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

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.

Friday, 24 March 2017

'Beauty and the Beast' - Review

3/24/2017 12:04:00 am
'Beauty and the Beast' - Review

★ ★ ★ ½ ☆

Emma Watson and Dan Stevens lead an all-star cast in this live-action remake of Disney’s 1991 animated classic. A smart and impetuous young woman named Belle (Watson) takes her father’s place in the abandoned castle of a hideous beast (Stevens), once a handsome prince punished for his selfishness. Trapped within the confines of the crumbling ruin, Belle befriends the transfigured house staff, slowly coming to discover there’s more to her monstrous captor than meets the eye. Meanwhile the caddish, swashbuckling Gaston (Luke Evans, firing magnificently on all cylinders), along with his infatuated sidekick, LeFou (Josh Gad), schemes to kill the beast and make Belle his wife.

Watson is a stunning Belle. That’s about all I can muster, really. I'd like to think my critical faculties extend beyond inserting several heart-eye emojis, but when Watson first appears it’s as if everything else (crisp faux-period detail, glittering landscapes, even Kevin Kline as Belle’s tender father) leap away at warp factor 9. Watson’s well-read inventor is a tad more outspoken and empowered than previous iterations of the story, and no less in control of the frame, the music, or the romance (and, to the huge relief of Potter fans, her eyebrows).

The photorealistic renderings of our favourite characters are intricately designed, but come off more than a little creepy (Madame Garderobe and her void-like maw, especially…yikes!), even when given such joyous sparkle by Hollywood’s finest: Ewan McGregor as Lumière, the talking candlestick, Ian McKellen as the finest incarnation of Cogsworth, the grumpy clock, and Emma Thompson, who gives reassuring life to Mrs. Potts, the cockney teapot.

It seems odd that such an otherwise tangible and lavishly designed yarn should have frayed digital edges: the Beast in particular feels very much an artificial insertion. Dan Stevens has an astonishing set of pipes on him, but the grumbling voice distortion and lack of physical heft somewhat squash his natural broiling charm. Still, he delivers the same heavy-pawed comedy-catharsis combo we expect; certainly enough to forgive any less-than special effects.

CGI is also used so extensively during the many musical numbers (‘Be Our Guest’ is the biggest offence) to compensate for the colour and flair of the original you wonder why they didn’t remake it into a 3D animation, rather than live action. Likewise, the grand ballroom sequence is a little flat-footed. Lacking the fluid, ground-breaking elements of its animated counterpart and opting instead for a whirling digital lightshow, director Bill Condon’s desire to enthral youngsters of a new generation could mean anti-climax for long-time fans.


Maybe this is a sign that the ‘tale as old as time’ has finally been drained of all invention? Perhaps, but those simply after a good time at the movies won’t be deterred by such a sweet, funny and soulful retelling. The songs, story and characters are pretty much invincible at this point, and to see them all brought to life again by some of cinema’s brightest stars is undeniable fun. Like the recent revivals of Cinderella and The Jungle Book, it shines with the high-tech glimmer of modern filmmaking and attempts to develop some new material: nothing much is lost, but there’s really nothing there that wasn’t there before. 

Monday, 13 March 2017

'Moonlight' - Review

3/13/2017 10:11:00 pm
'Moonlight' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Moonlight begins with a statement by song: Boris Gardiner’s Every N****r is a Star. The star in this movie’s galaxy is Chiron (Alex Hibbert/Ashton Sanders/Trevante Rhodes), a young black man struggling with his sexuality. Based on a drama school project by playwright Tarell Alvin McCraney, the film takes the form of three distinct acts that track Chiron’s journey from childhood, through adolescence and into adulthood. These segments in turn are constructed of vignettes so delicate and tender you daren’t breathe, lest they shatter.

Flat-out racism and refusal to engage with diverse narratives aside, I cannot understand the mind-set of critics and audiences who declare nothing to connect with here. Whether it’s the question of how we choose to identify versus the labels placed on us by others, how masculinity takes many different forms, the interlinking between sexuality and expression, or even subtle notes on depression and anxiety,Moonlight offers so much to discuss with barely a word spoken. Mahershala Ali (long may he reign) provides the major mouthpiece as Juan; a drug dealer who dispenses wisdom to a young Chiron (nicknamed Little). It’s through Juan’s calm intonation and the prolonged silences of pain by each incarnation of Chiron (incidentally, all three leads are perfect) that gives the film such a profound voice despite a deference to showing, not telling.

