue it added nothing to the narrative, and I admit that argument could be justified. However, the scene was uncomfortable and when taken into context served a purpose.

I once again apologise if this may perhaps not be a comprehensive review, but at least I feel a little better! There are so many universal themes presented within the narrative: The ups and downs and the power struggles of a relationship, class, masculinity, sexual desires, jealousy, a child’s imagination, man’s relationship with animals and nature, alcoholism and addiction, greed and the shallow materialism of humans to name a few. We all have personal experience and personal opinions on these subjects and it is these that shape our experience of Post Tenebras Lux. This produces a very involving, personal and thought provoking experience.

Post Tenebras Lux can be described as ‘unconventional’ and I know will it will appeal not appeal to a vast majority of cinema goers. Admittedly it is not an easy watch at first and requires patience; however Post Tenebras Lux is a film I would recommend if you fancy something a little bit more personal and rewarding and I only I hope I have somehow done it some justice.

8/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Rants, World Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WHAT RICHARD DID (Lenny Abrahamson, 2012)

Posted on April 30, 2013 by MoodyB

what richard did

Starring: Jack Reynor, Roisin Murphy, Sam Keeley

You may like this if you liked: Shame (Steve McQueen, 2011), Tyrannosaur (Paddy Considine, 2011), This is England (Shane Meadows, 2006)

Dublin teenager Richard Karlsen seems to lead a perfect and privileged life. He is good looking, popular with everyone he knows and is set to go to a top university and play rugby at the highest level. When Richard begins a relationship with Lara (Murphy) an ex girlfriend of one of his rugby team mates, feelings of jealousy and paranoia start to appear in his previously unflappable temperament. At a party, a combination of heavy drinking and his insane jealousy lead to a chain of events that ends up in tragedy that shatters his life and the lives of those closest to him.

As soon as one character says to Richard “It seems you have everything planned out”, alarm bells immediately start to ring. In fact this film makes no secret that things will go wrong for our protagonist, and this is one of its strengths that produces a compelling film. There is a sense of dread hanging over the narrative like a dark cloud as we wait for something to go wrong. Despite the predictability I personally found this enhanced the emotional power as while watching everything going seemingly perfect for Richard the knowledge that it will all go wrong makes it only the more poignant. Though this is of course not exactly the most original storyline it still produces an authentic raw emotional power. When the inevitable tragedy occurs we are only poignantly reminded that as flawed creatures we all capable of finding ourselves in this situation.

After the accidental tragedy occurs the challenge for this film was always going to be to maintain a second half as strong as the first. I really liked Mean Creek but personally felt it didn’t really know how to end as strongly as it began. Thankfully this appears to be a director in charge of his film and the low key sombre realist tone is thankfully maintained throughout the narrative. The cinematography is very grey and it feels that the sun never actually shines in any scene, so perhaps not a good tourism advert for Ireland but it does add a cinematic quality in what otherwise does feel a tad like a TV drama. We do find ourselves genuinely feeling sympathy towards the protagonist and share the conflicted feelings that are destroying him. I won’t spoil how it ends, but I felt the plot developments were appropriate and handled very well.

I have read some reviews criticising the dialogue, I found the dialogue to be realistic and appropriate of how I think Dublin teenagers would speak. There are also some very impressive performances from the young cast which adds to the emotional involvement, we were all that age once and can certainly relate to the emotions they go through. Though this is no masterpiece, I felt this was a very solid drama depicting a perfectly possible everyday situation with integrity and honesty. At less than ninety minutes the film never feels flat or like it is just trying to be filler. Every scene is important and has a revelation of some kind about a certain character producing a very engaging experience. If you are looking for something to cheer you up then I would not recommend this, however if you are after a well made, thoughtful and poignant drama then I would recommend indeed finding out What Richard Did. Terrible pun – Sorry, but I couldn’t resist!

