Loving Vincent (2017)

lovingvincent_quad_art_gbmh_r15_v2012

Like walking into a gallery and experiencing all the portraits coming alive in front of your very eyes; this biographical movie which is the first fully painted one, is a beautifully realised work of art that is incredibly special to see.

A year after the death of struggling artist Vincent van Gogh (Robert Gulaczyk), we follow Armand (Douglas Booth) as he tries to deliver a letter from the artist himself to Van Gogh’s brother. Along the way he meets a host of different people that make him start questioning the lead up to the man’s untimely passing.

Diving straight into the rich oil textures of the film, I have to comment and commend the artists that trained to capture van Gogh’s style and then also become animators to make this film the truly wonderful and stunning product it is. There are 65’000 frames and each one was an actual oil painting on canvas, this staggering amount of work really make the visuals something you’ve never seen before. Seeing the actors as shifting painted faces is definitely unique and they roam in a finely accomplished world of animated scenery that plays with form and perspective.

Also the lines, shapes and swirls of the brush strokes in motion was amazing to see, the flickering of lights in the background or the shaky blobs of paint you watch pulsating help the scenes look like the works of Gogh come to colourful life. I know some of his paintings and recognising them in the movie was interesting but the end credits with a page turning book reveals more about the attention to detail that went into this love letter about a very talented man.

One sad truth is the standard style over substance idea and this film does play its style card and never really finds the substance it needs. I couldn’t shake the notion that the entire narrative; backed by Clint Mansell’s tinkling score, was akin to a Columbo detective mystery as we watch the yellow jacketed Armand keep to his delivery task. Yes, the plot is interesting to a point, as I found out more about the life and times of this Dutch Post-Impressionist but the flashback storytelling with characters spieling off amounts of expositional information is a bit safe and uninspired.

Booth is a charismatic fellow to have lead the film from place to place. Jerome Flynn is an uncannily good choice as the try hard artist/physician Gachet, the look of him compared to the painting is incredibly similar. Helen McCrory is a God-abiding housekeeper who plays stern and uncaring for Gogh with great believable ease. Saoirse Ronan and Eleanor Tomlinson are perfect as two women close to the tortured soul of the title. They add intriguing elements of character not only in the roles they play but how they saw Vincent van Gogh. I must also mention Bill Thomas who plays eccentric Doctor  Mazery.

It may be such a cliche to say, but this is a paint by numbers story and account of a dynamic individual. Yet, even with the simple method of plot delivery, the craftsmanship and labour of heart etched into this film is something else. The film looks vivid, exceptional and shimmers with breath-taking style.

7.5/10

 

Advertisements

The Glass Castle (2017)

MV5BMTY2Nzk0MDE3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTI0ODc0MjI@._V1_UY1200_CR74,0,630,1200_AL_

Based on the real life growing up of Jeanette Walls and her free spirited and quite unorthodox parents, this indie feeling film has some good moments that stem mostly from the performances of the actors involved. Aside from that I cannot shake the feeling that the core of the story never seems to click.

Raised by artist Rose Walls (Naomi Watts) and Rex Walls (Woody Harrelson) who can’t stick to one job or place; are four children. Throughout their upbringing they are taken along for the ride with their impoverished folks. Eventually as they all get older, Jeanette (Brie Larson) truly wants to move on and out and we see her living in New York with wealthy fiance David (Max Greenfield), but her parents may have followed her to the Big Apple.

This is certainly an interesting tale to turn into a biographical film and the heart does certainly strain to be felt from time to time but it’s clouded by a faint mishandling by director, Destin Daniel Cretton, who never seems to keep a pattern or pace to his structure. The Glass Castle uses flashbacks in it’s storytelling but a lot of the time it jumps to and fro, lingers longer in the past or comes back to the present with no real connection to tie the plot together with any interest or style.

