Chris At The Pictures

If your only exposure to the Divergent series was through their marketing, it’d come as somewhat of a shock to find that it’s actually another dystopian young adult franchise, not an arthouse drama following a group of stranded teens attempting to get down from a tall building. Seriously, look at the one-sheet for Divergent:

Look a bit stuck, don’t they? As if they didn’t quite think the whole thing through. Things don’t improve in part two…

After a quick change of hairstyles (more aerodynamic, maybe?), the star of Insurgent and her cohort were a bit too keen to reach the bottom.

And now, we reach part three in the series: our central lovers (accompanied by some concerned friends) have slowed things down a bit, tackling the descent with a dubious minimum of safety equipment.  This careful approach defines Allegiant as a film: playing it safe.

The last instalment ended with the revelation that Chicago, home city of our heroine, Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), is a massive scientific experiment controlled from without. We very distinctly saw the gates of the city opened, and the inhabitants tiptoeing out onto pastures new. Within the first thirty seconds of Allegiant, however, the gates are closed and the  masses make an awkward U-turn, trudging back to the squabbling and infighting they were apparently desperate to break away from.

Tris, Four (Theo James) and company are forced to climb their way to freedom over the wall. Once beyond, they encounter The Bureau, a scientific order that surveys Chicago in the pursuit of discovering genetic purity. Overseer David (Jeff Daniels, practically trolleyed onto set from his role in The Martian) informs Tris that her divergent nature singles her out as ‘pure’ (read: chosen one) amongst her ‘damaged’ peers, and that she has key role to play in rebuilding the damaged world.

For a brief period, and despite my extreme lack of interest in the two previous movies, I found the opening act oddly gripping: we get punchy action set pieces with some nicely experimental sci-fi tech on display. However, this intrigue only carries the film so far; right until the CGI drones and bubble capsules are deployed not as world-building but active plot staples brought into play because the characters simply aren’t involving enough. Woodley is ferried from scene to scene, reverting back to the motionless, stale-faced approach that so vehemently turned me off the first Divergent, and James (despite having a far more active part) glowers from under his eyebrows ad infinitum. At the very least, Miles Teller seems to be having fun as Peter (the Edmund Pevensie of the group), but I can’t imagine the role of 'unlovable buzzkill' is any great stretch.

Skewed in favour of image over insight as the first act may be, it’s at least preferable to later stages which completely lose desire for any kind of vitality: as the signposted twists and turns unfold with box-ticking predictability, screen-time is split between the orange wastelands surrounding The Bureau and the civil war in Chicago, of which very little is actually depicted (presumably most of the budget got spent on rendering the Mad Max-y backdrops). Both concurrent climaxes are insipidly bloodless.

Having failed to keep her head down and having escaped the second round of the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and her allies hunker down in the bowels of District 13, planning their revolution to topple the capitol, under the leadership of President Coin (Julianne Moore). With her home destroyed and fellow games-survivor Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) behind enemy lines, Katniss must decide whether or not to stand as the symbol of the revolution.

What gives Mockingjay Part 1 a slight edge over its predecessor is that the repetitive element of going back into the games is dropped and the story is able to move into a new direction, and it’s very impressive how the defiant spirit is alive and tangible now the oppressive aura of the games has lifted. With the exception of Philip Seymour Hoffman as Heavensbee (who spends the film slyly grinning from the side-lines as everything falls into place), everyone appears to be building towards something, ready to drop everything and give their life for the cause.

Jennifer Lawrence is spectacular, managing to still find new things to do with her role and proving to everyone why she remains the lauded face of the modern film star. The array of supporting cast all shine, notably Elizabeth Banks as Effie – who arguably is given greater room to develop than anyone else – and Sam Claflin as pretty-boy turned heartbroken rebel Finnick. Even the Josh Hutcherson problem of the previous films (that problem being that he couldn’t act his way out of a paper bag) is solved by the story itself not needing him very much.

Something I find admirable about this film in comparison to the previous movies is that – for what is essentially a teen action movie – it spends a majority of its time building characters, investing time in the unravelling of the plot and keeping the audience engrossed in the story, and even when the action sequences rear their head the CG and explosions are handled just as carefully and just as involving as the rest, even if the final set-piece is all over the shop.

Mockingjay is also a very important note in the Hunger Games series musically: James Newton Howard is finally given room to breathe outside the games arena, providing a powerful soundtrack that really deserves more attention than the ‘soundtrack’ currently topping the charts (basically a bunch of songs with the poster plastered over the album cover). There is also a central set piece involving a love song which really harkens back (albeit in a more populist form) to the punk-rock idea of music as a weapon of the revolution, to not only speak out against the oppressors but to belt out your dissatisfaction from the rooftops.

Willing to go to dark places, unafraid of injecting a little humour and unashamed when it comes to favouring emotions over effects, Mockingjay Part 1 may be laden with a few too many rousing speeches and a stumbling final act but it reaches furiously for the heights of its predecessor and falls but a degree short. If this is the opening salvo, fans and audiences alike have much to look forward to in the final chapter.