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

JACK REACHER (Christopher McQuarrie, 2012)

Posted on April 30, 2013 by MoodyB

jack reacher

Starring: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Richard Jenkins

You may like this if you liked: Alex Cross (Rob Cohen, 2012), Kiss the Girls (Gary Fleder, 1997), Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck, 2007)

Five innocent people are shot down by a trained sniper and due to plenty of what appear to be careless mistakes all the evidence points to one man, James Barr (Joseph Sikora) who the police swiftly arrest. The man protests his innocence and when asked to sign to say he is guilty simply writes ‘get Jack Reacher’. Seeing this on the news, Reacher (Cruise) arrives, however due to an attack in a police van the suspect is in a coma. Ex military but now a drifter, Reacher knows the man but is determined to put him down especially after a crime he committed while serving in the army but got off on a technicality. Reacher is forced to team up with Barr’s defence lawyer Helen (Pike) still determined to prove Barr’s guilt. Reacher is then shocked (though we aren’t) to realise that Barr is actually innocent and was set up, and Reacher and Helen must go deep to investigate why and by whom.

Oh Tom Cruise! Just like Tom Cruise Oblivion, before that we also had Tom Cruise Jack Reacher though admittedly that sounds very silly it is essentially true. His name is pretty much as big as the film title on the poster and as usual this film is all about him. It was a (not so) shocking revelation to realise that he was also the producer of this film. This is not a criticism as I am a big fan of Cruise and it is obvious that he is having a good time in his roles. This may well be of course because he is always centre of attention, Tropic Thunder a notable exception. Jack Reacher is once again a committed and fully focussed performance from Cruise and the fact everything is all about him is almost both what is good and bad about Jack Reacher. As this is a Tom Cruise film, I give an advanced warning that this has forced me to inevitably write basically a Tom Cruise review.

I have never read the books, but have heard very good things. I do however know that in the books Reacher is 6’5” and we all know that Cruise is a little shorter than that. I know this upset a few of the fans, but I find it irrelevant as book and film are different mediums and best not compared. This is most definitely the case if the book has been made into a Tom Cruise film. This is Tom’s character now and what he has produced is a very likeable, if slightly clichéd, antihero. I found this to be a very solid, entertaining and watchable thriller but no more than that. However, I don’t know how all the twists are presented within the book but I did find them all rather predictable within the film. The story itself is potentially interesting, but never particularly surprising. This unfortunately produces what does actually feel like a rather generic and very average thriller. Casting Werner Herzog as the villain was a masterstroke and one to please film connoisseurs. This may have been a cynical move to get film snobs who dislike to Tom Cruise to watch it, but I can only speculate on that one. Herzog is seriously under used, as are the rest of cast who all give solid performances. They all naturally play second fiddle to Cruise both in screen time and their character’s intelligence.

Now this brings us inevitably back to Cruise, he is obviously fully committed to this role and is desperately crying out to have a Dirty Harry type franchise on his hands. That may not happen as the box office performance was not spectacular. For me it was the presence of Cruise that made a very solid, but average and flat thriller just that little bit better. His obvious commitment, energy and enjoyment make the whole film so much more watchable and entertaining. Of course along with that also comes the fact that this does just feel like a two hour ego trip. It does feel that other characters are intentionally a little slow just to make Jack look that bit better, and he is of course charming, cocky, confident , has a great memory, is always one step ahead of everyone and every bullet misses him. This is all summed up no better than the cheesy voice over at the end which basically describes what a great guy Jack Reacher is. Despite this being a rather intentionally humourless film, I personally found it very funny. Cruise makes what would otherwise be quite dull and talky scenes infinitely more watchable in my view, simply because he acts like a kid at Christmas playing with his new toy. The cheesiness and sheer damn perfection of his character is so ridiculous it has to be laughed at. I know that there are plenty of people who do not like Tom Cruise, and my advice to those people is to simply avoid this film. If you dislike Tom Cruise then Jack Reacher will in no way change that sentiment and only enhance it. Cruise appears to have developed a good understanding with director McQuarrie (maybe because Cruise is the boss) and the action is all very slick and well handled. Though the final action sequence was perhaps a little too overlong and repetitive, and felt a little too much like the latest Call of Duty game.

Tom Cruise haters avoid, otherwise this is a cheesy and perfectly enjoyable thriller that is basically all about Tom Cruise. It is predictable and forgettable, but brought to life by Tom Cruise’ unique enthusiasm and energy. If you have a couple of hours to fill and want to be entertained but not particularly challenged then you could do far worse than Jack Reacher.

