ajwh-53593 Reviews

You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Hypnotic but forgettable

[7/10 · 17 March 2018]

A very, very good film; unsettling, dark, provocative, great acting and cinematography. But would I watch it again? I'm not sure I would.

Herein lies the problem: this film didn't leave a lasting impression on me, there were no real lingering emotions. Understandably it's been compared to Taxi Driver but I didn't feel this film had the same raw, explosive energy and intensity. It's just a very accomplished and stylish film. There's nothing wrong with that, that in itself makes it a film worth seeing, but often critics applaud style over substance, so I'm not sure it's fully deserving of all the praise it's been receiving.

There's no doubt that Lynne Ramsay has done a superb job and there were several scenes I loved for their cleverness, detail and originality. Phoenix is astonishing and squeezes out every last dust particle of Joe's shattered being. I've heard Ramsay say she saw Joe as someone with a head full of broken glass, and that's certainly conveyed in the film. But I felt there was a bit too much inner turmoil. It felt a little bit too drawn out for me. It could've done with more changes in tempo and a greater range of emotions. There was dark humour but it was all a bit too glum. Yes, I get the film deals with very dark subject matter but I want films to put me through the ringer, play with my expectations, take me on a roller coaster ride. Although this had lots of emotional depth to it, it was one-note. The last scene didn't alter that for me.

You Were Never Really Here will be loved by cinephiles and there's a lot to admire about it so it's definitely worth watching, but ultimately, it falls short of a masterpiece, as some have proclaimed it. I liked it whilst I watched it, but after exiting the cinema, it felt like I'd never really been there either. 7.5/10.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Strange, abstract, mesmeric

[8/10 · 14 March 2018]

I've thought about this film for days after seeing it. I don't even know what specifically I've been thinking about, all I can say is it left a big impression on me. I disagree with those who say it's intellectual. I don't think it is nor was it intended to be. It's visceral, primal, just like the world inside The Shimmer.

For me, films work on three hierarchical levels: at the very basic, they should be entertaining. All films should succeed here (but not all do, which is why we should rightly slam those that don't!). Then, there are films that are not only entertaining but also elicit an emotional response; they move us in some way. Finally, there are entertaining films that are moving but also have meaning; they resonate on a deeper, often metaphysical level. To my mind, Annihilation achieves all three.

Forget the plot holes. They exist in every film, otherwise they wouldn't be stories. Some of my favourite films have canyon-sized plot holes and inconsistencies. If you analyse any film you'll find them, and often you don't have to look very hard, e.g. Back to the Future. Do the plot holes and gaps in logic stop BTTF from being a great film? Not to my mind, because I'm invested in the movie. Plot holes only matter to me when they draw me away from the film; if it fails to entertain me.

Does the plot in Annihilation even really matter? The film is about the experience, the visuals and audio, the curiosity, the suspense. A world that could only be accessible to us in our imaginations is here brought to life on the screen. It asks a lot of questions but isn't interested in the answers. It's bold, brave, challenging. Some of it is spectacular, some of it less so. Naturally, that will split opinion, but we've become too accustomed to the ready-packaged "Happy Meal Movies" that the studios churn out for us. We're addicted to them like we're addicted to sugary fast food. We should welcome any film that attempts to wean us off that and broaden our palates.

This is a proper cinematic film, so what a shame it is that here in the UK (and many other countries) we were denied the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen. I can only imagine how even more beguiling and entrancing the experience would've been.

Turn off the lights, switch off your phones, and sit back and feed your imagination and sense of wonder. I know that's why I watch and love films. 8.5/10.

The Outsider (I) (2018)

Like all outsiders, bit of an oddity

[6/10 · 9 March 2018]

This should've been great. As a concept, the fish out of water storyline is a tried and tested formula, and the setting within the Yakuza in post-WW2 Japan was potentially an inspired choice. However, it didn't delve anywhere near deep enough into these ideas, and instead remained very much on the outside. Perhaps that was a choice of the filmmakers, but as a storytelling device that only works for the characters, not the audience. We need to be let in on the inside.

I was excited about this film because it was picked up a few years ago on the Black List and it seemed to be my kind of story. I don't know if the idea came from Tony Luraschi's 1979 film of the same name about a young American joining the IRA who finds himself out of his depth, but there are many obvious similarities, and not just in the title. The problem with this film though, is that it didn't have the same dramatic conflict or character development. Things just happened and we kind of drifted along with Jared Leto's protagonist, Nick.

We didn't get to know anything of Nick's motivation or much of his backstory. That kept it intriguing for awhile, but by the end I didn't care one bit about him. Although the film was stylish and quite atmospheric, it suffered from poor pacing. When there was action, it was bloody and gory and often spontaneous, which can work to good effect, but I didn't find it particularly shocking because there was no build up of tension.

The whole film was a bit of a mystery to me. It didn't really use the setting of Japan to good effect, apart from a few cool looking scenes, and kind of skimmed the surface of Japanese culture, which to me at least, as an outsider, is utterly fascinating, and was the film's strongest selling point. Nor did it particularly explore the Yakuza in any great detail. I was really hoping for an updated version of The Yakuza (1974) but was left disappointed.

It scores a solid 6/10 because despite its limitations, it's enjoyable enough and it's refreshing to get something a bit different from your usual Hollywood fare. I also thought the cast did a pretty decent job.

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

Pure cinematic joy

[9/10 · 6 March 2018]

True cinema is about immersion. And from the very first minute of this exquisitely shot and performed film, I was transported from the cinema to Italy. It wasn't just the mise-en-scene and the cinematography, as good as they were, but the sound. All those background noises; the chatter, the scratchy vinyl music at the disco, the loud silences between lines of dialogue. I loved that attention to detail.

Then we come to the story itself. The script's genius is in its simplicity. The way it encroaches on you. There's no buy in required, no big dramatic moments. It's pure craft.

I've read the script. Scripts are to be performed, so its worthy Oscar win for Best Adapted Screenplay is a tribute to the actors and director Luca Guadagnino as much as writer James Ivory, for in other hands it wouldn't have come off as good, and we would have been left without a gem of a film. I can't tell you how much I admire the actors for their note-perfect deliveries. Chalamet is a star.

Achingly beautiful, searingly emotive, disarmingly subtle. Outstanding. 9.5/10.

Collateral (2018)

Sledgehammer writing

[3/10 · 6 March 2018]

I give it 3/10 for the performances of the actors, the assured direction of SJ Clarkson, and for the intent of the writer, David Hare, though not his execution.

This mini series attempted a lot but didn't really deliver. It's as if Hare took a random selection of clippings of newspaper stories he thought interesting and tried to weave them altogether into a state of the nation play. Something about terrorism? Put that in. Immigration? Got to have that. The Army? Of course. MI5? Probably should. Politics? Yep. The Church? Might as well.

Some hot topics and a bold attempt, but it didn't work. There were needless characters and subplots, ridiculous and contrived relationships and situations, and extremely clunky exchanges of dialogue, as well as cartoonish characters, particularly the MI5 guy. Maybe you can get away with that on stage where you need to include more exposition and can be less subtle. But not on screen.

To the reviewers who say it's too clever for some viewers: Nah. It's really not. Clever is letting the audience connect the dots themselves and come to their own conclusions. I don't mind a writer putting their opinions and politics into their stories; that's their prerogative and I like to be challenged to think. This didn't challenge me. It punched me in the face repeatedly to the point where I felt I was being bullied and forced to agree. Naturally, I resisted that affront to my intelligence, and that really put me off liking this show, whether I agreed with some of the sentiments or not.

All in all, this didn't amount to much and the ambition far exceeded the execution, which is a shame because the ideas and the cast had promise.