Kubris Reviews

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Elite company

[7 October 2017]

Early buzz made me apprehensive about Blade Runner 2049- "What if it's been so long since the first that its appeal is confounded by sympathy?" was a thought that ran through my head. But I was wrong. 2049 is one of an elite few sequels that justifies its existence, but more importantly it is an excellent film in its own right that respects the shadow of its predecessor without hiding in it or deviating into something unrecognizable.

I could describe the tone of 2049 as the feeling you get when you sit in a big chair after a workout. There is a sense of relaxation mixed with lingering pain and psychological excitation. 2049 does not rush, taking its time to tell its story over 2 and a half hours. There is a bleakness in its vision of society which seemed even harsher than the original's did, notably 2049's subtle inclusion of climate change as a motif. This mixes with a familiar visual design of neon lights, billboards, and persistent rain which is strangely comforting. The score is a high point, respectfully incorporating aspects of Vangelis' dreamy synthesizers with modern and amazingly thunderous bass. The sounds of 2049 perfectly summarize its engaging atmosphere.

As a brief aside, I'd like to mention my thoughts on one aspect of how dystopia has changed over the past 35 years. Old money Tyrell is gone, and the role of industrialist Wallace is now played by the much younger Jared Leto. I think this is appropriate and reflective of the times where tech giants are run by the young and savvy, exemplified by Mark Zuckerberg. Wallace has a serious god complex evident in how he speaks, and time will see if reality follows suit.

I'd really like to emphasize how wonderfully audio-visual 2049 is. The various settings are mesmerizing, and even though it is easy to get focused on the plot, taking time to simply absorb the colours and design is enjoyable on its own. The original had some simple images that have since been burned into my mind, such as Deckard sipping a drink and having a little of his own blood diffuse into the drink as he puts it down. The same effect occurs here, but without any feeling of inferiority or deliberate attempt to match its predecessor.

What truly validates 2049 is its plot and major themes. I won't say anything about the plot, but will say that it wonderfully scaled. This is a small but significant story in a bigger world of problems, and the film doesn't try to solve everything or make grand, sweeping statements. The film respects your intelligence, not spelling out how devices work or where K goes in certain sequences. It's up to you to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes sci- fi gets scared it alienates its audience and will over-explain; 2049 does not. The most significant strength of this film is that it explores current and relevant issues surrounding life and technology, building upon the original but having its own angle and introducing its own ideas. Ultimately, 2049 takes risks that contemporaries such as Star Wars did not, and they pay off.

Blade Runner 2049 is truly excellent. I spent a lot of time discussing its relation to the original here so you don't have to as you see it. This film stands on its own, and I believe it will continue to in years to come. Time will tell if it has the influence on other works that made its predecessor such a giant in the genre. ****/****

American Beauty (1999)

Middle America in a frame

[9/10 · 3 June 2015]

Few people will be able to completely uproot their lives and begin it again, but that Lester Burnham's journey in American Beauty: he wipes his hands clean of his pitifully ordinary life and lives life how he wants with his own goals. And to see it is thrilling.

Of course there's a little more to it than a hasty decision to turn it around. Several factors converge in this extraordinarily tight drama: Lester discovers his daughter's friend Angela, a 90s Lolita. He also finds his bland job to be on wobbly ground, and lastly he gets new neighbours, a military family with a strange boy, Ricky. These together create a change in the meek Lester and create a magnificent film.

The real question I had after seeing this film was: "What's wrong with American Beauty?" and then I couldn't answer my question. I'll start with the most well- known aspect of the film, its acting. The entire cast is sharp as their respective characters. Led by Kevin Spacey as Lester, original Yes Man ("I rule!"), you will find something relateable in at least one of the characters, good or bad. Their personalities and actions are entertaining, their motives are all there, and if a character is intended to be likable, you will like them. It's just as a good film should be: honest and unforced, but with just an edge to help you in the right direction.

I've briefly mentioned how tight American Beauty is. The plot is wonderfully self contained but also organic, it feels very plausible. There's a reason things happened as they did when they did. I can't find any plot holes. Much credit has to be given to the script and writers, and bonus points for being an original idea when so many excellent dramas have "Based on" in their credits.