7/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BOXING DAY (Bernard Rose, 2012)

Posted on April 30, 2013 by MoodyB

boxing day

Starring: Danny Huston, Mathew Jacobs, Lisa Enos

You may like this if you liked: Uzak (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2002), The Straight Story (David Lynch, 1999), Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012)

Based on Master and Man, which was a short story by Tolstoy, Boxing Day centres on two characters Basil (Huston) and Nick (Jacobs). Basil is a property speculator who has been hit hard by the recession and has fallen on hard times. To the annoyance of his wife he sneaks out on Boxing Day to fly to Denver to view repossessed properties that he can buy and then sell for a huge profit. His chauffeur for the day is Nick, a recently divorced man with his own problems. The narrative then follows these two very different men as they drive around the harsh wintery Denver landscape and how their relationship develops.

I have never read the short story by Tolstoy that Boxing Day is based on. However, in my view as it is a modern interpretation the film should get its message across successfully without the viewer having read the source material. I felt that Boxing Day did just that, it is very bleak, but a compelling drama. It is maybe slightly clichéd that two completely different characters come to eventually depend on each other, but it is how that comes about what depends on just how clichéd it is. Everything is all handled in a very low key and subtle tone producing two very enduring and fascinating characters. I found myself wanting to like both characters and desperately wanting them to get on, credit has to go to both the actors and the screenplay for producing this feeling. The film may indeed sound boring, but it is far from it in my opinion as their exchanges of dialogue feel completely natural but never contrived or flat. The two protagonists simply demonstrate the flaws that we are all guilty of, and so are characters we can relate to and engage with. A vast majority of the film takes place in the car and the long takes and close up shots definitely add to the involving nature of the film. This film also uses the location to great effect, enhancing our engagement as the unforgiving wintery landscapes add to the shared feeling of desolation and isolation.

As the narrative enters the final third with a much darker and tragic tone I did feel the film lost its way slightly. The message the film is desperate to get across maybe feels a little forced, especially as it is pretty obvious what is going to happen. This does perhaps slightly undo some of the good work of the first two thirds, but as we have grown very fond of both characters this is forgivable. However the film never feels preachy in getting its moral message across which was always a risk. The running time is just about right too as what is essentially a very simple story is given enough time, as anymore would have descended into boring filler.

As a slow paced dialogue heavy film I know Boxing Day will not appeal to everyone, but I found it to be an extremely involving and personal drama/tragedy that was extremely watchable. It won’t change your life, but if you fancy watching something that requires a little bit of thought but is quite gentle, then I would most definitely recommend Boxing Day.

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

THE SWEENEY (Nick Love, 2012)

Posted on April 25, 2013 by MoodyB

the sweeney

Starring: Ray Winstone, Ben Drew, Hayley Atwell

You may like this if you liked: Taken 2 (Olivier Megaton, 2012), Outlaw (Nick Love, 2007), Harry Brown (Daniel Barber, 2009)

Lead by old school style DI Jack Reegan (Winstone), the flying squad get results by methods that could be described as possibly not within the rule book. Their methods come under increased scrutiny when DCI Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) is called to monitor them. In the following week a series of armed robberies also coincides with the re emergence of brilliant criminal mind and Reegan’s nemesis from yesteryear Francis Allen (Paul Anderson). To get to the bottom of what is going on Reegan and his team are forced to tear up the rule book (because they are obviously so cool) despite being under constant scrutiny from Lewis as well as their boss DCI Frank Hoskins (Damian Lewis). As the genius and extremely layered tagline says: ‘act like a criminal you to catch a criminal”, or some nonsense like that. Oh, and Reegan is also having an affair with DC Nancy Lewis (Atwell) who is a member of his team and wife of Lewis, just to add to the ‘plot’.

