Chris At The Pictures: true story
Showing posts with label true story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label true story. Show all posts

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

"The Greatest Snowman" or: How I Learned To Love Confused Customers

10/10/2018 03:51:00 pm 0
"The Greatest Snowman" or: How I Learned To Love Confused Customers

“Two for the...uh...that one with...” the middle-aged gentleman stood across the till from me turned desperately to his partner, who returned his blank look. I waited. The silence stretched. The queue fidgeted.

“Oh, bloody hell, what’s it called again?” he gesticulated to no-one in particular, before clapping a hand to his forehead. Sighing internally, I scanned my screen for the list of possible titles.

Insidious 3?”
“No.”
Three Billboards?”
“No.”
Darkest Hour?”
“No.”
All the Money in the World?
“Yes! The J. Paul Getty one! All the World’s Money! Knew it was something like that.”

When you start working at a multiplex, there’s a lot you prepare yourself for: an unshakeable popcorn smell, complaints about how you need to “take out a mortgage” to afford a cinema trip, and, of course, the usual mental strain that comes with a largely thankless retail job. But one unforeseen difficulty in getting patrons from queueing to viewing is their inability to remember what multimillion-dollar filmmaking exercise they’re donating to in the first place.

For the cinemagoers, they rest comfortably in their assumption that we can translate their request for “That one with Joanna Lumley” into “One for Finding Your Feet?”. For those of us on the other side of the counter it’s occasionally frustrating, but never dull.

The categories for incorrect titles are as manifold as the misnomers themselves, but after a few months, the repeat offenders become obvious: mispronunciation, misinformation and abbreviation.

Mispronunciations from those who count English as a second language are fair play, but from native speakers it’s amusing, if a little worrying. See, for instance, the Christian Bale western, Hostiles, spoken aloud by one Cambridge University student as “Hoss-teal-ezz”. Or, how about that new movie about space wizards, Star Wars Episode VIII, with the roman numerals pronounced as “Veeeee”.

Misinformation depends entirely on one’s exposure to the advertising campaign of the film in question. Despite posters plastered across the sides of buses, adverts playing on television, heavy Oscar buzz and a basis in Blitz-era nostalgia, one late-January release inexplicably proved enormously difficult for British citizens to recall. Thus follows a complete list of wrong labels I received for Joe Wright’s World War 2 drama, Darkest Hour:

The Darkest Hour
Our Darkest Hour
Darkest Night
Heart of Darkness
The Darkness
Hour of Darkness
The Hours
Last Hours
Finest Hour
Their Finest
Churchill
Winston Churchill
The Longest Day

Most forwent any attempt at the correct three syllables and simply asked for “The Winston Churchill one”.

Other marketing mishaps include “Last Call Pitches” (the tagline for Pitch Perfect 3, which enjoyed a larger space on the poster than the actual title) and “Wallace and Gromit” in place of Aardman’s Early Man, a film which sold itself mainly on homegrown affection for the Bristol-based studios original duo.

Abbreviation is where the definite/indefinite articles or any other words deemed extraneous go to die. The former is easily forgivable (also working in reverse, adding “The” to titles that never had one e.g. The King of Thieves). The latter is the most entertaining of all categories, usually reserved for films with unreasonably long names, needless subtitles, chapter numbers and so on. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri proved especially popular in this respect. Besides one patron who spoke in a hugely immersive southern drawl, not a single customer bothered to go the whole hog. “Ebbing” was the first to go, followed by “Outside Missouri” (once replaced with exasperation as “Three Billboards in whatever”). By the time its run in UK cinemas was coming to a close, this once prized Best Picture nominee had been reduced to “Billboards”. A personal favourite would be the supremely confident woman who requested a ticket for “Three Billiards”.

But by far the most notable entry here would be (deep breath) The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society. Customers - understandably - had so much trouble getting through all eight words of this twee British confection that many resorted to “The Guernsey Film”, “The Potato one”, or, brilliantly, “The one with the stupid title”.

All this anecdotal evidence might lead one to consider wrong titles a source of irritation for those of us attempting to whittle down a sizeable Friday night queue. With sparse exceptions (such as a customer who repeatedly and angrily denied that he meant to say The Last Jedi when he asked for “The Last IMAX”), the very opposite is true.

Working in hospitality is repetitive, often exhausting and largely unrewarding, so those manning the concessions stand take our small pleasures where we can. Sometimes it’s worth spending seven hours behind a cash register, dashing about to refill endless popcorn bags, just for that one faintly amusing anecdote about the patron who changed the delicate, intriguing A Simple Favour into the more brusque “Do me a favour”.