It also doesn’t help too much that the parents, especially Rex, seem at times to be too aggressive, alcoholic or out there to redeem themselves as people. I know Rex is based on a real life figure but I just never connected to him and so the final stages of the movie didn’t grip or emotionally resonate with me in the way the director/writers probably intended. The whole bringing up of the family seems completely abusive, but the film seems to go about it in a way that says this way of life is kooky and educational because they’re experiencing life and not trapped in the grind of expected living, and that never sat right with myself.

I guess Cretton, Marti Noxon and Andrew Lanham were hoping to write a screenplay that left its audience uplifted but sadly they are far from that ideal. The flashback timing and abusive quality, as said don’t help but on top of this it feels like a fair-to-middling production you’d see on some network TV station. I know the family is unconventional but the movie comes across as extremely paint by numbers and conventional that the set-up becomes tiresome.

Brie Larson tries to be the glue that holds the film together, her 1980’s older version of Jeanette trying to escape and find a new life but also realising they are part of her family and therefore part of her, but she just can’t quite manage it and her performance though solid and strong isn’t her best. Naomi Watts is interesting to watch and she seems to go for her role with gusto helping her character, Rose, feel real. Woody Harrelson goes for broke playing his part, there are times when it feels over the top but he definitely makes Rex a character of continuous disturbance.

Ultimately, this isn’t a movie I’d watch again in a hurry, there are some vaguely alright moments but overall the entire product tries to be enlightening but only becomes overly sentimental and hokey.

5/10

 

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

blade-runner-2049-poster

Well cor blimey, this film looks delicious up on the big screen. The visuals aren’t the only delights though; storytelling, acting, music and cinematography are all excellent features of this sci-fi sequel that in my tiny insignificant opinion may be just as good if not better than the original.

Possibly a first here as I won’t go into a usual plot summary paragraph because I feel that any info on what the story serves could be, if not a spoiler at least something that ruins the element of intrigue that you should enter this movie with. Suffice to say it’s 30 years after the setting of the first one and we follow K (Ryan Gosling) in dystopian LA following a case after discovering something potentially world changing at a farm.

Even though I hadn’t seen the 1982 movie at the time, once this film was announced with details of Denis Villeneuve attached I did squeal a little. This incredible visual and smart director gave me cause for excitement and he does indeed pull off an incredibly visual and smart film again. It’s a very intelligent movie with cause for thought and the whole dystopian set up like in the first one gives amazing room for creative space and design. Villeneuve keeps the tone similar but that doesn’t stop him from expanding on ideas and updating them to fit in the mould of what 2049 could bring.

A strong theme within both movies is the notion of identity. In a way I feel this thread is felt even more within this release thanks to the character of K and the freedom movement he is tracking. What makes us human and what does that mean are two powerful questions and they course throughout the film with constant but not overbearing presence. The whole hero idea is another one played with and K is an interesting character because he’s not exactly all out nice guy but that moral code sits within him. A film is always good or great I say when it leaves you thinking about what you’ve seen and immersing yourself into that world to think on possible answers.

Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch have conducted a wonderful score that trickles along in the background adding suitable futuristic sounds and as Zimmer does best the rises and boom of music at times creates the tension within certain scenes. Better than the music though is the sublime work from director of photography Roger Deakins who deserves to finally win an Academy Award with the sheer beauty he gifted this movie. The lines and forms are stunning all the way through, for example the yellow shifting light and frames captured within Wallace’s headquarters are mesmerising.

I have to comment on the newer technological ideas implanted in the movie too; such as the memory maker aspect which was visually pleasing and a very neat idea. The ‘Her’ like sexual encounter with K and his girlfriend with help from someone else was another case of something visually different. A fight with the background holographic accompaniment of Elvis and some showgirls further boosts the creative visual flair.

This film may be a little long and at times the pacing, like in the original, feels at odds and can be a tad slow but the detective story-line and the stunning future world presented on a big screen makes this a science fiction movie to stand up on its own and not just as a follow up to the Ridley Scott outing. In fact because I got to see this in the cinema unlike the first one, that is possibly the reason I like this more, the atmosphere and scale of seeing it on the big screen is necessary for this movie.