So, here we have yet another film that shares the title of a successful TV series, this one directed by Nick Love who doesn’t exactly have a glittering CV. Once again I am afraid to say this is simply a shameless marketing ploy and the only similarities between this and the series are the title and character names. I remember watching the series when I was younger and thoroughly enjoyed the urban-rough-around-the-edges-gritty-beefcake-unique-British-ness of it. The whole story of men responsible for the law but sometimes blurring the lines to get results is nothing new, but it worked. John Thaw and Dennis Waterman gave us likeable edgy characters; there was a genuine reason for what they did. Unfortunately here we are subjected to Ray Winstone, Ben Drew and co. calling everyone a slag and basically beating the crap out of anyone they think is a criminal. Oh yes, I just mentioned that Ben Drew is also in it didn’t I? It is very easy to forget as this film is all about Winstone. The original TV series was based around a watertight relationship between Reegan and Carter, filled with banter and mutual respect. This is pretty much about Reegan shouting at everyone, being a general arsehole and occasionally sitting around in his pants. This is a minor footnote, but these moments of Winstone in his pants show that there was potential here for an interesting story. These moments almost suggest a middle aged man facing his own mortality and the mortality of his out of date methods. But that never happens and would not happen in a film directed by Nick Love.

Now we have established that, and forgetting the TV series ever existed, does it work as a film on its own? It most certainly does not as The Sweeney is an absolutely terrible film in its own right. There is nothing redeeming about the characters or the film at all. In terms of the characters; I get the whole ‘cops who are mavericks and bend the rules to get results are cool’ nonsense, however this film goes way too far with that notion. The fact is they go way too far and unfortunately Reegan also steals some gold from the robbery they stop in the opening scene. This is not the best start and proves that once again Nick Love has missed the point. Just like in the god awful Outlaw, Nick Love has taken a good concept and blown it to smithereens, also in this case while getting Ray Winstone to constantly call it a “slag”! The horrific brutality and downright stealing just leads us to hate the characters we are supposed to side with. We are obviously supposed to dislike Lewis, but we cannot help but side with him as I found myself absolutely hating all the supposed ‘good guys’. I wanted them all to get sacked, go to prison or get killed as they were just terrible. Flawed protagonists are one thing, but they have to have some redeemable or likeable quality. They do not here which is not a particularly good basis for an action film. I like to think a degree in film studies taught me something!

The sheer brutality of our ‘heroes’ is one of the huge gaping plot holes as they would blatantly never get away with some of the things they do and we do not want them to. Oh yes, I just mentioned the word ‘plot’. Well, there isn’t really one. The developments in the final third are one part lazy and one part beyond comprehension. Maybe even the writers had given up at this point? When the final ‘action’ set piece is set in a caravan park apparently in Gravesend you know not to exactly expect epic things. Even the action in this film is awful; the (few) shootouts and (even fewer) chases are shoddily put together and as about intense as knitting. Not only are these characters terrible human beings, but they are also the worst detectives and the worst shots in the history of cop films. There are so many bullets and shots fired in random directions it goes beyond comical farce. Another thing to show how much of an absolute mess The Sweeney is is the cinematography. Throughout the narrative everything is in pale colours and appears very clean and futuristic, hardly fitting with the supposed ‘gritty’ theme. This was a very bizarre choice that is simply beyond comprehension. No it is not clever and an intentional contrast to the characters’ old school methods, before anyone even suggests that!

Oh yes, Reegan is having an affair with Nancy Lewis isn’t he? Well this mainly produces some embarrassing and cringe worthy scenes. There is one ‘dramatic’ scene which could have made great emotional impact, but it fails miserably making that ‘subplot’ all rather pointless as we simply cannot care by this point.

Or maybe of course, when everything I have said is considered, Nick Love is in fact a genius and I and everyone else have completely missed the point. The Sweeney is therefore maybe in fact one of the best spoofs in cinema history?!?

No.

So then, to sum it up: Terrible dialogue, terrible story, terrible action, terrible acting and terrible characters that all make Taken 2 feel like Othello. The Sweeney is a car crash of a film to be avoided at all costs, you slag!