So next time you arrive at the box office, desperately trying to recall the name of the film you’re about to pay £10.95 to see, don’t fret. No Googling the cast list, no scanning the foyer for a poster, no turning to your date/friend/mother for help; just give it a shot. Whether you leave out the episode number of the latest Star Wars film, mispronounce a foreign title or accidentally fuse the smash hit P.T. Barnum musical with a Michael Fassbender thriller, we’ll help you find your way.


This article was inspired by the writer’s current working experiences in a British cinema, as well as this Letterboxd list: https://letterboxd.com/shawn_stubbs/list/wrong-movie-titles/

Please share your experiences on Twitter, using the hashtag #WrongTitle

Thursday, 19 July 2018

'Whitney' - Review

7/19/2018 01:58:00 pm 0
'Whitney' - Review


★ ★ ½ ☆ 


Like a stone upon the surface of a lake, this documentary detailing the life, labours and loves of pop star Whitney Houston skims close to many truths, but eventually sinks in search of a scoop. Academy award-winning writer-director Kevin MacDonald’s handling of his topic is efficient but oddly heartless: emotional moments (Houston’s famous performance of ‘I Will Always Love You’ in Johannesburg, camera-phone footage of her disastrous comeback tour in 2010), would pack a punch even without the context of the doc’s wider story. Her key chart-toppers are placed by MacDonald and his editor Sam Rice-Edwards into the wider context of America’s various conquests throughout the seventies and eighties and up to the turn of the century, fragmenting the film as it tells the various stages of her story.

Unfortunately, these bookmark montages are emblematic of a wider problem with the film: it’s all about how Whitney’s story unfolded before the world, but never how the world shaped her story or her music. Interviews with various members of her family dig a little deeper into her constant battle with drugs, her sexuality, her family’s background in black gospel singing and what her success meant to that community, but the singer’s own words - already hard to come by, as Houston made very few TV interviews - are notable only by their infrequence. Whitney’s glittering construction and swift pace leaves little room for reflection, with an unedited home video recording of Whitney and her mother, post-performance, serving as the only real pause for thought.

As with Nick Broomfield’s Whitney: Can I Be Me?, perhaps the fault lies with a white British director taking on a subject so inherently tied to the voice of black America in the last decades of the twentieth century. In the case of Kevin MacDonald, we even have a storyteller who, by his own admission, was not fond of Whitney Houston before starting his research and found the whole sorry affair of her death “distasteful”. The whiff of a smoking gun is detected in the air towards the conclusion, but with the Houston family and her closest friends decidedly split about who or what was to blame for her tragic end, it’s a feeble finale.

Thursday, 5 July 2018

'Adrift' - Review

7/05/2018 09:46:00 pm 1
'Adrift' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ ☆

Two great performances keep Baltasar Kormákur’s latest disaster drama resolutely afloat: Shailene Woodley and Sam Claflin star as real-life couple Tami Oldham and Richard Sharp, whose voyage from Tahiti to San Diego in 1983 took them directly into the path of Hurricane Raymond. The film plays out in a split time-frame, beginning with Tami waking aboard the wrecked vessel, before flashing back to detail their romance, and leading towards a dual finale.

This narrative structure - in sharp opposition to the linear unravelling of Kormákur’s previous film, Everest - contrasts the sun-kissed days of Tami and Richard’s growing connection against the survival thriller of Raymond’s aftermath. Turning up the cheese to reinforce the grit, it results in an incredibly effective sense of gnawing inevitability, always keeping us one match cut away from tragedy.

Woodley has grown a lot as a performer since the Divergent series that made her the household name of teenage audiences (even in rocky fare like Oliver Stone’s Snowden, she acquits herself well), and here she’s as steadfast as we’ve ever seen her. Her performance walks an impressive line between Sandra Bullock in Gravity and - strangely - Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games series: there’s that same grounded aura of rags-to-resolve as Tami deals with the devastation.

Claflin, too, is excellent. His endless charisma is a valuable asset during the scenes of seaborne young love (i.e. he looks good sailing into port with his shirt hanging open), and his ability to switch from wry humour to wan acceptance sees us through the darker moments. Richard was originally to be played by Miles Teller, and (no offence to Teller) I think the film owes a debt of thanks to those “scheduling conflicts”.

What small amount of artistic liberty the film takes is all to do with pathos, as opposed to narrative neatness. As the remainder pays attention rather than lip service to reality (its approach to the logistics of finding oneself shipwrecked would make for a fine double bill with All Is Lost), small fictional reveries can be forgiven. Adrift may not be a note-perfect depiction of a true event, but as a showcase for two stars at the top of their game; it hits all the right ones.