7.5/10

Blade Runner (1982)

5ig0kdwz5kxr4phjycgyi5khczd-1

Forgive me Movie Community for I have sinned. Today was the 1st time I’d seen this film in almost 27 years of existence. A cult classic and movie continually hitting Top film lists and finally I have watched it…mostly in preparation for the new flick but also to try and rectify a big list of classics I’ve not yet seen.

As a group of ‘Replicants’ (extremely strong and equally intelligent synthetic humans) arrive to Earth, Deckard (Harrison Ford) takes one last job to track them down and kill them. Things don’t go so easy though as he comes across Rachael (Sean Young) and eventually comes face to face with Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).

The genre of this movie is something I can wholeheartedly get behind, the slick neo-noir vision is indeed special even to this day, so I can only imagine how it may have looked back in the early 80’s. The combination of futuristic science fiction vibes with film noir is most definitely cool and provides a great backdrop for not only the look of the world being created but the rich story too.

Based off a book by Philip K. Dick, who’s adapted work is further seen currently on Channel 4 which I really want to see, this film written by David Peoples and Hampton Fancher almost effortlessly blends the sci-fi genre of fantastical worlds, gadgets and futuristic elements with the layered and more interesting aspects of noir; the femme fatale, the questionable detective hero and moody lighting and moodier characters.

Not that far into the film I began questioning the central idea of clones and the Replicant possibility within the main character. I see now that it has been a topic of controversy for years. Not helping matters are the changes in various versions of this film that have been shown, released and updated. I watched the Final Cut and I must say that I did start thinking that Rick Deckard could very well be a copy and not human but I guess that interpretation idea makes for good conversations and a thinking piece.

Another controversy is my admittance that though I enjoyed the film and see it’s very very well made, I didn’t completely get behind the hype and amazement people have built it up to have over the years. It’s acted well in places, the music from Vangelis is stellar and the plot is interesting, quite complex and provoking but it felt like a lullaby in places and didn’t keep my interest as I wished it may have done. Perhaps I misunderstood it like people did upon it’s first release but the mystery of the narrative never gripped me and the pacing was slightly irritating.

Those are my only negatives, which I know could well have me shot. Aside from that I get that this film is a superb sci-fi and the ground-breaking hybrid and intelligent story-making on show is cause for this definitive status. I back that status and would recommend the film, I just wouldn’t put it on my Top 10 or Top 20 list of films. Forgive me again Movie Community.

7/10

 

Baby Driver (2017)

baby-driver-poster

4 years since the pub crawling finale to the Cornetto Trilogy, Edgar Wright returns with an adrenaline soaked beauty.

Wright is back with his signature stylish/comic aptitude and this time applies his directorial genius to a project with bigger action and bigger thrills. Atlanta becomes a playground for him as he shows off a satisfying masterful handle on the genre of heists, car chases and Bonnie and Clyde-esque dramatics.

Baby (Ansel Elgort) is a smooth, superstar getaway driver who’s tied to working for shady Doc (Kevin Spacey) who brings together differing personalities to carry out robberies. It happens that Baby is permanently listening to music winding up the likes of Bats (Jamie Foxx) and others but this trait of his is no weakness and also helps him strike up conversations with waitress Debora (Lily James) who could end up in danger the closer she gets to the mysterious music man.

Usually I leave the music chat til later on and focus in on plot and style, but this movie isn’t anything (or much of note) without the music it offers. The soundtrack is one of pure delight and boosts the movie an incredible amount of energy. The effortless car choreography is amped up further thanks to the loud and proud songs throughout. It’s no lie to say that every escape moment whether on foot or behind the wheel made me sit up and smile like a buffoon because they’re just so fun to watch with a finesse that’s hard to ignore.

That’s not to say that if the songs were wiped off then the movie would be terrible, it would just be mediocre and quite possibly forgettable. It’s the choice of the iPod playing such excellent music that this film is the stylish marvel it is. The editing too must be mentioned because it’s like every motion is clipped and fitted to coincide with the change of artists from T.Rex to Queen.

Detail is everything in Edgar Wright movies, he displayed that in ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’ with comic book styling adding a zany and cartoonish look to almost every frame. This is the case again, for example, the opening credits feature Baby on route to fetch coffees and the song lyrics playing in his buds litter the backdrop from posters to graffiti in such a cool way. The look of the film is very retro America, from the locations and fashion. The characters are outlandish and cartoony but also provide a very real sense of threat when the movie needs to shift to the necessary air of tension and drama.

Strangely, amongst all the skids, sirens and shots fired in this killer feature, there is a sweetness to be found in the central relationship between Baby and Debora. It does admittedly feel left out sometimes and grows to a love before you know it but it softens up the film nicely and Lily James helps give a radiant glow amongst the sharper carnage of every other character. Hell, there’s sweetness to be found with Baby and his foster father.

The only teeny critiques I have with the film is there were a couple of times it lulled. The ending was perhaps twee and could have ended a slight nudge earlier and it is mostly the music that makes this film. It’s no five star baller but it’s so damn close.

Elgort is a tip toe away from arrogance that you don’t like him but there’s enough charm and intelligence to his character that you keep on his side. James as mentioned gives the movie a romantic and soft touch, the scene with her and Baby in a laundromat is another creative and stylish moment that stands out and sets up their connection nicely. Foxx is cool but clearly unhinged and provides the narrative its more tense moments. Spacey flits between good and bad and heck if you know what his motives are as only Spacey could in such a confident manner. Jon Hamm and Eiza Gonzalez are a perfect crazed Romeo and Juliet of weaponry and love. Everyone has a moment to shine with a script by Wright that is funny and fierce.

Go see this because it’s truly something you won’t be seeing anything like for the rest of the year. It’s a jacked up joy ride and one you’ll enjoy being in the backseat for. Hold on tight!

8.5/10

mother! (2017)

mother-poster

Where do I even start with this film? The exclamation point of the title is certainly necessary and director Darren Aronofsky knew what he was doing by putting it there because this movie is one hell of an exclaiming visceral car crash.

Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) is adamant to keep her home a neat and tidy Eden whilst her husband credited as Him (Javier Bardem) tries overcoming writers block. Their idyllic set up is swiftly interrupted by the arrival of Man and Woman (Ed Harris & Michelle Pfeiffer) who only begin to start the maddening destruction of Mother’s hopeful ordered life.

From this point onward I’ll keep quiet on the plot developments in case you haven’t heard of what crazy events take place. The religious allegorical element becomes so blatantly obvious upon reflection that the entire film feels like a try hard student project from an arrogant director thinking his feature is the Holy Grail. This is a shame and not something I expected from Aronofsky; a director whose work I had mostly enjoyed up until this point.

I guess the tight framings of almost every shot, the close ups or viewpoints stemming from Lawrence help build this frustrating level of anxiety that her character suffers throughout but it also means the film feels dreamlike and slow. It also says something that I felt queasy watching the action of the third act and that wasn’t because of the food poisoning I was already trying to stomach! It becomes, what I feel, is a truly unnecessary debauched trip of torture and an over the top display of what one man can do with a deranged take on the notion of ‘tarnishing Mother Earth’ and $30 million.

The first act is actually really well set up and this initial idea of a home being slowly intruded and torn apart makes for an intriguing and unsettling base point. The mystery of who the two strangers are and what they may end up doing was almost perfect, it felt like the basis of a tightly wound thriller but that ends up becoming bloodied and soiled by the end making me question why I even bothered committing to watching the entire film and not have more fun with my head over a toilet being sick.