2/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, British Films, Major Dissapointments, Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BEYOND THE HILLS (Cristian Mungiu, 2012)

Posted on April 24, 2013 by MoodyB

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Starring: Cosmina Stratan, Christina Flutur, Valeriu Andriuta You may like this if you liked: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungiu, 2008), Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2011), Biutiful (Alejandro Gonźalez Iñárritu, 2010) Inspired … Continue reading →

More Galleries | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

SINISTER (Scott Derrickson, 2012)

Posted on April 23, 2013 by MoodyB

sinister

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Juliet Rylance, Fred Dalton Thompson

You may like this if you liked: Insidious (James Wan, 2010), The Orphanage (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2007), The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002)

After a series of commercial failures, true crime writer Ellison Oswalt (Hawke) is desperate to write another hit. In his attempt to do so he decides to investigate how an entire family were massacred with the exception of the youngest daughter who disappeared. Unknown to the rest of his family, the house they have just moved to is the very house that it happened. One night he finds a box of old home movies complete with the camera to play them. They are all labelled including a year and all show different families being massacred. As Ellison investigates deeper, there may be a disturbing connection between all these murders. Meanwhile he is constantly haunted by visions and hallucinations within the house, is the house haunted? Is he going insane? Or is there something even darker lurking?

I have to state from the off here that I am not really a fan of horror films as I either tend to find them boring or silly. Over the top gore is just farcical but quite funny and all the films of this genre tend to have incredibly predictable and dull plots. I completely fail to understand how people find these films scary, true horror for me is psychological and subtle. I enjoyed Insidious as I thought it was solid and enjoyable enough, so I thought I would give this a go. One of the reasons I gave this a go was that the protagonist was played by a more dependable actor. In the same way that no one does self assurance like Denzel Washington, no one does angst ridden anxiety like Ethan Hawke. Here he does never disappoint with a committed turn, adding depth to what would usually be a generic and clichéd protagonist. I am also pleased to say that I found Sinister to be a solid and very watchable film.

The pacing is excellent and the tone is for more subtle horror. The plot builds slowly which adds interest into both the protagonist and more satisfaction as the plot develops. There are of course some jumpy moments, but the horror is more psychological and therefore requiring a little more intelligence and self control from the film maker. The infrequency of the jumpy moments leads to them being so much more effective. People will find this scary, and some of the scares are a little generic and contrived, but overall this is a very solid and watchable film. There was always a risk of smugness taking over the narrative, but it always keeps its feet on the ground. As revelations are made these are never over complicated for the sake of it and this demonstrates the film makers firmly in control of their film. Yes it does feel a little too polished, neat and tidy in terms of plot and cinematography, but it is a film that you know where you stand with. I find children to be genuinely creepy and sinister (no pun intended) creatures and is this is used to excellent effect. As the plot develops there are no brain melting twists, but this adds to re assuring feeling you get from watching it making it a good solid watch.

Solid acting, a solid story, solid pacing. Yes you guessed it: a solid and very watchable film. Turn off the lights, switch your brain off and enjoy.

5/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RUBY SPARKS (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, 2012)

Posted on April 23, 2013 by MoodyB

ruby sparks

Starring: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Annette Bening

You may like this if you liked: Stranger than Fiction (Marc Forster, 2006), The Science of Sleep (Michel Gondry, 2006), Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, 2006)

Calvin Weir-Fields (Dano) is a novelist whose debut novel that he wrote when 19 made him millions, however that was ten years ago and he has serious writers block. He also lives a lonely life with only his dog called Scotty for company. Calvin is also plagued by dreams where he always meets this woman that is basically perfect for him and everything he would want in a woman, who he refers to as Ruby. To cure his writers block, Calvin’s shrink advises him to simply write about Ruby and not worry about a novel for the time being. So, on his battered old typewriter Calvin starts to describe Ruby. However, one morning he comes down stairs to find the very same woman in his kitchen and they appear to be going out. What is even more unbelievable is that if he writes anything else about her on his typewriter this also becomes immediately true. Despite having the seemingly perfect girl, will it still prove to be a perfect relationship?

As this is only the second feature from the married double act that directed Little Miss Sunshine, there may well be obvious comparisons. Though Ruby Sparks is a quirky comedy at its core, this is where the similarity ends. Though there are some amusing moments, this is not a laugh out loud comedy. There are plenty of moments that give way to darker themes and some serious messages about relationships and coming to terms with our own faults. However even these tend to be skirted around and always there, but never examined in any real detail. That for me was the main problem with Ruby Sparks, though it was perfectly enjoyable and watchable, it was simply that and almost felt too afraid to take any risks. This was a slight disappointment considering there was potential here for there to be a Kaufman/Woody Allen real thought provoker. Maybe this was partly down to a fear of alienating too many demographics? Or maybe differences of opinion between the lead actress/screenwriter and the directors? Who Knows? This is the result.