Tuesday, 12 September 2017

'American Made' - Review

9/12/2017 10:59:00 pm 0
'American Made' - Review

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Sold almost entirely on Tom Cruise’s ability to deliver a cheeky grin, American Made tells the ridiculous true story of Barry Seal, a TWA pilot hired by the CIA to provide reconnaissance footage in the early eighties. His skills are soon noted by the Medellin Cartel, and thus begins an eight-year odyssey of drug smuggling, arms dealing and mountains of cash large enough to shame Scrooge McDuck.

Cruise is back working with director Doug Liman, who – after achieving the impossible by making Hollywood’s ever-youthful hero look genuinely rattled in Edge of Tomorrow – makes a sharp 180-degree turn from their previous team-up. His direction and Gary Spinelli’s script turn the charisma dial up to eleven, giving Cruise that “I’m gonna buzz the tower” smirk we all recognize, but framing it in a frenetic and eye-popping series of increasingly ludicrous capers.

The film is also colour-timed to vibrant excess, but nowhere is the joy and madness more perfectly captured than by a supporting role from Domhnall Gleeson as CIA liaison ‘Schafer’, which proves once and for all that he’s at his best when doing sly, slimy cackling. Caleb Landry Jones also makes a brief but amiably bitter appearance as Seal’s homewrecking brother-in-law.

Occasionally, it is wearing. The whole Wolf of Wall Street vibe is a tad trite (Barry’s growing ambivalence to the jaw-dropping loads of money filling up his house, his preference for reading a book about the rise of Al Capone instead of confronting his problems), and the montages of our lovable pilot enjoying his vast extravagance face the same faults as Scorsese’s epic: we never really feel any ill-effects.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the treatment of Seal’s wife, Lucy (Sarah Wright). As is now seemingly par-for-the course with this sort of film, she’s almost a footnote. Brought out mainly for eyebrow-arching sequences of the couple having sex in the cockpit mid-flight, her disapproval and shock are played only for laughter. It’s an approach that reflects the films near-refusal to tread into anything remotely dark or upsetting: despite the danger constantly dogging Barry (guns, goons and maybe a little guilt), any danger to the audience’s expectations or sensibilities is severely lacking. It’s a frivolous flight of fancy that provides a great vehicle for Cruise’s shtick and Liman’s swift direction, but nothing more than that. It’s fast to please, but faster to fade.

Friday, 21 July 2017

'Dunkirk' - Review

7/21/2017 11:06:00 pm
'Dunkirk' - Review
 
★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Christopher Nolan completes his ticking clock trilogy with this unutterably gripping World War 2 thriller. As with the dilated dream-spaces of Inception and the ruthless relativity of Interstellar, time is the enemy in Dunkirk; for the 400,000 allied soldiers trapped on the beach, the fleet of civilian ships headed to the rescue and the Spitfires low on fuel. Fionn Whitehead (a soldier), Mark Rylance (a sailor) and Tom Hardy (a Spitfire pilot) take centre stage of each setting, their fight to survive tracked across a week, a day and an hour, respectively.

There’s an age-old anecdote from those who’ve worked with George Lucas that his repeated command during the re-shooting of a scene is “faster, more intense”. Capturing that perfect rush as an object hurtles past the camera, that jolt in the throat when a detonation rocks the screen and the soaring of the soul as a duel to the death reaches climax is a jewel often mined but rarely refined in current action fare. Dunkirk, however, shines effervescent. We are dropped, thrown and shoved into each situation in the blink of an eye, and every time the brief expulsion of breath that comes with the release of tension is cut off by the next gasp. Visceral doesn’t begin to cover it.

Explosions are something of a rarity in Nolan’s back catalogue, but always a striking incident. Think of Gotham hospital in The Dark Knight, the crippling of the Endurance in Interstellar: jaw-dropping moments that project pure awe and horror because they’re such an anomaly. With hell raining down from all sides in all three separate narratives here, a slowly encroaching numbness might well be expected. Expected, yes. Delivered, no. The fifteenth divebombing by a Messerschmitt is as terrifying as the first.

One thinks of virtual reality as a medium now diminishing in size (from streamlined headsets to phone screens), but not for Nolan. An experience that places you on the ground, in the air and in the water feels instantly at home on the big screen, and unimaginable anywhere else. It’s as if – in his quest to preserve the sanctity of theatrical presentation – Nolan has deliberately ensured that Dunkirk can only work on a canvas larger than your house.

The director’s paintbrush is Hoyte Van Hoytema, whose cinematography (particularly the aerial work) is truly spellbinding. As the Dutch-Swedish maverick switches effortlessly from handheld staggering to cockpit-cam delirium, you find yourself subconsciously panting as Whitehead and Harry Styles (who proves his acting mettle, and then some) scramble across the deck of a sinking ship, or tipping your head as Hardy’s plane turns into a deft spin.