★★★★☆

Perhaps the most crucial weapon that Tombstones brings to bear (other than the guns, knives, cleavers and other tools of the trade that the characters bludgeon each other with) is Liam Neeson returned to a situation that suits him. Whilst past films have utilised his grim, embittered demeanour, the problem with action fare such as Taken and Non-Stop is that the backdrop against which Neeson was placed were too ridiculous to take him in any way seriously. Thankfully the drab, unwelcoming streets of pre Y2K New York filling the frame here are a perfect match for our leading man.

There is a surprising amount to enjoy in the supporting cast too. Dan Stevens lends the initial charisma that made him so chilling in The Guest but alters it slightly to bring an edge of slime and is by far the most magnetic screen presence. Astro is very believable and watchable as T.J., with a backstory that is well-developed without the need for flashbacks or drawn-out exposition. The villains are quite clearly horror-thriller caricatures but as they aren’t the main focus this doesn’t become too much of an issue.

The criminally over-played ‘alcoholic cop’ trope is dropped this time in favour of a remorseful man searching for redemption for a crime he believes was his fault, and the focus on Scudder as a repentant individual who attends AA meetings, remaining vigilant of endangering what friends he has left makes for a refreshing and enjoyable character arc. Sadly the sheer running time devoted to Scudder means that the crime thriller element is given very little time to develop and the whole film starts to drag its feet during the middle act.

Visually, the film dispenses with stylised elements favoured in too many contemporary thrillers and aims more for the grimy, voyeuristic look of genre pieces from the appropriate 90’s time frame. The period setting also prevents an over-abundance of techno-gadgetry from becoming an overbearing presence, with the Y2K aspect injecting a distrust of technology into the mix. Even without modern technology, a selection of modern thriller tropes find their way into the final act and the ridiculousness of them do shatter the atmosphere. There is also a sense of impatience in waiting for a shocking plot twist that never shows up, which in the end makes the film feel very disposable.

With Liam Neeson back among surroundings in which one can take him seriously, and sporting a well-constructed supporting cast, A Walk Among the Tombstones is a perfectly functional thriller. While the thrills are unmemorable and largely predictable, they’ll be sure to provide satisfying entertainment for a couple of hours.

3 stars

Based on the novel by Lois Lowry, The Giver is set in what appears to be a perfect world. But while suffering and war have been banished, so too have choice, diversity and colour. While his friends are assigned to ordinary jobs once coming of age, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is selected to learn from an elderly man (Jeff Bridges) about the reality of pain and pleasure that once existed within the real world.

From the outset, the story feels openly derivative of many other texts aimed at teenagers: you have the communities/districts from The Hunger Games, the sorting ceremony from Harry Potter and the edge-of-insanity faction leader from Divergent. While the entire premise is intrinsically interesting, the initial intrigue is unfortunately strangled by the references and ideas that worked much better – or worse – in other films.

Thwaites (who I rather enjoyed in Oculus) feels very out of place at the start but slowly eases into an easily replicable role, while Jeff Bridges appears to have become caught in some form of suspended animation since working on Tron: Legacy and continues that enjoyably grumbly performance, albeit bereft of L.E.D. trench coat. Meryl Streep as the matriarch adds a certain degree of watchable madness but has clearly been taking staring lessons from Kate Winslet in Divergent.

Unfortunately, Streep’s character is where the enjoyable female roles end. Katy Holmes as Jonas’ mother is utterly wasted, Taylor Swift is brought in for about two minutes during a flashback before vanishing into thin air, while the supposed love interest (We Are What We Are’s Odeya Rush) is criminally under-developed. Whatever problems I may have had with Divergent, at least it had some decent female roles whereas here, they are marginalised to the point where you could remove half of them and no-one would notice.

Due to the nature of the world in which the film takes place, the colour palette begins in drab black and white, but as the real world is revealed to Jonas, colour begins to seep into the frame accompanied by great rainbow bursts which carry a certain visual charm. Annoyingly, these scenes are not only unimaginatively shot, but the character reactions to what should be the extraordinary undiscovered beauty of the real world are frustratingly muted and bland. The tone of the movie is all over the place, an irksomely saccharine Christmas scene offset horrifically by a sequence in which Jonas experiences what is essentially a ‘Nam flashback.

Carried almost entirely by an interesting premise and watchable leads, The Giver pays lip service to an array of philosophical problems but has neither the strength nor running time enough to fully play out the central idea to maximum potential; a young adult adaptation that would have much more room to grow if it could only refrain from ripping off its predecessors. It’s intriguing, but ultimately forgettable.