But more than characters, plot and script, American Beauty is also visually wonderful. While much of it is observed as life is, Lester's fantasies have a brilliantly symbolic and colourful side making them stand out as more than dreams. This leads to the deeper aspects of the film, such as recurring symbols, numerous metaphors (the bag...) and of course the moral.

For a film concentrating on failure, I found a very positive message out of the film, and that was to enjoy life and all the beautiful things in it, and to never trap yourself. Like the tag, look closer, find yourself looking past the black and white (into the red?) and see beauty. It all sounds cheesy, but unlike Spacey's later work Pay It Forward, it doesn't come off the screen that way.

From a cynic to seizing the day, American Beauty is a dark film with a big smiley face over it that blends until its climax. An engrossing fiction that for many isn't too far from real life, I think this film can speak to people differently as you age, and that power to draw different meanings from different viewings is a sign of a true film. A full film and a fantastic way to close out a millennium. 9.4/10

The Sting (1973)

One Cool Caper

[8/10 · 5 February 2013]

I was very pleased with myself, having avoided absolutely everything about this Best Picture-winning classic. I have never seen a Paul Newman film before, and was disappointed by Redford as Gatsby. I didn't even know what this film was about. Absolutely nothing. And it made the film that much better.

The Sting is about con men performing 'the long con' on a shady banker, as revenge for a former partner. With throwback title cards we are walked through the process, which comes down to an elaborate gambling hoax. It was a bit frustrating to not know what was going on though. Not even the surface-level plan. And for a modern audience, 'straight poker' is a bit alien. Nonetheless, comprehending the plot is the most thinking you'll have to do during The Sting.

Don't expect a life-changing moral or social criticism: entertainment is the goal of this slick, 30's set robbery. Take it at face value, enjoy the genius writing and oh-so-cool leads, fall for every hook and have a few laughs: The Sting is lots of fun, 40 years on. 8.5/10

Apocalypse Now (1979)

"And outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck of the earth struck me as something great and invincible"

[10/10 · 20 January 2013]

I saw Apocalypse Now almost two years ago, before I really got into film. I had previously seen Saving Private Ryan, and loved and respected it. I was in disbelief it wasn't the #1 rated war film on this website, so I sought out Apocalypse Now.

I hated it. I hated Apocalypse Now so much. It wasn't boring, and cheesy, or even pretentious- it was just wrong. But over the next few months, something changed, and it really grew on me. And it grew. And eventually I realized: I loved Apocalypse Now. I bought it on Blu Ray, the tremendous 'Full Disclosure', and just saw it again because one of my classes is studying Heart of Darkness.

I was right.

Apocalypse Now is more than just the greatest war film ever, it is one of the greatest films ever, period. A tower of cinema, an achievement in both the technical and artistic fields.

In the Vietnam War, parallelling Conrad's original ideas in Head of Darkness, Cpt. Willard returns to Vietnam and is given an assignment to kill Colonel Kurtz, American war hero. But after the first act, the war is really stripped from the film. Context is established. It's bigger than that.

From start to finish every aspect of Apocalypse Now aims for absolute perfection. The opening montage mixes helicopters, Willard's hotel nightmare, and The Doors. Not The Beatles, not the Stones, but the Doors' raw, controversial track, The End. We learn who Willard is, and over a really unnerving tape, about who Kurtz is. Or may be. There are beautiful shots of vast forests and mountains, more intimate walks through the jungle and of the river, brilliant lighting of characters, horrifyingly beautiful sets with hanging bodies, ancient ruins and bizarre alters. The sound quality is without a doubt the greatest in film. Apocalypse Now is more than a film with a plot and an idea, it's an experience. No credits, no titles. Nothing to distract.

And in the end, what does it come to? Knowledge, perspective, accidental strength from the weakness of others. What, where is freedom? It isn't spelt out exactly what the intent is, but there are several, and having knowledge of the source material is a huge help.

A second chance is one of the biggest rewards I'v ever given myself. To experience Apocalypse Now again, in a new light, is an experience I needed. An amazing piece of art. 9.7/10

Rear Window (1954)

...Look Closer

[8/10 · 7 January 2013]

Rear Window is perceived to be a Hitchcock staple, and with good reason. You've got your star protagonist; a young, blonde leading lady, and a real- world scenario that provides plenty of his trademark suspense.