Though this could be described as a ‘high concept’ comedy it always feels very safe and predictable. Unfortunately all the characters are a little too clichéd and feel that their characteristics fit almost too neatly into the plot developments. There is Paul Dano’s tortured and socially awkward writer, with his contrasting and opposite brother who is confident, hunky and successful (Chris Messina). Of course let us not forget his slightly mad parents and an arrogant English rival writer (Steve Coogan). Ruby herself is of course quirky and naive, but incredibly sweet and likeable.

Despite the ‘high concept’ of the narrative, it is all actually surprisingly predictable. I watched this film on a sunny afternoon and it felt perfect for that too, I am sorry to give it the old label of ‘enjoyable but forgettable’. In fact this film pretty much was a sunny afternoon in 90 minutes. Of course despite seemingly being perfect, Calvin still finds faults with Ruby and then when he changes them they well make things worse. This of course may be more a reflection on the faults of his personality, especially after a meeting with an ex and a very revealing conversation. These are interesting ideas on the human condition, but once again just skirt around the edges. There are all the usual character arcs, but once again you see them all coming a mile off leaving a rather empty experience by the end.

The saving grace of Ruby Sparks is the performances. Zoe Kazan brings enthusiasm and genuinely sweet naivety to the character of Ruby and Paul Dano is extremely likeable. Annette Bening and Antonio Bendaras bring the characters of his parents to live, and Chris Messina gives Calvin’s brother surprising heart. Zoe Kazan’s dialogue itself is good, the only problem is the story itself does not realise its own potential.

The heartfelt performances and genuinely good intentions make Ruby Sparks charming, watchable and good fun. However a lack of ambition or risk taking leaves a slightly flat and predictable experience. I also recommend watching on a sunny afternoon, just trust me on that one.

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

SAVAGES (Oliver Stone, 2012)

Posted on April 23, 2013 by MoodyB

savages

Starring: Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Taylor – Johnson

You may like this if you liked: U Turn (Oliver Stone, 1997), The Informers (Gregor Jordan, 2008), Layer Cake (Mathew Vaughan, 2004)

On a sun drenched beach in California best friends Chon (Kitsch) and Ben (Johnson) make a vast fortune from growing and distributing pot. Along with their mutual girlfriend O (Lively) they all spend their time sitting around drinking like they are in tourism videos/perfume adverts and having threesomes. Chon is an intense former navy seal who apparently has ‘wargasms’, Ben is a new age hippy with intentions to use his money for good, and O is there to look nice and solely serve as a narrative function. The powerful and you may be surprised to hear this, quite nasty Mexican drug cartel run by Elena (Salma Hayek) demand they work for them in a ‘partnership’. Naturally, so we have a film they subsequently disagree and the cartel threatens to annihilate them and declare war. The three vow to leave as this is a war they cannot win. To further make their point the cartel kidnaps O when she goes on ‘one last shopping trip’, not too stereotypical then! To get the love of both their lives back, and themselves survive, Chon and Ben have to be clever and downright dirty if they are to outwit and outgun those hunting them lead by Benicio Del Toro’s textbook generic Mexican hit man.

Oh dear, oh dear, what has happened to Oliver Stone? This was a man who directed some intelligent and thought provoking passionate films in the 80s and the early 90s. This man we now have going by the name ‘Oliver Stone’ has to be an imposter as I am afraid to say that Savages is horrifically bad. Mark Kermode in his review said that inside this two hours and ten minutes (!) film is a fun 90 minutes exploitation film wanting to come out. I completely agree, unfortunately that is not what we have and so this is a terrible film. The plot is nothing new but if Savages was a little sleazy, fun, a bit tongue in cheek and 90 minutes then it could have been a half decent watch.

One of the main problems with Savages from the off is the characters. It is almost impossible to care about these characters, even though Oliver Stone is obviously desperate for us to care about them as much as he does.  The acting and dialogue does not help. Taylor Kitsch and Blake Lively are quite simply awful and even the obviously talented Aaron Johnson is pretty lame. Their characters are one dimensional and beyond stereotypical so we just cannot care about them, I personally wanted them all to be killed off so they could stop boring me. The dialogue is clunky and just downright embarrassing at times, especially Blake Lively’s cringe worthy narration of the story. At the beginning she compares to what the character’s are like in bed: “Ben is soft word, Chon is cold metal.” This along with the whole aforementioned ‘wargasms’ thing basically set the standard. The problem is they all play it straight and very seriously, which was a huge mistake as it is a film that is way too stupid to ever get away with being serious.