Every single moment of exquisite heartache is elevated by James Laxton’s cinematography. The colours meld and blur and burn, a kaleidoscope of cool blues and searing purple that are incredible even when removed from the context of a film that gifts us so many indelible images. Director Barry Jenkins has shown me things that cinema has never offered before: a romantic jukebox denouement reserved for two men, a complete lack of white speaking parts, and the sight of a muscled black man crying that isn’t played for comedic effect, even remotely.

This complete contrast with any film I’ve ever seen before is probably my favourite thing about a film full of astonishing elements. I have a terrible habit of referring to other films an awful lot, but Moonlight is so different that I have almost no frame of reference, and I can’t understate how exciting that is. The one allusion I could find was a comparison with this year’s A Monster Calls, which I said empowered every lonely child to “admit their quietest truth at thunderous volume”. Moonlight is the flipside; expressing the loudest components of self-expression and character as a mere whisper.

I’m not about to say I had a ball with it, because that wouldn’t be entirely true: I think one could argue that some of the narrative might fall into place a little too neatly. I’m tempted to say that’s not necessarily a bad thing – given how the minorities represented are so rarely given any kind of narrative justice – but I am aware that saying so might come across as patronising.

While its general themes are infinitely successful, its specificity is still occasionally difficult for someone so far from its frame of reference…but I don’t consider that an issue. For those who do understand these experiences, who have had their background, sexuality and racial identity used as the basis for prejudice, Moonlight is going to be unspeakably important. The specific periphery of Jenkins’ film is what makes it so special, what makes it feel like a story where, for the briefest instant, the outside world may as well not exist; a welcome escape indeed.

Saturday, 14 January 2017

'La La Land' - Review

1/14/2017 06:51:00 pm
'La La Land' - Review

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Like many others, I’m sure; this review begins with a clarification. No, more a resigned confession: I’ve never been one for musicals. While everyone else of my generation grew up with the animated song-and-dance phenomenon of the Disney renaissance, the closest I got were cartoons with a few songs in them (predominantly Toy Story, the Phil Collins-heavy Tarzan and a crummy VHS copy of The Transformers: The Movie). There’ve been some exceptions every now and then, including but not limited to Jeff Wayne’s The War of the Worlds, parts of Les Miserables, and the time my housemate practically forced me to watch Chicago. Despite the varying quality of those examples, nothing has ever been able to shake my innate prejudice. I spent the opening logos of La La Land braced to cringe, waiting for the spasm in my gut and the embarrassed shiver to cross my cheeks…but neither came.

Instead, I spent two hours jigging my knee up and down in glee, weeping in wonder and beaming in total surrender, side-by-side with my mum (who, fittingly, took me to see Tarzan all those years ago). For those of you who’ve been living under a rock since the film’s dazzling first appearance at the Venice film festival, Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) directs Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as Sebastian and Mia, two California dreamers who begin to fall in love after a chance encounter on a busy highway. Seb aspires to open his own Jazz club (in order to save what he sees as a dying genre), and Mia, a wannabe actor, is desperate to escape her life of serving coffee to the inhabitants of the Warner Bros. backlot (“That’s the street from Blade Runner!” – I whispered excitedly as the pair wandered among the vintage façades).

Yeah, I’ve never found myself attached to the grand heritage La La Land is so clearly besotted with, but throw in a location from one of my favourite movies, an original John Legend song and not one, but two sequences paying homage to Rebel Without a Cause, and you’ve got every inch of my being in an unrelenting embrace. Plus, giving Stone a lead role helps. Honestly, I could gush for hours about how her every eye roll, head spin and half-smile in this has extended my life expectancy by several decades, but we’d be here for twice that length.

Where Gosling is concerned, another of my long-held prejudices has been put to rest. While his woozy eyes have understandably wowed many, to me his expression has always appeared vacant, almost detached. In Shane Black’s The Nice Guys, this worked wonders (his character was a complete klutz), and here, too, his hazy gaze speaks to something authentic: the far-reaching mind of a dreamer. I finally get it, you guys.

Okay, now I’ve confessed and repented for my sins, can I gush about the routines, please? Cool, thanks: Justin Hurwitz’ songs are perfect, the dances move with the sweep and grace of sublime animation, and all are presented in a rainbow-soaked palette as flavoursome and primary as a packet of fruit pastilles. Standouts include a hilltop toe-tap (that moonlit beauty from the poster), a one-shot parkour through heavy traffic and a soaring waltz among the stars. Despite wanting to, I hesitate to blabber further: I’d hate to ruin any of what this film has in store.

In contrast to the stark colours, the morality of the story - of Seb and Mia’s victories and sacrifices - is far from black and white. I’m pressed to label it ‘earnest to a fault’…but, well; it hasn't got one! Chazelle knows we’re too cynical to buy a total lovesick ode to Tinseltown right now, so peppers the sweet with spice. Even I (a sometimes fantastically over-sentimental soul) could understand why the film makes certain moves towards the flip-side of fairy tales, undertaking manoeuvres I can’t illustrate any clearer for, again, fear of spoiling the surprise.

So: a glorious ear-worm of a soundtrack, astounding visuals, unfairly loveable stars and a surprisingly textured narrative…I think that just about covers it! Wait, there’s a ‘Take on Me’ cover, too? Complete with Gosling passive-aggressively plinking a keytar? Sod it, take your five stars and get out of here; you’re already too good for 2017 as it is.


P.S. Please don’t actually go, we need you. Badly.

Friday, 2 December 2016

'Allied' - Review

12/02/2016 11:22:00 pm
'Allied' - Review

★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

In complete antithesis to the opening of Forrest Gump –a single feather tumbling lightly through the air, enhanced by the subtlest of cutting-edge effects – the first shot of Robert Zemeckis’ new film, Allied, indicates a venture doomed from the start. Canadian intelligence officer Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) is airdropped into the Moroccan desert; CG sand billows and warps, the parachute ripples with artifice, and you can almost see the transition between computer-built puppet and physical actor.

Such obvious and cheap-looking visual additions hamper much of this tepid World War 2 thriller, which sees Pitt and Marion Cotillard (playing fictional French resistance badass Marianne Beausejour) working undercover as an affluent husband and wife, before genuinely falling in love. Loyalties are later tested when commanding officer Heslop (a bristling, brusque Jared Harris) reveals that Vatan’s wife and mother of his child may, in fact, have ulterior motives.

We begin in Casablanca (never a good location to reference in post-war cinema, for obvious reasons), where – despite the odd clumsy line – the setup is all rather enticing, and an early sequence of two-versus-twenty machine gun action is fantastically punchy. The period detail is, of course, perfect, because this is Robert Zemeckis, and nothing escapes his eye. Well, besides the fact his leads have precisely zero chemistry. God bless Marion Cotillard for staying the distance, because she is utterly captivating; believable, yet with those classical Hollywood idiosyncrasies that make a tiny voice in your head remind you that it’s all for show. Plus, let’s be honest; no-one else could saunter about in a selection of 1940s silk nightgowns with quite as much panache.

One might be persuaded that this is what happens when two of the world’s most glamorous stars are made to play characters already play-acting themselves: the detachment from reality is increased two-fold, and investment is rendered near-impossible. I hope to dissuade you of this notion, because any lack of connection is entirely the fault of our leading man. Brad Pitt (the Brad Pitt!) is astonishingly, demand-a-refund, write-home-to-your-mother poor. He spends the first hour with a look that says “I need to bring up phlegm but people keep talking to me”. Then, in the second, his stricken face betrays not “What if my wife’s a Nazi?”, nor “Will I lose my child?”, but “If I farted, would anyone notice?”

Digital airbrushing and having to perform alongside a completely magnetic Cotillard at all times is a cruel combination, but that’s really no excuse for such a brick wall of charisma. Sex scenes between the two may confuse viewers, who’ll find themselves concerned over Marianne’s fruitless attempts to untangle herself from a particularly unresponsive deck chair…and why it’s got a side parting. The most eagle-eyed, frothy-mouthed tabloid editor looking for signs of a steamy affair between the two leads could not find so much as a mild breeze here.


Add some tip-top British thespians filling the air with polite menace (Harris, with Simon McBurney in close succession), and suddenly, Pitt has no allies at all, stranded in the desolation of Steven Knight’s ungainly script. Knight’s unpredictable levels of quality continue to zig-zag, with Allied falling somewhere between disappointing and mediocre. There’s no sign of the quiet brilliance exuded by Locke, but an unhealthy helping of Seventh Son’s slap-on-the-back misogyny. “Who are you thinking about?” Vatan asks a young British pilot, hours before the terrified boy is sent to almost certain death. “My mother, Sir” he replies. “Don’t.” murmurs a stale-faced Pitt, “Think of your father. He’s proud of you”. You what, mate?

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

'Mother's Day' - Review

6/14/2016 07:22:00 pm 0
'Mother's Day' - Review

½ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆


There’s a moment some undiscernible distance into the endless swill of naffness that is Mother’s Day when Timothy Olyphant arrives at a garden party. He steps out of his car, the camera slung low behind him, taking in the innocent surroundings as he proceeds with singular purpose in his stride. In a dark, desperate moment I spoke a silent prayer that a twist of Shyamalan-like proportions lay just around the corner, that Olyphant would choose that split second to reprise his role as the murderous assassin from Hitman. I waited for him to extract a weapon from his jacket and open fire, laying waste to the immaculate upper-class house, the tacky decorations littering its garden and the lecherous clown midway-through dispensing parenting ‘advice’ to Jennifer Aniston’s put-upon single mother.

Alas, my hopes were dashed as Olyphant entered the garden armed with nothing but a gurning smile to strike up yet another stale, witless exchange with Aniston. This is where we spend a large portion of Garry Marshall’s latest effort to transplant a greetings card onto celluloid: trapped in the same room as two or more characters it desperately wants us to love as they swap dialogue as pleasing to the ear as cutlery in a washing machine. 

Like Marshall’s previous crimes Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve, the film features several tortuously interconnected stories, set in what I assume is an alternate-reality version of Atlanta with no black people, where no-one seems to work, but can still live in the kind of houses that Members of Parliament used to claim through expenses.

The predominant narrative features Aniston as Sandy, with Olyphant playing her ex-husband. He has run off with a younger woman, leaving Sandy to raise their two boys and display her dissatisfaction mostly by gabbling every line and sitting in her car, screaming at the dashboard. Kate Hudson also stars as Jesse, a mother with racist, homophobic parents: after an outburst concerning her Indian husband, Jesse storms out in understandable rage, before realising her apparent ‘mistake’ when Ed Sheeran’s Photograph seeps into the sound mix with all the grace and subtlety of a hurled house brick. When Jesse’s own mother is brought face-to-face with the mother-in-law in an effort to bury the hatchet, it transpires that her foreign counterpart, too, is a bigot. “That’s racist,” she giggles “but also funny!”

Then we have Jack Whitehall playing a stand-up comedian (readers are invited to insert their own jokes here – trust me, they’ll be funnier than the film), delivering painfully stagnant observations (“I’ve got a baby, I don’t sleep much anymore!”) to an audience that responds with canned hysterics. Julia Roberts pops up every few minutes as a teleshopping presenter with a hairdo scarier than The Blair Witch Project and a plot contrivance that makes Babel’s second act reveal seem natural. 

Finally, we have Jason Sudeikis as a widower who answers his daughter’s request for tampons by shudderingly refusing to mention them by any name but ‘The T’. Teenage girls have periods; oh, the horror! A later scene sees him follow an emotional visit to his wife’s grave by tumbling jovially from a balcony, mid-rap, in salmon-pink trousers: hospitals nationwide should prepare for an influx of audience members who’ve cringed themselves inside-out.

Mother’s Day fails its own straightforward objective with staggering ineptitude, irritation, and vomit-inducing sickliness in a concoction devoid of humour, empathy or recognisable human emotions. We are betrayed even by its aspect ratio; the full-frame presentation depriving us of the ability to stare longingly into the comforting blackness of the letterbox bars.

Monday, 13 June 2016

'Me Before You' - Review

6/13/2016 12:57:00 pm
'Me Before You' - Review

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆


Here’s an almost sickly sweet weepie pulled from the pages of author-screenwriter Jojo Moyes’ best-seller (aside: has there ever been a worst-selling novel adapted for the screen?). Emilia Clarke stars as boundlessly positive Louisa, who – after losing her job in a small-town café – lands a position caring for paralyzed, wheelchair-bound Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). After a somewhat icy introduction, the two form a strong bond that threatens to grow beyond that of carer and patient, despite Lou’s loyalty to fitness-obsessed boyfriend Patrick (Matthew Lewis).

In the weeks leading up to release, controversy surrounding the hiring of a non-disabled actor for Claflin’s role was the hot topic, and if the movie actually had anything that deep or insightful to say regarding the experience of being physically disabled, it would have presented a significant issue for criticism. The truth is, Me Before You leaves a sizable portion of controversy at the door, far more concerned with presenting two of the industry’s most handsome, up-and-coming young stars getting along famously. 

Performances are exceedingly earnest: Clarke plays Louisa as the most insatiably chipper human on the planet, an overdose of sunbeam smiles and worryingly sentient eyebrows that make The Force Awakens’ Rey resemble a dour-faced Linkin Park devotee. Claflin continues on his mission to replace the Earth’s atmosphere with concentrated charisma, and Lewis gives the character of Patrick some sense of empathy in a role which almost escapes the ‘disgruntled git boyfriend’ cookie-cutter.

Charles Dance and Janet McTeer bring some thespian credence to the table as Will’s parents, and moments focused on their plight thankfully aim more for a gentle tenderness than the bludgeoning misery of comparable illness romance The Fault in Our Stars. The burden of possibly controversial material is largely placed upon their shoulders, too.

The film is ultimately held back by a constant grapple with itself: a sense of uniqueness is just about realised by beautiful cinematography and knowing nods to its target audience, before being stifled by adherence to all the usual plot contrivances and massively broad emotional strokes. Despite small efforts to the contrary, it does what it says on the tin; delivering a little joy, a little heartbreak, and extended scenes of Charles Dance smiling in a way that doesn’t signify immediate dismemberment.

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

'How to Be Single' - Review

2/24/2016 12:16:00 am
'How to Be Single' - Review


★ ★ ★ ½ ☆



Alice Kepley (Dakota Johnson) begins a break from boyfriend Josh (Nicholas Braun) to enjoy the pleasures of being a fully-capable singleton. Aided by go-getting workmate Robin (Rebel Wilson) and happily lonesome barman Tom (Anders Holm), Alice makes a beeline for the bars and clubs of New York City, a shot glass clutched to her heart. Meanwhile, her midwife sister Meg (Leslie Mann) struggles with her secret yearning for motherhood.

What surprised me most about Ditter’s film (having initially dismissed it as another rom-com rolling off the production line) was the way it’s constructed as a piece of film-making. For all the pleasures inherent in Bridesmaids and Trainwreck¸ Judd Apatow and his contemporaries often leave the camera prone while the main players cling to motionless improvisation. All fine and dandy in a self-contained TV act, but a choice that ultimately stifles cinematic comedy from developing individual stylistic sensibilities. Not here: our leads are presented as characters in lieu of stand-up performers who wandered onto a film set, by virtue of glistening cinematography and punchy editing. Fil Eisler’s score also slips keenly between the toe-tapping line-up of pop tunes.

Praising the technical aspects of a comedy suggests the humour isn’t up to par, but that’s far from true. The script is snappy and snarky in all the right places and gives way to hefty slapstick without turning crass: a convoluted way of saying it’s very, very funny. Consistency in laughter shouldn’t be underestimated, and that’s where the film brings A-game material. Those swigging any form of drink should choose their moments carefully, or suffer the same clogged throat and watering eyes as yours truly. 

Johnson brings an honest shy smile to offset Wilson’s foul-mouthed bluntness and sparks fly magnificently between them. The latter casting prompted fears of eye-rolling “Hey, aren’t fat people funny?!” gags, but she makes her mark through obstinacy over obesity, stealing the show so dutifully in the opening movement that scenes lacking her feel a measurable percentage less funny. Mann lends a steadfast stream of chuckles too, and gains my forgiveness for ear-piercing screech-fest The Other Woman. Jason Mantzoukas’ similarly makes amends for his turn in Dirty Grandpa.

Holding the film back from greatness is a sag in pace as we near the final act. Laughter grinds to a halt and secondary delights (see Alison Brie’s online dating fanatic) are forgotten. As our two leads strive to fix their various affairs with a whiff of cliché, we realise that a film titled How to Be Single has spent an awful lot of time dealing with the fallout of various relationships and fusing female development to male behaviour. Up until the quick-fix epilogue, it’s a noticeable but forgivable blemish on an otherwise winning formula. 

A comforting cast, defined style and a laughs-to-run-time ratio that surpassed my modest expectations make How to Be Single exactly what it should be: a glowing, glitzy girls’ night out served up as a cinematic winter warmer.