Chris At The Pictures: richard e grant
Showing posts with label richard e grant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label richard e grant. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

'Logan' - Review

3/07/2017 03:23:00 pm
'Logan' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ 

Hugh Jackman lays claim to the Wolverine character once and for all in this dark and edgy superhero spin-off. In a future where the other X-Men have long-since disappeared, Logan/Wolverine lives as a chauffeur across the Mexican border by night and cares for the mentally-damaged Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) by day. Their isolated existence is shattered when a desperate woman entrusts Logan with helping a young girl, Laura (newcomer Dafne Keen) escape sinister forces. What follows is less a special effects blockbuster than a gritty, bloody road movie, as the increasingly fraught Wolverine is forced to face uncomfortable truths about his legacy.

Most of us take Hugh Jackman’s most famous role for granted, but his six foot-plus, ever-vested physique and inescapable charisma have been a constant sticking point for fans of the original comic version: a stocky, lycra-suited potty-mouth. Logan is the first film to really take these differences into account, and even make amends: whilst Wolverine vehemently denies any truth to be found in Laura’s collection of X-Men comics, there’s easily enough money in his swear box to fix several church roofs. It helps that Jackman’s own dedication to portraying the character has never once wavered, and continues to enthral. As sad at it is to see him finally let Logan go, it’s a fantastically well-pitched goodbye.

In the aftermath of Deadpool, the “we need more R-rated superhero movies” declaration has been bandied about a lot with very little thought, but director James Mangold (paying reparations for his comparatively tame and uninteresting The Wolverine) actually uses it appropriately. The first spoken word of the film is a sharply-uttered f-bomb; a display of aged irritation, not an immature opportunity to curse. A 15 certificate does allow the film to breathe with the foulest of mouths, but also to consider themes of aging and death without alienating a younger audience. It’s difficult to imagine subtle details such as Wolverine’s arthritic claws, limp, permanent scars and dusty grey hair making it into the final cut of a glossy Bryan Singer or Matthew Vaughn production.

Oh, and it’s very, very violent. Wolvie’s rages have been the bloodiest staple of the franchise from the beginning, but here they finally mean something again. Every chest cavity ruptured, every decapitation, every maimed limb may as well add five years to Logan’s already extended life-span. For the first time, you look past the physical regeneration to the mental degradation. George Stevens’ Shane is unsubtly alluded to throughout – “There’s no living with the killing” – but it’s a well-intentioned nod that brings some levity, just as the gore is shocking but not without some sense of entertainment (particularly during an early display of Laura’s own powers).

Keen will certainly be one to watch. At first she appears to be contributing a very run-of-the-mill silent, staring child performance, but when the plot kicks into high-gear, the intensity she displays is truly remarkable. Stephen Merchant brings the weirdness of the older ­X-Men films as an albino mutant-finder, Caliban. References to Merchant’s “goggle-eyed” appearance might have begun as a long-running gag on the XFM show he used to host with Ricky Gervais, but his particular features and sarcastic intonations are a great fit, providing stark contrast to Logan’s introspective glowering and Xavier’s incoherent, rambling regrets.

That the film is so deliberately vague with regard to Xavier’s troubled recent history pays dividends: there’s little explanation about what happened to the other mutants, what state the wider world is in (our only indication here is empty backdrops and stricter border controls), or what the ‘Westchester Incident’ refers to. All we really know is that Xavier’s degenerating telepathic mind is now considered a weapon of mass destruction, which is itself enough to spark our intrigue and fear.


My social media feed this week has been full of people ranking Logan alongside previous X-Men films, but it seems weird to do so considering just how different it is. Subplots are almost exposition-free, visual effects are used sparingly, and even the cinematography and production design feel less machine-tooled. It’s a grimy, hyper-violent thriller; a toeing of the genre line (far more so than Deadpool’s already outdated in-jokes) that stands alone, and ends on the most perfect note imaginable.

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.