In one of those premises that is just meant for film, Jimmy Stewart is an injured photographer who gets interested in his apartment block. And for the first half hour, that's all that happens. We meet his not-quite- mutual girlfriend Lisa, charmingly played by Grace Kelly. Then we look at the neighbours and see a bit of who they are. One in particular catches Jeffries' eye, a salesman who likes to take late night walks...

And thus the caper begins. How can you build a case from an apartment, bound to a wheelchair? That's where all of the action takes place, leading to a certain enclosure in the film, but also a sense of home.

The question becomes, did he even do it? Jeffries works to prove it, but we also need convincing too. And Detective Doyle doesn't believe it, and our own loyalty wavers too. Once the film picks up, and it slowly picks up until the tense finale, we aren't quite sure which way the story will go.

First, eat while watching the film. The first act is slow, and maybe even a bit too long. Second, it's certainly dated, more so than say Psycho or Rope (I give Rope the slight edge to this film). Certain elements, including one very important camera flash, breaks the otherwise sublime tension that had been building to a crescendo the entire film. The falling action is also quite weak, an issue that soured the ending of North by Northwest as well. If you've enjoyed Hitchcock's other work and look past these issues then Rear Window will knock you out, but in the grand comparison these are issues that other films don't have.

Is Rear Window a great film? Yes. Is it one of the absolute best films ever made? Not quite. It is one of Hitch's finest, but that doesn't make it faultless- his films all have the same issues with slow beginnings and fast endings. Nevertheless it is a wonderful 50's thriller that makes for a fun time. 8.5/10

Life of Brian (1979)

An Epic of Knockoff- Biblical Proportions

[7/10 · 6 January 2013]

It's worth noting right off the bat that I've never seen anything Monty Python before except for the Ministry of Silly Walks. No, not even Holy Grail. Yet. But I expected quite a bit from Life of Brian, seeing as the Pythons are some of the most revered comedians of all time.

I was sadly disappointed. Life of Brian just never hit an exceptionally high, focused note. To start, the whole thing looks like a B- movie. It's as visually cheesy as a late 50's movie, and while the star of a comedy is its writing and delivery, the poor technical delivery is a major distraction.

Then we move into the plot- I feel that Brian suffers from a poor plot that can't live up to its premise, if that makes sense. The initial scene, the manger next door, is a fantastic idea. The 'mistaken messiah' is genius. But the 'protesting Jews' that makes up half the film made me scratch my head- why? It's unfocused and the point is unclear, so I was always edgy and it distracted further from the comedy.

Into the actual jokes themselves, some hit with me and others failed. The best parts of the film are Palin's "Biggus Dickus" questioning and the final scene, peaking with the Jewish Peole's Front Suicide Squad. The whole Messiah angle is made humorously relevant if you consider the idiots at Westboro Baptist. But there are jokes that flew over my head or just didn't register- a man in drag isn't a winner for me, and a strange, Otherworldly scene- which my parents told me was out of their TV series- made no sense.

I was initially very sour about this film. It's most likely that there's a generation gap thing, although I do have a lack of affinity for comedies as a whole. Although even a day has been kind to this film- it's worth noting I felt the same way about Apocalypse Now when I first saw that, and that's another unfair comparison I've made with this film. I can't believe these two films were played beside each other in a theatre (or not, in Norway). Anyway, to parents wishing to show old comedies to the younger generation, don't start with this one. 7.3/10

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

The American Classic

[9/10 · 3 January 2013]

Up in Canada, To Kill A Mockingbird was our novel studied in the eighth grade. I don't remember too much about Grade 8 now, and even less about the book, except that it was dreadfully boring for a 13-year old: I was too preoccupied by Lord of the Flies. Not even the movie could gather my interest.

I'm a bit older now and a lot more educated, so it was time to really take in this treasured film. And wow, what a difference a few years makes. This film, extraordinarily faithful to the source, grabs the atmosphere and setting of the film and spells it out on screen. TKAM is a wonderful story of adult issues through a child's eyes, under the watchful eye of moral hero Atticus Finch.

In just over two hours the effects of the Depression in the South is seen, as well as the lingering racism and prejudice of the Civil War, the vivid imagination of children and the effect a strong parent can have on children. The themes have very positive stances: this is no Grapes of Wrath. The film is family-friendly except for several contextual uses of the N- word.