Which, if you’ll forgive me, brings matters to a personal note: towards the end of the film comes a pure, unfiltered ode to the Spitfire. More specifically, an homage to a craft that served at Dunkirk and flew from Duxford airfield, where my grandfather served as a flight rigger. To see such an icon of our family history projected onto an IMAX screen, freed from behind the ropes and bollards of a museum, is a moment I will never forget. In a film composed purely of indelible images, that’s no mean feat.

Hoytema’s visuals and Zimmer’s nail-biter of a score speak louder than any screenplay, and Nolan knows this, appropriately offering the slimmest script of his oeuvre. His cast aren’t performers, they’re people, free of grandstanding or clunky exposition. Kenneth Branagh’s blindsided Commander Bolton has the most coherent dialogue to deliver, laced with just enough stiff-upper-lip authenticity to remind us of Dunkirk as a uniquely British story.

I’m not normally one for patriotism, but that we can claim a World War 2 disaster film as the most terrifyingly thrilling spectacle in years is a source of enormous pride, especially given the scarcity of cinema designed to make you gasp, cry and pray all at the same time. Like Nolan's best work, his new masterpiece ends on a sense of oncoming awe, the expectation of greatness still to come. Who are we to doubt him now?

Friday, 3 March 2017

'Patriots Day' - Review

3/03/2017 09:26:00 pm
'Patriots Day' - Review

★ ★ ★  

This latest real-life retelling makes it a genre hat-trick for the Peter Berg-Mark Wahlberg duet, though the formula is showing signs of wear. Wahlberg stars as a composite character cop, Tommy Saunders, caught up in the events of the Boston Marathon bombings of 2013 and the subsequent manhunt.

I’ve so far held Berg in very high esteem after the eye-gouging nihilism of Lone Survivor and tragic visual mastery of Deepwater Horizon, though the latter’s script issues have begun to take deeper root: Patriots Day tends to fall a tad on the flag-waving side. It may entirely depend on where you draw the line between solidarity and jingoism, but I think the film is at least somewhat self-aware enough to avoid such a potentially divisive realm of thinking.  A steely Kevin Bacon plays FBI agent Richard DesLauriers, who impresses upon everyone the dangers of even indirectly mentioning the terrorist’s chosen faith in the immediate aftermath. As the attackers were not suicide bombers but remained at large for several days, this danger is doubly felt.

The film is equally conscious about the inherent coldness of situational recreations, which emerged as a necessity from day one – many felt the decision to make the film so swiftly following the tragedy was a step too far. As the mouthpiece for this disgust, Saunders is the only one to display signs of protest at when a reconstruction of the scene is required for forensic analysis, mere hours after the first blast.

Wahlberg continues to shine as an everyman; though his characters in Berg’s previous movies were based on actual people, they still carried that sense of home-grown loyalty and indiscriminate anguish when their respective worlds collapsed. Saunders is a fictional person, but feels as real as Marcus Luttrell or Mike Williams, in dramatic contrast to the insufferable science teacher from The Happening or the beer-swigging dad in Transformers: Age of Extinction. Berg’s realist style continues to extend to the supporting faces on screen, too. Those introduced in various opening montages (a love-struck young couple, a bright-eyed police officer, a Chinese student) are people first, characters second.


Patriots Day takes the shape of an epic thriller in lieu of a minute-by-minute playback, and (by the very nature of how the events played out) occasionally feels stretched but never overwrought. As the walls close in on the two perpetrators, it feels like a long-gestating climax, for both the police forces and the audience. The finale is respectful and satisfying, but the ‘Boston Strong’ coda emerges completely from left-field. Up until the conclusion, Berg has never allowed displayed the city as a character in itself, the preceding investigation solidly told but the huge array of characters means there’s nothing like the burning urgency of Survivor nor Deepwater. Composer Steve Jablonsky is swapped out for Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and the haunting Americana of his scores is sorely missed, and endemic of what holds the film back from complete success. It’s a quality effort, but the true emotional core is reduced to bookends.

Friday, 24 February 2017

'Hidden Figures' - Review

2/24/2017 11:37:00 am
'Hidden Figures' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ 

It’s the early 1960s, and the civil rights movement is taking flight. A march is taking place that will forever decide the future of the United States, a march where an oppressed minority will rise up and demand better. However, this isn’t Martin Luther King leading the long walk from Selma to Montgomery; this is Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) leading her fellow mathematicians from their segregated ‘colored’ section of the Langley campus to the main building. It’s a shorter, swifter journey but every bit as important, and forms the defining posture Hidden Figures, which tells the previously obscured story of the black women (mathematicians, scientists, engineers) who were pivotal to the early victories of the US space programme.