There was potential here as the other three characters are incredibly stereotypical but at least interesting. Salma Hayek’s kingpin is not only well played, but also the only character with a little depth. Benicio Del Toro has outrageous hair and quite literally chews the scenery, but at least he is having fun and enjoyable to watch. John Travolta plays a beyond corrupt DEA agent, and does the whole sleazy John Travolta thing as well as always. These characters are all good fun and make the film a little watchable. If the whole narrative was more in tone with these characters then it could have been a fun watch. Stone should have had a chat with Robert Rodriguez as he has produced many films that successfully manage this. Oliver Stone is obviously trying to prove something with the glamorous California locations, despite the shoddy B movie plot. The cinematography shows the sea to be deep blue, the sand extremely pale, the trees a deep green and all our ‘heroes’ to be beautiful looking human beings. However this in my opinion has proved a massive own goal as it is simply impossible to care. As for the ending, I do not want to give anything away, but trust me that it is beyond infuriating.

What could have been a fun exploitation B movie is actually a painfully dull and boring experience. Hayek, Del Toro and Travolta are watchable and have a good go, but the predictable story, shocking acting, one dimensional protagonists and flat dialogue provide an empty waste of time.

3/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Major Dissapointments, Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

LORE (Cate Shortland, 2012)

Posted on April 15, 2013 by MoodyB

lore

Starring: Saskia Rosendahl, Nele Trebs, Kai-Peter Malina

You may like this if you liked: Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985), The Downfall of Berlin: Anonyma (Max Färberböck, 2008), The Tin Drum (Volker Schlöndorff)

Lore is adapted from one of the stories from Rachel Seiffert’s The Dark Room, and directed by Somersault director Cate Shortland. Set in Germany after the fall of Hitler, after her nazi parents are forced to go to prison, Hannalore (Rosendahl) is left to look after her four younger siblings. She has to embark on a journey across a divided post war Germany to her Grandmother’s house with only her family’s jewellery to use as payment for food and transport. Because of their parents, the children all have certain views against certain groups in society and after a turn of events they are forced to rely on the help of a Jewish stranger called Thomas (Kai-Peter Malina).

I personally thought Australian director Cate Shortland’s last film Somersault was, though a bit miserable, a very good understated film that was beautifully shot. Lore is just as beautifully shot, but probably even more miserable. However, this is a compelling and deeply human story. The cinematography and direction create an atmospheric experience. There are frequently many nature shots which show the beauty of nature almost as a contradiction to the themes of humanitarian suffering and destruction.

This is a film that depicts a very rarely examined part of history, which proves fascinating and perhaps poses more subtle questions than it could ever answer. This may be because there may be no exact answers, but this only adds to the film’s very human power and emotional impact. In this film Germany is divided into sections controlled by different countries and these children were all brought up by Nazi parents and so brought up to love Hitler and all his ideologies, despite their innocence as children. Being a very human film, the performances from all are excellent, evoking sympathy and compassion, especially Saskia Rosendahl as Hannahlore (or Lore for short). To get to their grandmother’s house they must cross several territories risking their lives, and the journey they embark on is frequently harrowing and tense, making for a deeply involving but emotionally draining experience.

Shortland does not shy away from making Lore an uncomfortable viewing experience, which only adds to the feel of authenticity. There are prominently extreme close ups of the characters that really capture the pain and confusion that is in their minds as they face an extremely unfamiliar world. There are many disturbing and genuinely upsetting scenes, however this was necessary to portray the experience that these characters would have faced. Shortland has produced a film that packs a real and unforgettable emotional punch.

Harrowing and deeply involving, Lore is not for the faint hearted, but a very human and deeply fascinating depiction of a viewpoint of a time in history that is rarely examined. The direction and cinematography are at times beautiful and then also intense and haunting, showing a director at the top of her game.

8/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, World Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment