clark-ingleton Reviews

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

A fairytale for grown ups

[10/10 · 19 November 2022]

The Banshees of Inisherin stars Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon and Barry Keoghan, and is directed by Martin McDonagh Set during the Irish Civil War in 1923 on a remote island in Ireland, it's the story of two long time friends, wherein one of them, Colm, played by Brendan Gleeson, decides he's not interested in being friends with the other, Padraic, played by Colin Farrell. On such a remote community, gossip spreads like wildfire, and the island residents all deal with this falling out between two men differently. It affects Padraic's sister, played by Kerry Condon, the town "fool", Dominic, played by Barry Keoghan, his abusive cop father, played by Gary Lydon, a mysterious old woman, Mrs McCormick, played by Sheila Flitton, and more throughout the town.

This is a movie that upon reviewing it, you want to talk about what happens, and really go into it video essay-style, where you might spoil it, assuming your viewership has already seen the film. But I also want to talk about the themes and feelings it gives you without literalising it, and try and get down to why it's so good, and so heartbreaking, even though all of its central characters are as simple as can be, their lifestyles uneventful, their generation and background vastly different from mine, their environment sleepy and quiet (minus the distant bombing going on as part of the Irish Civil War, which is parallel in a way with what's happening between Colm and Padraic).

It's almost like a macabre Irish folk tale, or fairytale even, that could be passed down and shown to different generations to come as an example of the dark side of friendship. The odd thing is however, it came out in 2022, rather than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Yet it's an entirely original film, not based on a previous text, or classical piece of literature. It also feels modern and relevant, because close friendship is something we can all relate to and understand. Maybe it's McDonagh's background as a playwright, and writing theatre that this film has that classical tale vibe to it.

You could almost decipher this movie as an exploration on a cycle of revenge. Once one act of the macabre is committed against another, is it possible to ever go back to the status quo? From that point on, is it an endless cycle of retaliation? Acts of revenge committed against acts of revenge.

This film is bitingly hilarious, often due to the chemistry between Farrell and Gleeson, established wonderfully in In Bruges. Overall this could be better reviewed by really spoiling it and going through events, details and character motivations thoroughly, and I've chosen not to do that in this review, as it's one where I think the best way to watch it is to know as absolutely little as possible. Which puts me in a tricky position really. But go see The Banshees of Inisherin, it's a hilarious dark comedy, it's macabre, it tackles themes of loneliness, isolation, even self-mutilation, in an emotionally brutal way. So trigger warning for all of those things. It will rip your heart out, but it's an amazing piece of "feel bad cinema".

Don't Worry Darling (I) (2022)

If Black Mirror somehow converged with the visual style of The Cat in the Hat, directed by M. Night Shyamalan

[4/10 · 18 October 2022]

Don't Worry Darling stars Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, Chris Pine and Olivia Wilde, and is directed by Olivia Wilde.

Set in the 1950s era of the rigidly conservative nuclear family, wherein the husbands go to work and earn the living, while the wives cook, clean, look pretty and keep quiet (minus the wifely neighbourhood gossip and garden parties). It tells the story of Jack and Alice (notice how those names might be the two utmost traditional names one could think of for a male and female). Jack, played by Harry Styles, works at the highly secretive and confidential Victory Headquarters, where the men who work there are forbidden from disclosing any intel to their wives on what they're working on.

Alice, played by Forence Pugh, is beginning to become interested in what they're doing out there in the desert, and that interest quickly becomes suspicions, wariness and fear of potential dangers and threats to their very existence. After she starts to experience odd hallucinatory episodes, dreams and repressed memories, and a tragedy befalls a fellow neighbour, Margaret, played by KiKi Layne, everyone seems to be conspiring against her beliefs that something is not right, and the mastermind behind everything seems to be Jack's boss at Victory Headquarters, Frank, played by Chris Pine.

Just about from the get go, everything about this movie is excessively in abundance of itself, with no form of subtlety anywhere. There's the musical score that overpowers dialogue, the soundtrack, where songs seem to be chosen with the purpose of having lyrics that literally tell us what's going on in the story, and how we should feel, when we can already tell those things by paying attention. There's the caricatured cartoon character performances from everyone, though thankfully Pugh and Styles were the least overplayed, and were somewhat grounded in reality. The production design and set dressing was merely a step behind Bo Welch's The Cat in the Hat in terms of presenting a live-action cartoon hybrid.

When the final M. Night Shyamalan-esque twist comes at the end, I was left thinking: this twist not only would've worked so much better by being revealed far earlier on, but it also would've benefitted knowing before going in! By the time it got there it felt more like a confused cop out.

There's been many satires of the "idyllic" nuclear family throughout the years - The Stepford Wives and Pleasantville to name a few, but Don't Worry Darling has little new to say about this era and way of life, other than really loudly saying things I already know to be true. The housewives are expected by the men to be happy and have a smile on their face, because "their life is perfect". But really they feel confined, controlled, objectified, and have no way of escaping the rigidity of their chauvinistic society. Because the men work all day, come home, eat and bang their wives, they don't know how to cook, so Jack, as a fully grown man, is lost at sea trying to make mashed potatoes by pounding raw potatoes in a bowl with a whiskey bottle in a kitchen resembling a bomb site, not knowing you have to boil the potatoes first.

I'm sure there's some people today who need ideas of chauvinism and sexism explained to them broadly, as this film does, but for me Don't Worry Darling felt like an exercise purely in style and sensationalism, and there were parts I found unintentionally hilarious.

Fresh (2022)

Amazing first act. Stupid final act

[5/10 · 13 October 2022]

Fresh stars Daisy Edgar-Jones, Sebastion Stan and Jonica T. Gibbs, and is directed by Mimi Cave in her directorial debut.

It tells the story of 20-something, Noa, played by Daisy Edgar-Jones, trying to navigate the modern dating world. After a disappointing dating experience, she happens upon the charming, charismatic, seemingly harmless Steve, played by Sebastian Stan, who takes her on holiday to his fortress-like summer home very early in their relationship, where he holds her and several other women captive in order to harvest their flesh to sell to rich male consumers.

Barely ever has a movie got me so into it and loving it in the first act, only to fall into something that I thought was really stupid in the final act. The first half hour is masterful. Before a belated title card and opening credits, not unlike The Empty Man, the opening scene is her on a date with someone, where any and every awkward and unpleasant moment of a date gone wrong is shown to us in such an astutely cringey way that it's genius. The film is then paced excellently, as she meets Steve, they get to know each other, we meet her sassy best friend, played by Jonica T. Gibbs, all leading to one of the better drink-spiking scenes I've seen in a movie.

The final act then becomes a barrage of plot holes, predictable moments, and oddly inconsistent character behaviour. There's a bartender character who was completely unnecessary to even be in the movie, and when he has the opportunity to do something useful at Steve's summer home, he gets scared and leaves. There are little moments of violence that seemed brashly childish and unsubtle, and whereas the scathing humour of the nightmares of dating in the first act actually worked, the darkly sadistic humour in the final act fell flat on its face (sometimes literally).

Steve's main objective of harvesting the meat of women is to sell the meat to mega rich male cannibals (the 1% of the 1% as Steve calls the market), who pay a hefty dollar to consume these decadent delicacies. There is an interesting comment to be made there along the lines of: men who have everything, who have endless resources at their disposal, who are untouchable, who have no doubt done terrible things to get where they are - what more can they do to brandish their endless power? Perhaps the only thing left is to literally consume the meat of women to fulfill their unfulfillable, extravagant lives. There could be a criticism to be made on the mega rich 1% - when is enough enough, or is it ever enough? But the film just doesn't go there.

It's an impressive directing debut, Mimi Cave has a distinct vision and style, and I'm keen to see what she does next. But the silliness of the final act, and the missed opportunity to really say something about the mega rich brought this one down for me.

Gattaca (1997)

Sci-fi Film Noir

[5/10 · 7 October 2022]

Gattaca stars Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Jude Law and Alan Arkin and is directed by Andrew Niccol.

In a future where eugenics are implemented to ensure the best possible quality of one's human life, making them known as valids, Ethan Hawke plays Vincent, who was born naturally, classifying him as an "invalid", someone prone to illness and ailments, or perhaps was born with them. People classified as valids have higher ranking jobs, such as space exploration, whereas invalids get stuck with menial jobs, such as janitor duties, which Vincent has. Vincent dreams of space travel, and so with the help of Jude Law's character, who is a valid who was once a professional swimmer, but is now disabled, Vincent uses Jude Law's genes as his own in order to pass as a valid, allowing him to travel space.

This is a very slick looking high concept sci-fi film, with film noir elements and tones. It is slow paced, has minimal action and very heady ideas, which may draw in the Christopher Nolan fan base. Like with a lot of Nolan films however, I found it to be a little too clinical and devoid of personality and charm. I also had issues with the idea of Ethan Hawke's character faking his way to space travel. I am just less inclined to identify with a character whose central goal is deception, rather than overcoming odds through personal challenge, perseverance and hard work.

The production and set design is incredible, and is a wonder it didn't win the Oscar the year it came out, though it was nominated. Overall I found the film too downbeat, and anything with Alan Arkin that didn't use Alan Arkin's incredible talent to its full potential is a bit of a waste. Given the steamy romance between Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, it did lead to their marriage and birth of daughter Maya Hawke, who is awesome, and without this film we wouldn't have her, so props for that.

The Empty Man (2020)

Another cult horror film about a cult

[8/10 · 4 October 2022]

The Empty Man stars James Badge Dale, Malin Ireland, Sasha Frolova and Aaron Poole, and is directed by David Prior.

Kicking off with a mammoth-length prologue, that could work well as its own horror short film, we're introduced to a group of hikers, wherein one of them appears to fall under possession after a more literal fall into a cave. Within the cave is an H. R. Giger-esque fossil of human skeletal sculpturing.