Though it is a positive film, it is not an easy viewing. Like any great example of any medium, To Kill A Mockingbird is dense and not extremely easy to follow, due in part to its age and content- there's virtually no "action" and the one true scene of physical conflict is weak compared to the rest of the film. Another way to say it is that if you have a meeting with a film buff and you want to appear smart but haven't seen many classic films, don't start with this one.

I remember seeing the AFI's Heroes and Villains list and being a little put off by Atticus' place... but I can't now. He's a model parent and an inspiration to all- he has integrity and a calm persona, never letting his temper flare. Peck's voice is so assuring, and he just looks like an upstanding citizen who knows that kids are kids and that it's more important to go with what you believe is right than what others would try to make you do.

Seeing To Kill A Mockingbird is to read the book- a slow but expansive look at a slice of time through young eyes. It's a shame this came out in the same year as Lawrence of Arabia- one year either way and it may have received the awards to place it physically in the halls of time, if not our hearts. 9.3/10

Rain Man (1988)

My main man

[8/10 · 1 January 2013]

Seeing Rain Man reminds me of The Graduate, another of Dustin Hoffman's most popular films. Some films tell big stories about the nature of humanity, or our social dynamics, where other films tell a nice contained story. Both of these films are in the latter, and thus the degree of how much one will like the film comes down to a viewers' taste. I really liked both of these films, but consider the Graduate to be far superior- but that's just me. I'm sure there are many people who are the exact opposite. Anyway, Rain Man is an exceptionally charming film with broad appeal due to its positive messages about family and lifestyle.

The topic of autism is handled incredibly well. The process of Charlie meeting his brother and being impossibly fed up with his shortcomings is sadly believable for his character, as is his gradual acceptance and caring, though not without his outbursts. A week such as this wouldn't completely reinvigorate a person, but it certainly changes his perspective from his enclosed world of money.

The two leads are brilliant: Raymond's mannerisms are so believable, and his presence is soft but powerful. His foil is his brother Charlie, greedy and inconsiderate. He's a p****. But time brings these unknown brothers together believably, with no one single moment of 'the big change', hallmark of bad 'transformation' films. Raymond is the catalyst for Charlie's change in the scientific definition: he himself does not change. The film may make it seem like Raymond too has evolved, but he hasn't. His routine has. A year after the film finishes he would be right back at the start, albeit with a caring brother.

Rain Man is a great story from an efficient script with enjoyable dialogue and a smooth pace. The technical side of the film is conventional: costumes, music and set design is very 80's. Some films have greater potential than others, and Rain Man achieves all it can. 8.5/10

Django Unchained (2012)

Al dente

[9/10 · 27 December 2012]

In many ways, Django Unchained is very similar to Inglourious Basterds. They both are derived from European B-movies and are set in times where the world wasn't on the top of its game. But whereas Basterds worked precariously around the mass armed conflict at the time, Django fires six shots into the heart of the issue that has generally been turned away from in cinema: slavery. And where Basterds was a decidedly more dramatic film with only small bits of humour, Django is usually less serious but with select instances of pure pain. In a year of blockbuster disappointment, Django Unchained stands tall and free, delivering almost 3 hours of cinematic goodness.

Right from the first frame it's apparent that there's another very important influence on this film, and that is the spaghetti western. From the font of the opening titles to the throwback theme songs, Django is a movie about slavery with the style of a certain Italian filmmaker. This "neowestern" as I shall call it doesn't contain long stares in ghost towns, but has plenty of shooting and flair. And with a name like Tarantino's attached, you know it's getting the double dose of brutality.

I mentioned earlier the humour is more apparent than in Basterds. The shootouts are ridiculous, the characters zany, and it's always a pleasure to hear Samuel L. Jackson saying m*****f*****. I want to especially point out the scene with the KKK for being especially hilarious, and the audience agreed with me that Django is fairly light considering how the topic could be taken. But, like the famous "How am I funny?" scene in Goodfellas, the South as it is often presented to us in films such as Gone with the Wind (for the record, this film affects my opinion of that one negatively) is quite ridiculous. Sure, we can laugh at the old white folks being astonished to see "a n**** on a horse", but things like that happened. People were horrible and slavery was one of the great abominations in human history. And on two occasions, like Tommy deVito, Tarantino drops the facade. Two scenes that still play in my mind, gut-wrenching scenes highlighting the cruelty of man. Django Unchained is violent, but only in these two scenes is it truly disturbing.

But after the scenes hit home the dresses get put back on and you are graciously welcomed to Candyland again. The writing is expectedly top notch, able to return to a warm place after unflinching brutality. The dialogue is laden with profanity and wit, complimenting the action scenes for a very briskly paced film that feels much shorter than its 2 hours 45 minute runtime.

The characters tentpole the film though. Django, the slave reborn as a vengeful killer, has all the style, moves and flair of a gunslinging hero. Although it's his name in the title the film belongs to DiCaprio and Waltz. Leo's Calvin Candie is a despicable man who relishes what he does, and leaves all traces of prettyboy hero Leo at the door. And Waltz as the bounty hunter Dr. Schultz is a quirky and good natured man. I think it's the beard. Very much unlike his last role in a Tarantino film.

Samuel L. Jackson plays a curiously loyal house slave though character is never really fleshed out, and though he gets a lot of great lines his presence feels a bit off. Likewise, Django's wife Broomhilda gets very little to say despite being the subject of the film's quest. She was mostly just... there.

Without a doubt Tarantino's films are incredible, movie lovers' movies. And Django Unchained is no exception- little references and unmatched style make a fantastic ride. But a problem that I have with them is depth. The only message that is really taken away is that slavery was brutal, but that isn't really treading new ground. The characters also see little development: Django goes from an angry slave to an angry hunter and Candie's is a functioning monster the whole way through. Only Schultz really changes and it's great to see, so I wonder why he didn't give Django any more transition. Nonetheless, Tarnatino and Western fans won't be disappointed by this, one of the best films of the year. 8.7/10

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

I'm not stuck in here with you, you're stuck in here with me!

[9/10 · 15 December 2012]

Have you ever found a piece of old schoolwork and realized how dumb you were? That now, with all of your more developed skills, you could've done that same assignment to a higher degree of quality or ease? That's how I felt watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for the second time. 2 years ago I enjoyed the plot, characters, and ending, but now, 2 years and over 150 films later, I can appreciate One Flew Over for what it is: a masterpiece of fiction, and a deceptively challenging piece of art.

I'll jump past the plot synopsis and get to the heart of the film: R.P. MacMurphy. The slacker, rebel, that kid in class who just wouldn't listen. How can you deal with a character like MacMurphy? Is something wrong with him? This is a major thematic point in Cuckoo's Nest, and the answers aren't simple. What gives someone the right to make choices for another? What is the point that someone can't think for themselves? Is there a point? Questions beget questions, especially around the idea of "authority".

That authority is personified by Nurse Ratched. She looks like an authority figure: icy glare, skull- like face. Instantly you dislike the nurse. You're pointed in that direction by the patients. But personally, when looking at her character objectively, I didn't find her bad for most of the film. Let me elaborate: a few weekends ago I met an children's organ transplant doctor. It is the most noble of work, but visually I could tell it took a toll on him. He wasn't rude, or volatile, or detached, but what he described himself as "serious". Working in healthcare, seeing things go wrong, that wears you down. I believe Ratched, working (for a long time), hearing mental patients yell about trivial things such as cigarettes, day after day, takes its toll. You wouldn't be a cheerful soul after years of that. Of course at the end she does flex her cruelty and we really grow to resent her, but for most of the film I thought she was just doing her job.

This is a great film to analyze because it's so opinionated. Two similar people can see it, and based off of their own experiences will draw very different conclusions about the message and characters. Many others hate Nurse Ratched. I'm sure there are those out there who don't like MacMurphy. Some will say control is necessary, others that freedom is the most important thing out there. Cuckoo doesn't really force you into believing one certain way.

The hospital itself if juxtaposing: the setting is a plain, boring hospital with drab white everything, but the characters are quirky and colourful. I loved them all, and didn't find anyone really annoying: Chezwick's extremity, Tobar's big reactions, the Chief, General, Billy, and a near- silent Stanley Kubrick-alike. This band of misfits are a joy to watch, and have some laugh-out-loud moments like Martini eating the dice and the basketball game.

Despite the hospital setting, Cuckoo is a generally smile-inducing film with a fantastic script that develops its characters well for the conclusion. And oh, the end. It is really a twist, but the second you realize what's happened, how the chips have fallen, you give an audible gasp. This is one of the great film endings, bitter and sweet, but very satisfying. It may even bring a tear to your eye. 9.4/10

The Apartment (1960)

Charming, quirky, and tender

[9/10 · 11 December 2012]

Billy Wilder is a really swell guy. He takes serious matter and makes it entertaining: Sunset Blvd. blew me away, and now The Apartment has put a big smile on my face. Wilder injects this uppity- atmosphere into almost every scene and it makes the film a pleasure to watch, no matter how serious the plot gets. And behind the charm of Lemmon's C.C. Baxter, there is a serious plot.

The Apartment is about Baxter, a New York business cog, trying to move up in his company not through hard work, or extra socializing, or self- pitching, but by lending his apartment to his coworkers' extra-martial affairs. Being a 60's film, this cannot be said directly, but the hinting is so strong you pick up instantly. The film is quite liberal, content-wise. The film shows that blackmail goes both ways: Baxter may believe he has the upper hand, with his clients on a string... but he does not, and he sinks deeper into his lie. Of course it comes across humorously, with his neighbours scolding him for his 'sexpot' antics, though the good doctor would also like if his body could be donated to science.

Baxter is quite a character, an innocent everyman with his own set of faults and quirks. Lemmon is magnetic: we always root for Lemmon, even as he tells pitiful lies to his landlady and can't stand up to his clients. Even his borderline creepy knowledge of Ms. Kubelik comes off as just charm. An immensely likable character.

The object of his affection, Fran Kubelik, is also quite a charmer. Her problem is men, but she knows it. She doesn't fake innocence. We have all known that flirty girl who ends up on your nerves... but Fran isn't that girl. Wilder knows just how to handle his characters.

Now, more than 50 years after its release, trying to look at The Apartment academically is strange, because its era has passed. Things like that don't happen any more. Right? Perhaps not as specifically, but the cost of power is a universal theme. What do you sacrifice to try and get ahead? Property, dignity, even your love? C.C. Baxter knows how much he'll give, but also what he won't. The film ends positively, which is nice, and deserving, especially after seeing Sunset Blvd. The Apartment is wonderful, sharply written and performed, and makes a great evening. 8.9/10

All About Eve (1950)

Despicable Eve

[9/10 · 3 December 2012]

Right off of the start one thing becomes apparent: my opinion of Sunset Blvd. is critical to how much I'd like this film. Fortunately, I love Sunset Blvd, so much in fact that I gave it one out of eleven "ten's". However, the similar topics forces a comparison, and seeing Sunset Blvd first leads to a natural bias, leaning towards that film. I truly enjoyed All About Eve, and if you see it first, you may think different than me, numerically.

Like Mad Men, which gets an apparent creative boost from being about creative folk, All About Eve is a film about entertainment by entertainers. Which, as the trend goes for such occasions, makes it incredible. The story is rich, with many little things that can't be pinpointed. But on a larger scale, everything is enjoyable. The actor's performances are mesmerizing; Davis' aging, displaced star is wonderfully upsetting and relateable. Sanders' deWitt is slimy but charming, with such a confident voice. But it's all about Eve. As Chris Rock would say, "you're goddamned disgusting!" And she is, oh, so wretched. Even in her first scene, the false humility and gratefulness leaks through her facade, and the cracks grow from there. By the end though it comes full circle, with a bitterly poetic conclusion. Eve's speech, and the glances the camera takes at the crowd, speak volumes about her character and the film's themes.

Another point of note is how sharp the dialogue is. Being about theatre, many references get tossed around, of which I caught about 2: Macbeth and Hamlet. But all of the conversations have weight and wordplay that would make Shakespeare himself smile.

All About Eve, despite being over 60 years old, is remarkably fresh. To start, this is probably the only film I've seen all year in which death is not a plot point. Also, in a medium which can be seen as male- dominated (there are 6 films higher than this on the Top 250 principally starring women), seeing female drama is unique. This story of deceit, undermining, fame and fakes is well- directed, well- acted, and enjoyable. Love the film, hate Eve. 9.0/10

M (1931)

Dark and suspenseful

[9/10 · 1 December 2012]

M is quite the film. It shocks you throughout its runtime: the subject matter is scary and mature, the acting isn't over-the-top like its counterparts from the era, and there's swearing. Extreme swearing for the time. To top this all off, it's suspenseful. The entire last half is edge of your seat.

Despite being indirectly named after Peter Lorre's character, he isn't directly prevalent in the film, but his presence is always in the air. Right from the start a mother yells at kids for "singing that awful song", a little rhyme about the child murderer. The citizens of Berlin are antsy: anyone could be the killer, and accusations fly. The entire police force is worn down, combing the city for one man. It even interrupts the criminals. So they decide to hunt this monster too, but at the same time while remaining separate from the police, who on any other day are their enemies. This is the dynamic of M, and the stubbornness leads to tension.

The first half is informative, organic, but slowly paced. There were many opportunities to advance the plot that weren't taken. But once the ball gets rolling... it stays rolling, and right to the end you're right in the film.

Lang makes interesting artistic choices, like the use of silence in suspenseful scenes. Seeing a man run completely scared but without even the noise of his shoes hitting the ground is harrowing. Mirrors also have interesting applications too.

I was reading about this film before seeing it and people said how they could sympathize with the murderer. Personally, I would see about checking their heads: the murderer is 100% deranged. The only inner demons he faces are those of his previous exploits. This leads to the final conflict, of how justice should be administered, which is an great debate, but the killer is sick, through and through.

M is groundbreaking, going where film had not gone before and doing it supremely anyway. An entertaining 2 hours, though it's not exactly a 'fun' film, and the end, while being powerful, isn't handled to the same standard as the rest of the film. It just... fades to black. Maybe this will grow on me, but after seeing it, it puts the tiniest damper on the end of a genius film. 8.7/10

Trainspotting (1996)

Charm, culture and subtlety: but who needs that when you've got heroin?

[9/10 · 24 November 2012]

After more than 100 film reviews, I've decided that 9's or above are for films that knock me out in one way or another and completely immerse me in their world. Typically, it's incredible actors in their characters, or an atmosphere that bleeds out of the screen, epic scenes or wonderful music.

Trainspotting defies this rule: it just raises its hand in class, says "Here" in a thick Scottish accent, then begins. Trainspotting is superb and subtle, impossibly charming and quirky, with just the necessary amount of serious to remind you that drugs are no joke. Danny Boyle's direction is genius; he knows exactly what to show, for how long, and keeps the film concise.

Interestingly, Trainspotting, a film about heroin addiction, doesn't spend an hour and a half shaking its accusative fist at heroin, saying "Bad! Bad!" Unlike Requiem for a Dream, which is 100% damning of the drug, Trainspotting is more about the heroin users than the drug itself. And as Renton, the charismatic, slacker protagonist says early, they wouldn't do heroin if it was all bad. Because it's a recreational drug, it makes you feel good, and then you get addicted. To the lifestyle. To the people. Your "friends".

Trainspotting establishes a very unique identity by fully embracing its Scottish 'pride', not that Renton would agree. There are Beatles references, Sick Boy can't go a scene without talking about Sean Connery, and the club scene is copy-pasted with love from A Clockwork Orange. Hearing Begbie speak, or the now- nostalgia inducing soundtrack with Iggy Pop and Underworld forces a smile on your face. Even though the film's about heroin and has some sick, sick images.

Everything about the film is honest. Renton is honest. Mostly. All the characters have issues, and we love them. Even Spud. The acting is just what it needs to be, not serious philosophical looks at the human condition but some 20-somethings who make weak attempts to quit Junk. If anything I wish we saw more of the supporting cast: though the film's pace is incredibly fast, it would've been nice to see a little more of Tommy and Dianne, who get much less time on screen than I remembered from my first viewing. To add credibility to this: True Romance features the most magnetic character Gary Oldman has ever played, a trash pimp. Even though he has no purpose but to ****spoilers* die *end**** his one scene is extended and it's the best scene in the film.