2.5 stars

Christine Lucas (Nicole Kidman) awakes in fright next to a man she doesn’t recognise, in a body that is too old and a house that is alien to her. The sleeping man is revealed to be her husband Ben (Colin Firth), who patiently explains to her that she was involved in an accident which has left her with a particular form of amnesia, to the extent that she wakes up every morning believing herself to be 26, when she is in fact 40, before promptly losing the information every time she sleeps. Before I Go To Sleep explores Christine’s paranoia and attempts to recollect her past with the help of Doctor Nash (Mark Strong).

The real key to the success of the film are the three leads. Kidman – who has spent a lot of her recent film roles looking rather embarrassed – lends a real sense of believable confusion and desperation to the central part. Colin Firth and Mark Strong have their usual goody and baddy stereotypes played around with in an interesting way, the former providing a very refreshingly different screen persona given his past record. Other characters are kept to the bare minimum, and the tight focus is extremely effective at building investment.

A great deal of snooty critics have had a problem with the opening twenty minutes, where Christine has to have her condition explained to her several times, and many have complained that it becomes repetitive and irritating. I on the other hand think they must’ve seen a different film, because I found myself gripped from the get-go, thrust into the heart of the drama. The slow descent into uncertainty is carefully handled, feeling slow and deliberate without padding out the running time.

Composer Edward Shearmur delivers a delicate, tick-tocking score that nicely complements the developing narrative, but knows exactly when to drop out, particularly in the incredibly tense final act, where any significant score would have felt like an unwanted interruption. The lead-up is properly gripping in a way that modern thrillers seldom are, providing a fair share of twists that are shocking yet stop short of being utterly ridiculous.

Whilst it may be true that the film doesn’t feel the need to fill the frame constantly with an array of useless side characters, I only wish that the frame itself was as carefully considered: the cinematography is nothing to shout about – with the possible exception of the opening close-up – and the whole picture has been laced with an irritating iron-grey tinge that serves only to dissipate the realism rather than enhance it. There is also one scene right at the very end that appears to have been shot entirely differently and could really do with being edited out completely to create a more cohesive story.

Saddled with a title and a premise that seem tailor-made for critical ridicule, Before I Go To Sleep manages to bring a lot more to bear than appearances would suggest, crafting an intricate and surprising web of lies and discovery that comes together in a gripping and entertaining thriller. I would recommend watching it as a double-bill with Danny Boyle’s Trance, another amnesiac thriller with similar themes of repressed trauma but handled very differently.

4 stars

Based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith, The Two Faces of January is a thriller centred on rich con artist Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen), his alluring younger wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst) and a young stranger named Rydal (Oscar Isaac) as they are caught up in the murder of a private investigator and their attempts to escape justice set against the backdrop of the 19060’s Mediterranean. 

The film’s biggest strength is undoubtedly its three leads: they are constantly kept front and centre stage, with little to no side characters ever having to become drawn in unless absolutely necessary, which leads to a much higher level of engagement and keeps the focus tight. Viggo Mortensen is – as always – a magnetic screen presence, creating a perfect mix of a man of great extravagance and charity but always with the mind-set of ‘what can I get out of this?’ Oscar Isaac is also great, his deliberately wavering accent leading you to believe that Rydal may not be entirely truthful when discussing his origins, lending the character a great sense of mystery. 

Kirsten Dunst performs admirably, but is sadly underused and often cast aside, though this may be a problem inherent in the source material and not the fault of the film. In fact, the sensibility of the book seems to have given the film both a great strength and a quite noticeable flaw. Whilst it carries with it a great film noir sensibility – only it trades the claustrophobia of a city for the exposed landscapes of Greece and Crete – this also means that, in the end, it’s quite forgettable in a throwaway, pulpy sort of way, and within a few days you probably won’t remember what exactly the plot was.

Going back to the positive side, the film looks terrific. Production designer Michael Carlin’s attention to period detail is most impressive, meaning that not once did I spot someone in the background using a mobile phone or using a car that hadn’t been designed yet, as is sometimes the case with a film set firmly in the past. The whole production is bathed in a very over-exposed, golden-orange light which gives a great sense of overbearing heat and exposed paranoia, and means that when the scenes that are set at night show up that you do actually feel cooler and safer.

There are just one or two other problems I have with the film, the first being that it is too short. 96 minutes might sound ideal for a throwaway pulp story, but I rather hoped the film might expand on the book, do its own thing and give us just that little bit more. The brief running time means that the final scenes feel awfully rushed and a little unresolved, and initiates my second problem: the film begins with Chester and Dunst in Greece, enjoying themselves, and within 15 minutes the incident involving the private detective has happened yet we’ve had no real insight into their characters. Sure they sit and chat – and smoke enormous amounts of cigarettes – over a meal with Rydal but I didn’t really feel I knew them well enough to become invested in their problems that quickly.

Whilst constrained by its pulp origins and cut short of aspiring to anything greater, The Two Faces of January is still an entertaining drama that takes it strength from remarkable central performances, a minute eye for period detail, and a real visual flair. It isn’t likely to make a lasting impression, but as a piece of entertainment it’s perfectly fine.

3 stars