We're then introduced to our main character, a former cop, James, played by James Badge Dale, who starts to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a friend's teenage daughter. Before long, the teenager's friends all start disappearing or dying too, and it all seems to be linked to something called The Empty Man, as well as a strange cult known as The Pontifex Society.

With a troubled production, The Empty Man was shot in 2017 to be released under 20th Century Fox Studios, and it was one of the last films released under that banner before Disney acquired the rights to Fox Studios. Finally released in theatres and on streaming in 2020, the director David Prior still only considered the final product a rough cut.

All these behind-the-scenes issues should be a recipe for disaster, but I think The Empty Man has plenty going for it. With a large budget, it's an incredibly cinematic horror experience, with strong attention to detail in terms of set dressing, props, costume and production values. Though on first watch, it may seem disjointed and even confusing with how it's edited, on repeat viewings it mostly comes together.

There are multiple long sequences of creepy events that are masterfully directed, particularly the near 25-minute opening prologue, and a scene later taking place at a camp site at night. Although much of the horror is supernatural-inflected, it convincingly puts forth the idea that dangerous cults do exist, and the way this fictional cult operates may not be as far from reality as one might think. In the film, the cult is a well-monied institution that enacts brainwashing techniques to more impressionable types, i.e. Young people looking for meaning.

Although it loses its way a bit in the final twist of the film, without which it could have had a more impactful conclusion, it's well worth seeking out for horror fans, and the performances across the board are really fantastic.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

The least Scorsese movie out of all of Scorsese's movies

[6/10 · 28 May 2022]

Bringing Out the Dead stars Nicolas Cage, Patricia Arquette, John Goodman, Ving Rhames, Tom Sizemore and Cliff Curtis, and is directed by Martin Scorsese.

Taking place in New York City in the early nineties, it tells the story of a burnt out and fed up paramedic and ambulance driver, played by Cage, who is not only losing his abilities as a competent paramedic, but is ever spiralling into a rut of misery and depression over the countless people he's failed to save. Working almost solely with drug overdoses, suicides, and petty crime cases, he is starting to lose his sanity due to insomnia and a diet that consists of merely alcohol, caffeine and cigarettes.

Very early on in the film, in a scene taking place in an overcrowded hospital, we get a sense of the almost satirically nihilistic universe the film takes place in, when a man strapped down to a hospital bed, who's begging for water, is mercilessly denied by all staff, due to him having a "rare disorder". A rare disorder which makes water consumption dangerous? We also see drug addicts denied any help by staff, "because they're only gonna wind up in the same situation again" and "the hospital staff didn't force cocaine up their nose".

I really don't know what to make of this film. On the one hand, overworked ambulance drivers is a real issue that this film explores, as well as exploring drug epidemia, homelessness and other systemic societal issues, in similar vain to Taxi Driver.

On the other hand, the film is so unrelentingly dark and cynical, every character is a heartless, amoral, callous person, with no interest in fixing any problems, in a world where fixing problems is a seemingly impossible achievement.

Similar to in Leaving Las Vegas and Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant, Nicolas Cage is somehow perfectly believable as a substance addicted insane druggie, and supporting cast members do fine in their roles.

Robert Richardson's brilliant high key lighting cinematography gives the film flashes of colour and brilliance, ala Casino from four years prior. The film also has an oddly out of place rocking soundtrack of R. E. M, The Clash and others.

There is just an anger and cynicism behind this film that's rarely seen even with Scorsese, which I just found off putting. It's very different from his usual elk, an underseen and under talked about movie of his, but possibly that might be for good reason.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

A slick looking movie, but lacks any style, vision or tone of its own

[5/10 · 13 May 2022]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is directed by David Blue Garcia and stars Elsie Fisher, Sarah Yarkin, Jacob Latimore, Mark Burnham as Leatherface, and Olwen Fouere.

Filmed in Bulgaria, the film tells the story of four friends with a mission to rejuvenate the rural and largely forgotten town of Harlow, Texas, due to the horrific events of the original 1974 film. They plan to start up some independent businesses and breathe new life into a town plagued by evil. However, they soon realise the evil may still reside within an unyielding family of cannibals, wherein one of the last remaining members, Leatherface, will stop at nothing to rid the town of.... Everyone(?) and do a lot of slicing, carving, butchering and mowing with a chainsaw.

Going into this, it's one of those movies you don't expect much from. If there's some scares, suspense, fun gore and potentially some characters you care about, it's about as good as you can expect in the 9th entry of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, which is also effectively the 3rd or 4th reboot/new incarnation. The film does offer some mildly suspenseful moments, particularly a scene taking place within a crashed police van, and is overall fairly watchable.

However, the closest thing to an actual character you get is the oddly miscasted Elsie Fisher, who is a reclusive person with a highly traumatic past, hence the terror she experiences in the film is supposed to be amply terrifying, on account of her being traumatised. But it just doesn't come through very effectively, as the film doesn't delve into any of the psychology of having experienced violent trauma, other than showing a bullet scar on her chest.

After the previous directing duo were fired from production after the film was shot, director David Blue Garcia, and cinematographer Ricardo Diaz manage to make Sofia, Bulgaria look enough like a rural, dusty Harlow, Texas, utilising some good location, such as a field of dead sunflowers, and a town main street that does look like a movie set, but an endearing one at that.

The blood and guts come with vigour and excess, which fans and gore hounds will appreciate, but the violence doesn't have the dread-soaked ferocity and impact of The Hills Have Eyes remake, it's just there in the movie. The slick look and production design just don't sustain even a brisk 83 minutes of what is a forgettable horror sequel with some pretty shoddy and lame writing in the third act. If all you're looking for is some gore and viscera, this may be merely passable, but it doesn't hold a candle to the ferociously eerie and grotesque original, nor the 2003 remake.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Odd look at reality TV

[7/10 · 10 May 2022]

Kicking off with a strange prologue featuring amazing performances from Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, The Cabin in the Woods is a satirical take on the supernatural slasher genre.

After this offbeat introduction, we're introduced to a group of 20-somethings played by Kristin Connolly, Fran Kranz, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison and Jesse Williams, who are on a Summer getaway in the woods by a lake, which of course is almost comically familiar.

Once there it's discovered that the 5 friends' whereabouts are perhaps linked in some way to what's going on in the mundane and institutional workspace we see in the prologue.

This is mostly an entertaining enough film, although on re-watch really doesn't hold much weight. Most of the film's joys are relatively consistently brought by Fran Kranz, who is playing a dropkick who chain smokes pot constantly, but who, in a lot of clever and funny instances is a good voice of reason for particularly Chris Hemsworth and Anna Hutchison's characters. They are written as horny bimbos and jock douches to the nth degree, but many of Fran Kranz's moments help keep the film's overly sexualised nature in check.

The film features an onslaught of recognisable horror icons and scary figures, such as werewolves, demons, giant snakes, flying monsters, and redneck zombies.

They're all implemented in a somewhat original, fun way, with humour and a lot of gore.

It's great for a one watch with friends, but beyond some various fun, but incredibly surface-level novelties, it won't go down as one of the all time greats.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Artful and mysterious sci-fi horror

[9/10 · 18 March 2018]

Annihilation stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Gina Rodiguez, Tessa Thompson and Tuva Novotny, and is directed by Alex Garland, who wrote and directed the highly acclaimed Ex Machina from 2015, and he also wrote Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, Sunshine and The Beach.

Portman plays Lena, a biologist whose widowed to her husband Kane, played by Oscar Isaac, who was drafted to the Middle East and has been gone and unheard of for a year. When he returns home seemingly without memory and in need of hospitalisation, Lena is intercepted by a large research vessel investigating a large area known as The Shimmer. The Shimmer is a growing area of land, where some time ago, something from space (a meteor?) hit what was reported to be a lighthouse, and engulfed the whole area, and this shimmering envelope is spreading and engulfing further and further. Everyone who has so far gone into The Shimmer (military and scientists) have simply never returned or been heard of again. That is until the return of Kane. Given Lena's love for Kane and the possibility of bringing him back to health, she agrees to venture into The Shimmer and the lighthouse, along with a psychologist, an anthropologist, a paramedic and a physicist (played in order by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tuva Novotny, Gina Rodriguez and Tessa Thompson) to find out what this area is, how to stop it, how to keep it safe etc.

This slow burn will take its time setting up characters, world, ideas and concepts, and will not hold your hand and walk you through it. However I didn't find it completely abstract and ambiguous. I found it reasonably accessible, although there's a hell of a lot to unpack in this mildly spoilery review.