Director Theodore Melfi adapts Margot Lee Shetterly’s book, focusing on three of these women: maths whizz Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson), aspiring engineer Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe) and the aforementioned Vaughan, denied supervisor role in her workplace by a white overseer (Kirsten Dunst). The film is sold as the struggle of ‘the women you don’t know behind the mission you do’, but as someone who wasn’t even that knowledgeable about the story hiding Johnson, Vaughan and Jackson from view, the impact was doubly felt. The separate strands of struggling minorities and an eyes-skyward approach to the future intertwine fantastically, with the latter never outshining the former.

I’m not about to go all poster-quote and say the performances are particularly nuanced or layered, because this is a film that realises that simplicity and sometimes predictability are necessary paths. However, they are completely believable, and utterly brilliant. Spencer’s years of experience provides the rightful guiding hand, Monaé gives us a constant reminder of the barriers placed upon African-American women at the time (as Mary battles for the right to study), and a new star in the skies of Hollywood. Henson takes centre stage as the first of the trio to break through into a higher field: Katherine is the only person of her colour in the highest offices of NASA, reporting directly to Kevin Costner as a fair but firm director. Despite her incredible achievements, she is still forced to make a forty minute to-and-from her segregated bathroom and given a separate coffee pot to her white male colleagues. Henson handles the central role with grace and ferocity, enough to keep Costner and a surprisingly strong Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) on their toes.

It's difficult to imagine that Costner’s role was too much of a stretch for him, and it’s his character (a collection of several other people fused together for the sake of narrative ease) that feels the most like a concession to white audiences, to prevent accusations of bias (a bit rich, if you ask me). Mahershala Ali appears from time-to-time, too: if you accomplish nothing else in life, find someone who looks at you as adoringly as he looks at literally everyone in this film.

A scattering of critics have picked holes in what they see as a lack of technical prowess. Not only have they clearly missed the point, but they’re also just plain wrong; there’s some stellar work going on, formally. Hans Zimmer delivers his least intrusive score in years (allowing Pharrell to take most of the heavy-lifting), and Mandy Walker sneaks a handful of really great compositions into the cinematography. Characters stand behind glass panes or converse across mirrors, divided by window frames or other barriers that are every bit as thin and easily breakable as their fragile racial divides.

Also, perhaps it’s not showily constructed because (shock horror), the director is more interested in building characters and highlighting adversity than effects-heavy rocket porn? Melfi is doing what any good ally of people of colour should do: using their privileged access to these tools to tell a tale that wouldn’t otherwise be seen, but stepping back to allow that story and its message to speak clearly. “Civil rights ain’t always civil,” admits Jackson’s husband, but Hidden Figures is. Certainly, it never shies away from stark images of persecution and shocking ignorance, but it does so with its head held high, safe in the knowledge that any right-thinking person is on its side and smiling wryly in unison.


This is a story told affectionately; sentimental without being cheesy, inspirational without a roll of the eyes. Even if the wonderful cast, prescient message and triumphant spirit wasn’t enough to make it infectiously enjoyable, the fact we’re even getting an awards season movie starring three black women is a reason to smile. It’s a shockingly overdue smile, occasionally brought on by reliance on cliché, but, as Harrison says; “Progress is a double-edged sword”

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

'Jackie' - Review

1/25/2017 01:05:00 pm
'Jackie' - Review
★ ★ ★ ★ ½ 

I feel bad for Hayden Christensen. In recent months, four of his Star Wars prequel alumni have bathed luxuriously in the critical spotlight while his IMdB credentials continue to yield nothing but occasional straight-to-DVD fluff: Liam Neeson for Martin Scorsese’s Silence (his robe, ponytail and religious struggle a hair’s breadth from Qui-Gon Jinn), Ewan McGregor for the return of Renton in Danny Boyle’s long-awaited T2 Trainspotting, Joel Edgerton for Loving, and Natalie Portman for her immaculate turn in Pablo Larrain’s latest.

Less all-enveloping biopic and more crucial component, Jackie explores the personal and political frictions faced by first lady Jacqueline Kennedy from the instant her husband is shot to just after the funeral (one could imagine Oliver Stone’s JFK happening somewhere behind the scenes). Detailed by Mrs. Kennedy to an unnamed reporter (Billy Cruddup), it plays out over three acts: aftermath, furore and reconciliation. Many biopics need certain liberties to create a cinematic narrative, but – as far as I can tell, at least – this story inherently forms into a filmic mould. The great turning point from the first to second act comes when an unrecognisable Richard E. Grant (playing JFK’s confidant, Bill Walton) interrupts Jackie’s tsunami of hopes and wishes for her husband’s burial to impress upon the first lady that it isn’t just the world that’s changed, it’s her world.