Clint Mansell for the first time doesn’t team up with Aronofsky, instead the film is almost void of any music which actually does work to be fair. The sound design is on form and adds an extra layer of frustrating distress to accompany the growing torment of Mother. On another slight positive I have to say that all this press and polarising chatter does help the film because people are talking about it, the movie is getting attention which I’m sure is just what Aronofsky desired.

Jennifer Lawrence has a lot to carry on her shoulders as she appears pretty much constantly through this film bringing in a range of emotions as she becomes more and more pecked and broken by the escalating carnage in her house. Javier Bardem feels like a wasted actor, not doing much of anything apart from carrying some vague sinister indifference to what happens around him. It’s Michelle Pfeiffer that stands out in a creepy way, her stares and her calculated presence being just what the film needs.

mother! is certainly a film that seems to have no middle ground, almost like Marmite in a way. I guess the intelligent comment would be to say I need to see this film again and try and see what the people who like it may be seeing but I just 100% don’t wish to watch this movie ever again!

2.5/10

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

kingsmanposter_0

Wow….oh dear oh dear. I have left this little blog of mine neglected for quite a long while. I’ve promised myself now, that with a change in my job patterns, I will get back into a writing rhythm again and that will start by returning to this site and reviewing movies as much as possible. So let’s roll right along with the recent release of the Kingsman sequel. You can find my thoughts of the 1st one here.

Just over 2 years ago Matthew Vaughn delivered cinema audiences a fast and fun action spy movie that was more a Bond film than the actual Bond films are. To say I was looking forward to this film would play down my anticipation but I didn’t want to fall into that ‘over-hype’ trap so I just let the film arrive without overplaying trailers or talking about it a lot. Even without the over-hype this film deserves no hype, it’s fizzled out in comparison and trying too hard.

Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is now living with the Swedish princess from, yes that scene at the end of the first film. After the Kingsman brand is hacked and attacked, Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong) travel to Kentucky to meet the Statesman; an American organisation of spies. The two groups must work together to try and stop the mysterious rise of the Golden Circle led by deranged company leader Poppy (Julianne Moore).

Even with all of the flaws that come with this one, I cannot deny that there is still a bundle of fun to be had with it and as long as you flick that ol’ brain off then you’ll enjoy most of it. The super fast sequences, pacy backing music and silly yet brilliantly gimmicky gadgets all combine to create a crazy time.

I must say that the biggest and most serious crime of this film is not the annoying and frenzied camera work nor the muddling mess of new and old characters but the run-time, coming in at 141 minutes this film with all its whizz and spectacle actually begins to tire and by the end I must admit I was growing bored. Back to the first comment of frenziness, what made Secret Service so delightfully entertaining to watch was the energetic way they presented fight scenes, such as that awesome massacre in the church but here most battles are with more than 2 people or cut against other fights so you end up losing the focused choreography and instead begin getting a headache.

The story isn’t much of a change either, instead of Valentine trying to wipe out a huge percentage of the world with technology we get Poppy trying to wipe out a huge percentage of the world with addiction and the idea of legalisation. It starts off as an interesting premise and Poppy’s whole jungle like 50’s ghost town is a cool location but the plot becomes less creative and more stupid.

Egerton is back on form as the almost cocky yet charming and confident street lad turned suave. Strong gets more time on screen but mostly to sing Country Roads which becomes a quite sad note to be honest. Moore is a wonderful watch as the pretend sweet American housewife type with an insane and evil streak. Channing Tatum rocks up and does little more than his Tatum best then there’s Pedro Pascal who almost runs away with the whole film as the whip-cracking lasso wielding Whiskey. Colin Firth gets a mildly interesting arc to play upon his return which I won’t spoil of course.

This is a disappointing film to tell the truth without the creative flair and brutal nature of the first, it feels more like a kiddified rush with no brains and just lots of spare energy to burn up. It does have some funny moments and a few rewarding set pieces but with this golden circle scratch away the layer and you’re left with a cheap knock-off.

Oh….Elton John steals the show!

5/10