So one of the main concepts and ideas that takes place in The Shimmer is that all biological DNA from all known species, suddenly has the ability to splice with one another, creating hybrids of many things, which on paper and on the surface sounds cheesy and dumb. "Let's make a movie where alligators splice with sharks, and the people have to fight them with big guns and explosions and chases!" But within context of the film, and the way it tackles this idea, it's creepy and eerie and morally, scientifically and environmentally... questionable. One of my favourite scenes is when Tessa Thompson's character has her arms exposed for the first time, as through much of the film she has long sleeves to cover her scars. But she says to Lena, referring to The Shimmer: "Ventress wants to face it, you want to fight it, but I want neither.". She then turns and walks off, revealing that DNA from plant life has taken over her, and she's come to simply accept it. It sounds silly and hokey, but in execution it was eerie and mysterious, and there was profound beauty to it. The film's title is an odd one, because hearing it, it sounds like an action extravaganza, and even hearing the plot and seeing posters it looks it too. But Jennifer Jason Leigh's character outright says in the film, and to paraphrase "When the DNA and cells split, merge, refract and divide, until there's simply no cells left, implosively cancelling everything out as they split and become smaller, it results in annihilation", which is where the title comes from Annihilation has similar elements to many other sci-fi films, all of which are very different, and which Annihilation combines into something very unique. There were moments where I was reminded of Alien, Predator, 2001, AI, Event Horizon in an almost identical scene in which the crew discovers videotapes of bizarre, aberrant and horrifying behaviour from the previous crew, as well as the conceptual horrors of exploring the unknown. There's Under the Skin in there, especially in the last 30 minutes, where it all becomes as abstract as you can get and deals with DNA splicing into clones and emulation and sacrifice. I was even reminded of the sci-fi comedy Evolution, where the concept of alien DNA splicing is used kinda goofy, fun and action-oriented. So in the end Annihilation is a difficult film to review without either giving it all away in your explanation, which I probably have, or by making a concept that, in its execution, is artful and thought-provoking, but by describing it can sound lowbrow and unsophisticated. It's hard simply remembering all the ideas and threads and concepts, but it's an example of when sci-fi can be out there and complex, and I couldn't recommend it enough. It's definitely a think piece, where the story and concepts kind of outweigh the performances and character a little, but it's a journey fully worth taking. Brilliant to look at, visually interesting and different, there's a lot you can get out of it. It was one where I immediately wanted to see it again to further take it in, which is a rarity for these sorts of heady films, but it's even one I see myself revisiting more down the line.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Artful sci-fi horror mystery

[9/10 · 17 March 2018]

Annihilation stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Gina Rodiguez, Tessa Thompson and Tuva Novotny, and is directed by Alex Garland, who wrote and directed the highly acclaimed Ex Machina from 2015, and he also wrote Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, Sunshine and The Beach.

Portman plays Lena, a biologist whose widowed to her husband Kane, played by Oscar Isaac, who was drafted to the Middle East and has been gone and unheard of for a year. When he returns home seemingly without memory and in need of hospitalisation, Lena is intercepted by a large research vessel investigating a large area known as The Shimmer. The Shimmer is a growing area of land, where some time ago, something from space (a meteor?) hit what was reported to be a lighthouse, and engulfed the whole area, and this shimmering envelope is spreading and engulfing further and further. Everyone who has so far gone into The Shimmer (military and scientists) have simply never returned or been heard of again. That is until the return of Kane. Given Lena's love for Kane and the possibility of bringing him back to health, she agrees to venture into The Shimmer and the lighthouse, along with a psychologist, an anthropologist, a paramedic and a physicist (played in order by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tuva Novotny, Gina Rodriguez and Tessa Thompson) to find out what this area is, how to stop it, how to keep it safe etc.

This slow burn will take its time setting up characters, world, ideas and concepts, and will not hold your hand and walk you through it, however it certainly isn't, at least for me, completely abstract and ambiguous. I found it all to be reasonably accessible, although there's a hell of a lot in here to unpack in this mildly spoilery review.

So one of the main concepts and ideas that takes place in The Shimmer is that all biological DNA from all known species, suddenly has the ability to splice with one another, creating hybrids of many things, which on paper and on the surface sounds cheesy and dumb. "Let's make a movie where alligators splice with sharks, and the people have to fight them with big guns and explosions and chases!" But within context of the film, and the way it tackles this idea, it's creepy and eerie and morally, scientifically and environmentally... questionable.

One of my favourite scenes is when Tessa Thompson's character has her arms exposed for the first time, as through much of the film she has long sleeves to cover her scars. But she says to Lena "Ventress wants to face it, you want to fight it, but I want neither.". She then turns and walks off, revealing that DNA from plant life has taken over her, and she's come to simply accept it, and it sounds silly and hokey, but in execution it was eerie and mysterious, and there was profound beauty to it. The film's title is an odd one, because hearing it, it sounds like an action extravaganza, and even hearing the plot and seeing posters it looks it too. But Jennifer Jason Leigh's character outright says in the film, and to paraphrase "When the DNA and cells all split and merge and refract and divide, until there's simply no cells left, implosively cancelling everything out as they split and become smaller and smaller, it results in annihilation", which is where the title comes from.

Annihilation has similar elements to many other sci-fi films, all of which are very different, and which Annihilation combines into something very unique. There were moments where I was reminded of Alien, Predator, 2001, AI, Event Horizon in an almost identical scene in which the crew discovers videotapes of bizarre, aberrant and horrifying behaviour from the previous crew, as well as the conceptual horrors of exploring the unknown. There's Under the Skin in there, especially in the last 30 minutes, where it all becomes as abstract as you can get and deals with DNA splicing into clones and emulation and sacrifice.

So in the end Annihilation is a difficult film to review without either giving it all away in your explanation, which I probably have, or by making something that, in its execution, is artful and thought-provoking, but by describing it can sound lowbrow and unsophisticated. It's hard simply remembering all the ideas and threads and concepts, but it's an example of when sci-fi can be out there and complex, and I couldn't recommend it enough. It's definitely a think piece, where the story and concepts kind of outweigh the performances a little, but it's a journey fully worth taking. Brilliant to look at, visually interesting and different, there's a lot you can get out of it. It was one where I immediately wanted to see it again to further take it in, which is a rarity for these sorts of heady films, but it's even one I see myself revisiting more.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Wasn't quite convinced

[6/10 · 9 February 2018]

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri stars Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Caleb Landry Jones, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges and Peter Dinklage, and is directed by Martin McDonagh, who brought us the sensational In Bruges, and Seven Psychopaths.