Not that the audience needs reminding: in its construction, Jackie is the closest that arthouse American cinema has (and possibly ever will) come to Son of Saul. The constricted 1.66:1 ratio maintains an unprecedented level of intimacy, as does a near-refusal to allow anyone else within the frame. With Portman commanding the screen as she does, there’s little need. It’s a poised, sculptured performance that, by necessity, feels affected but never stilted. A few moments of adjustment are needed, but once rapport between the reporter and Jackie is established, it’s cinema-sized ASMR that cannot fail to attract awards buzz, and rightly so.

Motivations, fears and dreams are communicated to others (mostly Peter Sarsgaard as an increasingly frustrated and powerless Bobby Kennedy) as Shakespearean-style monologues, topped-up by a Mica Levi score that simulates an undiscovered Beethoven symphony. Some will hate it, finding it intrusive and obnoxious and far too loud, but – and this is possibly the most pretentious thing I’ve ever typed – if you accept the operatic nature of the film, it serves only to enhance the drama.

So focused is Larrain on character and emotion that the usual checklist of ‘true story’ signifiers is thoroughly barred. Don’t go looking for date stamps, location markers, obvious hard cuts to archive footage or fawning over who wore which dress on what day. There’s not even a “Ooh, look, it’s the Oval Office!” shot: the historic dwelling may as well be a labyrinth, a prison of memories. In one lengthy vignette, Jackie trawls the White House with a vodka bottle in one hand and her billionth cigarette in the other, pausing to rifle through the wardrobe in a rainbow of nostalgic depression. Not to indulge too much further in the Star Wars allusions, but it’s hard not to think of Queen Amidala, draped in opulence even as her palace is seized.

The assassination itself (possibly the most studied event in human history) is withheld until the last possible moment. But when it arrives, it’s the build-up, not the graphic nature that grips. For 90 minutes we’ve heard Jackie describe the moment in disturbing detail, seen her try to wash blood from her hair and confess to a priest (a brilliantly sombre John Hurt) her wish that she’d been taken instead. The toughest moment isn’t as Jackie attempts to hold her dying husband’s head together, but when she finally has to explain to her children why their father isn’t coming home, reflecting the parental responsibility she feels for the entire nation.

If there is a flaw in Larrain’s opus, it’s the finale. A distinguishable crescendo is reached with extraordinary grace and power…but the film continues for a further few minutes, losing a little impact as it goes. With just the smallest of restructures, Jackie could be an absolute masterpiece. Even so, it’s an infinitesimal near-miss, and no amount of narrative muddle could harm such a gloriously intimate, raw and politically pertinent film as this.

Saturday, 10 December 2016

'Sully' - Review

12/10/2016 11:04:00 pm
'Sully' - Review

 ★ ★  ☆


Painted in strokes as broad as the wingspan of a 747, this drama from Clint Eastwood details the events and aftermath of January 15th, 2009, when Captain Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger (played here by Tom Hanks) made a “forced water landing” on the Hudson river when his passenger plane was crippled soon after take-off. All 155 souls survived, but Sully soon became subject to an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, and struck repeatedly by PTSD.

With his stubborn cyst in A Hologram For The King, a plot catalyst head trauma in Inferno and now his near-disastrous air incident here, Tom Hanks has spent a lot of screen time this year being told by doctors that he's going be fine, but Sully is the one instance where you actually believe the damage might be more than superficial scarring. Maybe it's the bleached grey hair or the bristly moustache, but there’s something about Hanks’ performance here that escapes the reassuring warmth of his usual persona, as it should: Sully’s trajectory is far from one of reassurance, where doubts about his fateful decision creep in from every corner.

So why, after going to so much effort to gift Hanks a performance that thrives on discomfort and nuance, does the screenplay as a whole fall back on a straightforward good versus bad narrative? The various NTSB investigators are portrayed as villains; sneering suits on a mission to catch Sully out. While writer Todd Komarnicki occasionally sews the tiniest seeds of doubt that the board may be right, it’s all in favour of later payoffs designed to make them look like heartless snobs. Among them is the hugely talented Anna Gunn, who is given little more to work with than a series of patronising head tilts and irritable sideways glances to her colleagues.

Still, better to be dishing out those glances than being the object of one: the film mishandles a good wedge of its supporting cast. Aaron Eckhart as co-pilot and co-moustache wearer Jeffrey Skiles could have so much more to do but is little more than light comic relief, and Laura Linney as Sully’s wife, Lorraine, is tied to a telephone for the entire film. It’s really starting to bug me now that – for all the invention and artistic license they take with various events – ‘true story’ films such as Sully and particularly last year’s Everest use their female characters as little more than the stricken, powerless  wife at home. We get a better glimpse into the lives of random passengers than Lorraine's, including Sam Huntington as a son separated from his father. This little aside adds nothing substantial to the narrative but it does mean that, with Dan Fogler currently starring in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, we have two Fanboys alumni in high-profile releases this month.

Whatever faults there might be with legitimacy of drama, there's no denying the technical accomplishment. Eastwood may not be the most subtle director (on a restless jaunt around Times Square, Sullenberger passes a ridiculously large Gran Torino poster), but he knows how to stage an arresting set piece. Here, he chooses to recreate the so-called 'Miracle on the Hudson' on multiple occasions, punctuating the structure of the film and allowing us a view from the flight control tower, the river and the cockpit, respectively. Indeed, the film opens with Sullenberger dreaming of the landing gone awry, his aircraft ploughing through central New York. As I said; very unsubtle imagery, but it gets things off a rousing jolt.

The special effects are tangible and unobtrusive, and the sound design as the plane drops with increasingly eerie familiarity is astounding. But the biggest technical plaudit should belong to cinematographer Tom Stern. Brandishing the most extensive use of IMAX cameras ever used on a feature film, Stern makes the monochrome magnificent. Any building not blanketed in a layer of snow appears jet black, and every element of the frame (faces, suits, screens) take on a singular tone, like a massive colour-by-numbers piece. Were this story the simple black-and-white affair Eastwood clearly believes it to be, the victory of the visuals would be absolute.


For a film by the Clint Eastwood, Sully ends up feeling somewhat less than noteworthy. Astonishingly constructed, yes, but told in a way that swings from ‘back to basics’ to just plain reductive. Sullenberger aside, there’s no complexity, just goodies and baddies; those who crack a joke and those who scowl. A very funny gag about ‘the Sully cocktail’ is little indication that the central question of the film, once answered, gives way to a final punchline, delivering the cinematic equivalent of a heavy drum solo ending in a ‘badum tish!’

Saturday, 15 October 2016

'Deepwater Horizon' - Review

10/15/2016 05:55:00 pm
'Deepwater Horizon' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ 

On April 20, 2010, an oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. By the time the fires had been put out and the spillage had been capped 87 days later, it had been named the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history. Being a 14 year-old at the time, with the minimal interest in current affairs that comes with adolescence, my knowledge of the incident prior to this cinematic retelling was limited to the ecological fallout. Not only had I never heard of the Deepwater Horizon itself, it never occurred to me that its destruction even carried an immediate human cost. The great success of the film is that the loss of those eleven men is keenly felt, even if their characterization is slim to non-existent.

Returning from 2013’s rather excellent Lone Survivor is the triple threat of director Peter Berg, leading man Mark Wahlberg, and composer Steve Jablonsky. They take on the day of disaster from ground zero, following rig worker Mike Williams (Wahlberg) as he leaves his wife (a seriously under-utilised Kate Hudson) and daughter to supervise blowout prevention on the Horizon. Upon arrival, Williams mingles with fellow crew members, suffers through uncomfortable encounters with BP moneyman Donald Vidrine (John Malkovich) and is suddenly thrust into the inferno when a pressure accumulation beneath the rig triggers a total meltdown.

I’ve probably said this before, but I’ll happily watch Mark Wahlberg in anything, from his deer-in-headlights performance in The Happening to his comparatively subtle but scorching role in The Departed. Here, we find him somewhere in the middle. He gets a lot of running about to do and dodges a lot of blistering debris, but the strength of his performance is that he sells the good-natured, slightly unkempt labourer in the build-up, so his later good deeds feel completely characteristic (though the film makes the error of playing us a recording of the real Williams before we even get a glimpse of the actor; always something to avoid in biopics).

He shares the screen with a finely-moustachioed Kurt Russel as Jimmy Harrell, the rig’s manager. His main job is to glower at Malkovich a lot, which he accomplishes with aplomb. Dylan O’Brien is also pretty effective in sporadic appearances but is barely noticeable through the layers of mud (and until the credits rolled I was thoroughly convinced it was Evan Peters playing the role).

With the focus initially planted on the humdrum working day of the rig, there’s little need for digital gloss, but when the rig bursts into flame in a series of seat-shaking explosions, the blaze (when seen on a significantly big screen) is enough to burn out the retinas. The physical blood, sweat and tears are also appropriately visceral, and though any gore is toned down in comparison to Berg’s previous picture, the fate that befalls Russell’s character when things go south is sure to induce a good half-hour of sharp winces. Refreshingly, there’s no slow-motion, piano-tinkled attempts to exploit any deaths for entertainment, either, merely a final roll call that says more with just eleven names than any heartstring-tugging music could accomplish.

That said, the score is peak Jablonsky; a collection of sweeping, spinning stringscapes dashed with incidental thrums that speak to an unmistakable milieu of Americana, in which the film is steeped. Sure enough, as Williams turns back from loading life rafts to gape at the pandemonium, the stars & stripes hang intact.

The sight and sound is all very evocative, but a screenplay penned by Matthew Michael Carnahan leaves something to be desired, Carnahan having taken over from previous writer/director J.C. Chandor, who left the project due to creative differences. Chandor made the unintelligible unmissable in Margin Call, and I feel his hand may have prevented the screenplay’s rank and file versus suit-and-tie metanarrative from coming across so blindingly obvious. The labourers are fast-talking, techno-babbling everymen, while the BP reps are smirking, beady-eyed taskmasters with their shirts tucked in so tightly they may as well be robots. Malkovich’s painfully enunciated accent does little to stave off this comparison.

Demonstrably, it was the oversight of those representatives that enabled the catastrophe to take place, but there’s no nuance to the divide at all. Lone Survivor managed to reproduce a harrowing event with minimal flag-waving, but Deepwater Horizon is constantly out to place the blame. Berg effectively combines the dangerous allure of Irwin Allen movies with the real-world gravitas displayed by Paul Greengrass’ United 93 (still the high watermark for the post 9/11 disaster subgenre), but the latter element is somewhat lacking. As he now takes on the Boston Marathon bombings in next year’s Patriots Day, it seems his and Wahlberg’s template for true story dramas is paying off dividends, but one wonders how much longer the formula will last.

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

'13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' - Review

2/02/2016 12:18:00 pm
'13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' - Review

★ ★



It seems customary for every review of 13 Hours to begin with some kind of comment on its infamous director, Michael Bay, either to poke fun at his staple signifiers or to question why on Earth he’s been tasked with bringing such a politically delicate story to the screen. Is anyone really shocked by now that the director of the Transformers movies didn’t have restraint listed amongst his priorities when there was military hardware and gung-ho chaos to indulge in?

Taken from the book by Mitchell Zuckoff, 13 Hours details the events of September 11th 2012 when a U.S. compound in Libya was set upon; it’s only defence a team of six security contractors, tasked with holding the line until support arrived to evacuate civilians and intelligence personnel.

Let’s clear the air immediately: the men depicted in this film committed an extraordinary act of bravery and should be remembered for doing so, which makes the portrayal of them problematic to say the least. Bar perhaps our two leads Jack (John Krasinski) and Tyrone (James Badge Dale), the entire line-up are reduced to one-note, totally interchangeable bearded burlies. It’s bad enough that the entire Libyan population fall under a blanket of facelessness, but to have the heroes of the story meld into one another is something else entirely.

Even our two leads are simply going through the motions: Dale is at least believable and has some small level of depth, but Krasinski is woefully miscast. Perhaps in a deliberate effort to sully his squeaky-clean persona from The Office, he’s given up shaving and taken up body-building, but he’s let down by his innate harmlessness. In one mid-shot he stands topless, moonlight reflecting off his chiselled torso but his puppy dog eyes giving the game away.

But let’s face facts; you don’t come to a Michael Bay movie for well-drawn characters in the same way you don’t go to a Donald Trump rally looking for the milk of human kindness. No, respectively you go there to have your face blown off by heavy-handed posturing and…oh, never mind, bad example. 

Bay’s particular brand of freneticism is surprisingly effective, at least to begin with: for situations where the peace is shattered, there’s shrapnel flying about and lots of people are shouting acronyms you can’t understand, he suddenly seems a natural fit. That is until we inexorably break away from immersive pandemonium and into the realm of bonkers, up-to-eleven excess. You’re no longer filled with the horror of war or the throat-clenching fear of loss, you’re waiting for the cars to stop mid-chase and metamorphose into giant robots. 

And just like that, everything we expected from the master of Bayhem comes into play: product placement (including a video game and console that didn’t exist at the time), copious lens flare with no discernible source, a refusal to stop the camera fidgeting, and day turning to night in a matter of moments. The one sane crewmember of the doomed ship Bay, composer Steve Jablonsky, has finally gone overboard, replaced by Lorne Balfe’s warped, buzzing soundscape that does little to evade the comparisons to Transformers.

To express annoyance at the political subtext almost seems to be a mistaken objective: did we ever really expect anything cerebral from this? This is a film that soils a semi-insightful image of farmers tending to their cattle even as war commences by having one of our moustachioed macho-men turn to another and say blankly ‘Surreal…it’s like another world…”

Watching 13 Hours is tantamount to playing Call of Duty game with a boisterous teenager who keeps skipping the cut-scenes: watchable to begin with and competent in its design, but very quickly tiresome, obnoxious and clueless.