It tells the story of Mildred Hayes, played by McDormand, who some time ago, her teenage daughter was to quote the film, "raped while dying", in small town Ebbing in the mid-west of the USA. The local police and authorities, Chief Willoughby and Dixon, played by Harrelson and Rockwell, at least in Mildred's eyes, aren't pulling their weight in avenging and bringing to justice her daughter's perpetrator. So she takes the liberty of erecting three billboards outside the town, bought and paid for through Red, played by Landry Jones, to raise awareness of her daughter's death. However these billboards stir up some controversy within the town.

Now I'm just gonna come clean here and say that I wasn't a huge fan of this film, but I'll address the positives first. Absolutely top notch acting, Frances McDormand brings serious bite and something really scathing, and I definitely think it's one of the best performances of the year, possibly the best of her career. Woody Harrelson, to an extent, brings real humanity to the role, not to get into spoilers, but there's a scene where he approaches Mildred about the billboards for the first time, and there's a big reveal of his character and what he's going through, and Mildred's searing comments on this reveal, and Willoughby's reaction to said comments was top tier acting. In a single shot, and in his expression, you really saw tragedy, heartbreak and a sense of pity for Mildred, completely brought by Harrelson's fantastic performance. Then you have Dixon, played by Sam Rockwell, whose character, like Willoughby, goes through some VERY unpredictable directions, at the start he's a bigoted, ignorant, racist buffoon red neck, and by the end he still kinda is, but many many more things as well, which was completely unexpected. I think Rockwell was the big standout of the film. It's an example of with certain screenwriting, you can have a character's arc and morals go completely up, down, sideways, backwards, in circles and inside out, and I was amazed by where he went just as a character, so credit to him and McDonagh's accomplished writing.

The editing is right on point too, there's scenes where Harrelson's character is reading letters that he wrote, and the way the structure of shots goes back in time, forward in time etc, as he's narrating these letters, and just the shot structure and lengths for scenes throughout the film is pretty brilliant.

Ultimately however, I just wasn't that convinced by this movie as a whole, Harrelson's character makes a big ol decision midway, that was meant to be SHOCKING and devastating, but there just wasn't any build up to it, so it just kinda happened unexpectedly and suddenly, that my reaction was more just "Oooookay?!?!?" than what it was meant to be. Dixon's character also makes a big decision upon what happens with Willoughby, and it just felt completely out of left field and unconvincing, even for a crazy bastard like him....

So it was two BIG scenes that just didn't click for me. The film is also SO unrelentingly sardonic, mean spirited, depressing and angry that it just left me feeling... kinda nauseous. I've definitely never been one to just be like "well that movie wasn't happy-happy joy-joy and didn't make me feel good and nice, therefore I hate it", but there's just no end, no opposition and no upside to the bitterness that it just felt like "misery porn" interlaced with quirky, off-beat humour, and it just didn't sit well with me. But like I said the acting, directing, certain aspects of the character and writing, and editing is all phenomenal. But you just can't have a movie where characters just DO things without adequate motivation, build up or reasoning behind it, and for me at least those things weren't adequate enough to be convincing.

The Florida Project (2017)

The final 15-20 minutes bring it from a 3.5 to a 5.5...

[5/10 · 17 January 2018]

The Florida Project stars Brooklynn Prince, Bria Vinaite and Willem Dafoe, and is directed by Sean Baker.

It tells the story of young 7-8 year old Moonee, played by Brooklyn Prince and her small group of young friends growing up at The Magic Castle budget/welfare motel. To them it's all about adventure, playfulness, causing light hearted mischief and just having a ball, without a care in the world. But the reality is that they're growing up in poverty with parents (most notably a truly compelling Bria Vinaite, playing Halley, the mother of Moonee), who are questionable in their abilities/circumstances to raise kids. There's petty crime, brawls, drugs/partying and endless colourful and not so colourful characters surrounding these kids and their parents. Also looking over it all is motel manager Bobby, played by Willem Dafoe, who on the outside is a gruff, on-with-the-job type, however under the surface lies true compassion and sympathy.

So on paper, this all sounds well and good, a gritty slice of life type drama told through a very unique perspective: the kids seeing it all as one giant playground. But I'm going to jump straight to the point here and say this movie drove me fucking nuts. The main problem I came away with was simple: I could not sympathise with barely a single character. In the opening scene the kids are seen spitting continuously on someone's car from above a balcony and when the owner gets cross and requests they clean it up, these 7 year old kids swear and cuss and behave completely erratically. First impressions are hard to erase, let's put it that way. From there, they intentionally turn off all power in the whole motel, mooch money for ice cream off random people, even burn down a fucking building (not intentional, but still). All this behaviour is fairly inconsequential to the point that I couldn't sympathise with the kids, nor really the parents, who were almost in different ways, equally irritating. I found it difficult to follow which kid had which parents, and what their relationship with Moonee and Halley were.

Willem Dafoe's Bobby is the closest this movie gets to a sympathetic character, but even he has a scene where a creepy looking old man approaches the group of kids, to which Bobby intercepts and intervenes, kind of ushering him away, and the man clearly has mental difficulties (or maybe pretending to have mental difficulties if he really is exploitative and predatory). Bobby takes this man to get a drink from a vending machine. After the man has opened the drink Bobby proceeds to smash it out of his hand and verbally and physically abuse him, taking his wallet and throwing it everywhere, swearing and yelling at him to get the fuck out of here etc etc. Bobby had me, but this whole scene felt like one big contradiction

It's entirely possible to have a great film where all characters are unsympathetic and despicable (The Hateful Eight and The Wolf of Wall Street are recent examples that come to mind). But it's important to have the characters DO things in relation to one another, and/or have things HAPPEN to them for dramatic purposes to make you CARE about what might then ensue in relation to themselves and others. In this movie, nothing... really... happens(?) The kids just run around fucking shit up and the parents, authorities, surrounding communities and motel manager Bobby just try and manage that, and manage it poorly and unsympathetically. I keep using the word sympathetic/unsympathetic, but I think with a "window into a different world, slice of life" movie like this, it's important to be able to latch on and be emotionally involved.

Then came the final 15 minutes, which I won't actually spoil, but what ensues in terms of the kids' future and guardianship is really heartbreaking, and there's a moment where Moonee breaks down, which was all really crushing to watch, and I think the final shot of the film is quite brilliant. All performances across the board were phenomenal too, just about all of which were first time actors, minus Dafoe. In terms of the setting, circumstances and world of the film, it's ridiculously authentic. Bria Vinaite is quite a revelation in this.

Let's talk about Sean Baker for a second, because he is a really interesting filmmaker. I haven't seen Tangerine, his film directly before this, but what I did see of his, which I didn't know he directed until after I saw The Florida Project, and which I started off hating and by the end had won me over through and through, was Starlet, about a young pornstar who befriends a very very elderly woman. Two major contrasts, and that film had various professional porn actors in it too. A gritty indie festival drama with pornstars in it. What Baker seems to do is tell stories with some of the most diverse ranges of ages, genders, races, people in general, far more daringly so than I think any other filmmaker out there. And it's certainly not gimmicky or agenda-pushing, he just wants to tell stories about characters which might be vastly different from you or I, or stories with majorly contrasting characters within them, and I think all this is something to be celebrated, and I am super keen to see what he does next, now that he's gained some impressive cred.

But overall The Florida Project just wasn't my cup of tea, ultimately I found it irritating and unsympathetic, but where the conclusion held significant weight that might have ended up winning me over completely, had the rest of the film not been so damn difficult, even painful to sit through.

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

Immersive

[10/10 · 11 January 2018]

Call Me by Your Name stars Timothee Chalamet, Armie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg and Amira Casar, and is directed by Luca Guadagnino, who brought us 2015's A Bigger Splash, which is in many ways a bit uneven in terms of tone and pacing, but certainly not inadequate. He also directed I Am Love, which I haven't seen, but hear great things. Set in 1983, it tells the story of 17-year-old Italian-American-intellectual Elio, (Chalamet), whose family regularly visits their 17th century villa during the summer in Northern Italy for his father's (Stuhlbarg) archaeological research, involving the salvation of ancient sculpturing. Along comes mid- twenty-year-old grad student Oliver (Hammer), who comes to spend the summer to assist with Elio's father's research. Though Elio at first slightly despises Oliver's "over-confidence", the two grow closer and closer, and Elio's cultured, sophisticated, yet naive and hormonal nature coupled with Oliver's higher maturity and life experience creates some of the most emotionally charged and truly charming chemistry that I have seen on film in a long time. I think what makes Call Me by Your Name so special is that it's one of the most immersive movies ever put to cinema. Watching it feels authentically like you're on a holiday in the summer of Northern Italy in a way that trashier American romance films in which the central characters travel abroad on holidays cannot capture. This is a movie that isn't afraid to just meander and lull about, and just generally chillax. It doesn't concern itself so much on plot, but more on atmosphere, environment and performance. By golly, it would be fundamentally unfair for both Timethee Chalamet and Armie Hammer to not both win best lead actor simultaneously for this one film, but alas, also impossible. I would also be surprised if Stuhlbarg doesn't get a nom here for supporting. But the lack of traditional storytelling beats, such as conflicts and turning points etc etc only work in the film's favour to further emphasise the sense of environment and love and passion, and the sense of it feeling so very much like real life, which unlike a screenplay, isn't all structured accordingly and specifically. Real life is messy and spontaneous and instinctive, just like this movie. The immense level of confidence brought to the screen by Guadagnino in collaboration with his actors make this one of the most beautiful films of the year, maybe even of all time. This is also quite a long film, and in many ways it feels long and meandering, also a bit like real life, which is not a bad thing at all, and it works for what the film is going for. This will draw a lot of comparison's with 2016's Moonlight, mainly due to it being an auteur piece of awards-caliber filmmaking that happens to be about being gay. However, I will say I think Moonlight has the slight edge, possibly due to it having distinct conflict within, but also because I found it connected with me on a slightly deeper more personal and relatable level, despite me being a straight dude. Other teensy flaws are that even though the movie feels wonderfully real, there is some dialogue which isn't as realistic as the film in which it's contained, where it doesn't quite feel like how people talk in real life, which is the complete opposite case with Moonlight. But Call Me by Your Name is an absolute master work, there's still several 2017 Oscar contenders I'm yet to see, but right now it stands as my favourite film of the year, it's a film that you need to just sit back, relax, get comfortable and just go with it, become involved with it, let it literally wash over you, take it in, and it will hit anyone and everyone who's ever been through, or happens to be going through either hormonal stages or finding first love. On many occasions throughout, some quite early on, I was having to fight breaking down into fits of sobbing and heaving, and when the power of cinema can do that on a genuine level, it's two thumbs up and no less than a 9.5/10

Coco (I) (2017)

Pixar is back!

[10/10 · 7 January 2018]

Coco is the latest from Pixar, starring Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, Alanna Ubach and a string of many others, and is directed by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina. It tells the (in some ways familiar) story of Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez), whose family upbringing revolves heavily around shoe making, and the business of shoe sales being the career path of all family members and many generations. Miguel, however, dreams of being a musician and breaking out in the arts, much to the strict disapproval of his family. He looks up to his idol, legendary musician, Ernesto De La Cruz (Benjamin Bratt), playing the classical Mexican-infused sounds of the 30s and 40s. Along the way to achieving this dream, Miguel finds himself in The Land of the Dead, where he meets a series of deceased skeletal characters, such as Hector (Gale Garcia Bernal), Mama Imelda (Alanna Ubach) and Ernesto De La Cruz himself (Benjamin Bratt), all of whom were involved in Miguel's past and/or family in some way. So this is a film where I deliberately don't want to give away too much of the plot and the twists and turns within, because there are some surprises thrown into this very tightly written screenplay, helmed by directors Lee Unkrich, Adrian Molina and two others. Usually a bad sign when there's more than a few writing credits (Spider-Man: Homecoming), Coco succeeds for a number of reasons. As mentioned, parts of the story will be familiar to many, but this is an example of when it's the details of the film that truly make it, as opposed to the overall general big picture. To quote Roger Ebert, "it's not about what it's about, it's about how it's about it". In common storytelling, there's only very few general story outlines we here from synopsis to synopsis, movie to movie, but it's the details and variations of those storylines that truly make a film. Examples are tone, pacing, dialogue, music, performance, world building, sound design, editing, themes and infinite other styles and subtexts. In the case of Coco, the pace and charm and wit and energy behind the, in theory, familiar storyline and themes are what makes it. This truly is a wonderful, uplifting and entertaining piece by Pixar. The directions the story takes, as is the case with most original Pixar films, is complex and thematic. It deals with memory, death, dementia, passion, drive, family values, rebellion and more, while still remaining accessible and child friendly, unlike Inside Out, which I know is an unpopular opinion. But most of all Coco is damn fun! The colours simply explode and radiate, and the animation of the character, world, production design and environment is truly arresting and detailed, without feeling overloaded and bloated. There's bits in the beginning that were reminding me of a less traumatising/horrifying, and more Disneyified Spirited Away, in a "innocent character suddenly finds themselves thrown into an unfamiliar parallel universe full of the macabre" kind of way. I think my few flaws with the film are simply that it could've been a little funnier. All throughout there's fun slapstick, such as feral yet charming dog is so excited that it's drooping tongue wraps around its head, and skeletons being able to pull themselves apart and change body shapes etc, which would have been an animator's dream to create. I didn't find that there were memorable laugh out loud jokes, such as the sloths, or The Godfather throwback in Zootopia, or many other hilarious scenes you come away from gawking about from other Pixar works, such as Monsters Inc, the Toy Stories and The Incredibles. There's also things revolving around the story which I don't want to give away, but just very minor nitpicks surrounding tiny character decisions/reactions/motivations that perhaps don't quite click perfectly in place. Overall Coco is a movie I could recommend to anyone and everyone over the age of 5, it's the most emotional I think I've ever been in a Pixar film, there's true beauty and charm behind it, the story and characters are all very engaging, the voice acting and singing/music is beautiful, particularly from the talents of Anthony Gonzalez, look out for him in the future. It's paced excellently, the 103 minutes fly by, and the songs are simply lovely.