An issue with drug films is that no matter how well they are made, the message is always the same, and it's a no-brainer. Drugs are bad. So I tried to find something else watching Trainspotting, and I came up with this: the film is a metaphor, saying "quit screwing around with excuses and do something with yourself", using the most powerful addictive substance as the vessel to convey this. If there's something you want to change about yourself, you won't escape it by staying in the same environment. Peer pressure ensures this. Perhaps those "friends" aren't really your friends after all.

I remember being 13 seeing this for the first time. I enjoyed its plot, though I couldn't understand any of the dialogue or any of the subtle symbols or literary devices. Ironically now, the one I saw it with didn't get the message, and now, years later, he's "trainspotting". Trainspotting is an amazing film that holds you dear. 9.4/10

The Prestige (2006)

Brainmelting

[9/10 · 20 November 2012]

We learn within the first minute just what "the prestige" is. It would turn out to be what the film is really all about, its third act. The prestige of The Prestige is twist after twist after reveal until an ULTIMATE climax, but after the second big twist your brain will be mush. The film closes with a line about "being fooled" and I was certainly fooled. There are many questions that are answered, and further more questions that can have answers- but pursuing them would be pointless. The writing is incredible as far as the plot is concerned: the 'first, next, then' is well managed, but the "why" at the end has lots of ambiguity. Some won't like the lack of denouement, but it's almost certainly an artistic choice and thus subjective.

The plot is not linear- if you read the back of the Blu Ray or IMDb description, you will be bewildered by the first 20 minutes. Keep an open mind and just absorb the scenes in the film- there is great reward.

Artistically amazing, the turn of the 20th century is a unique time period hardly explored by genres of than the historical drama or biopic, both typically "boring" if well made films. The costumes, lighting and atmosphere are moody, like the film content. And it's really weird to hear Christian Bale's regular voice.

There are issues however: the opening scenes are jarring, and it's always tough to tell when and how much time has jumped between scenes. Considering the high level of Nolan's films, especially their beginnings, this confusion put a damper on the whole film. Also, the initial friendship between Angier and Borden is hardly shown, and poorly sold.

The themes of obsession and rivalry dominate the film: what would you do to get ahead of your opponent? Would it have a permanent effect on you? Both magicians cut moral corners, leading to another interesting idea: who's the good guy? Bad guy? Even by the end it can be tough to decide, if you choose to decide.

The Prestige is an excellent film that boggles the mind, but I feel it too loose to be considered a Nolan masterpiece. Its plot, characters and acting are incredible, conveying a very topical feeling of magic. Nevertheless a worthy view, if you can tolerate small cracks throughout and chips off at the end. 8.5/10

Skyfall (2012)

21st Century Man

[8/10 · 18 November 2012]

I don't know much about James Bond. Sure, I can tell you about S-sssean Connery, I can hum the theme, I can recognize an Aston Martin and a shaken martini, but I actually haven't seen many of the films. Heck I was born recognizing Pierce Brosnan as the definitive James Bond look, playing Nightfire in junior school. To be honest, I've only seen Quantum of Solace and hated it.

Skyfall has made me a believer. For all its necessities: guns, cars, girls and chases, Skyfall is more. Skyfall is smart.

Skyfall tells a sharp, straightforward story that blends elements exquisitely, with a brilliantly flowing opening chase that transfers to scenes of dialogue and plot development, then back to action... the mix is smooth, with cause and effect, drama to action. There is also some comedy laced in, akin to Nolan's Batman series, clearly an influence on this film. Skyfall has many memorable scenes, my favourite being the hotel in Shanghai. The action is always creative, the fights mesmerizing. I'm sure I'll see- if not try- the iconic subway slide one of these nights.

The cinematography is brilliant, distractingly so. Clever and effective, you will be amazed at how the film is shot and how colour is used- I'll nod to Shanghai again.

The acting is really something for such a blockbuster. Craig brings a very human Bond, who surprises you more than once. Skyfall looks into the past of James Bond- how does someone become a secret agent? I haven't seen Casino Royale, but after the horrible Quantum he now looks incredibly comfortable in the role. The 'style check' train jump at the beginning and throwback ride show this.

Judi Dench sees lots of screen time in her 7th appearance as M, this time as a pivotal plot point, more than just mission control. She never lets her guard down, always with a look of bulldog ferocity. This cuts screen time from the Bond girls, but that's because, I have to give credit to IGN here, that M is the Bond girl of Skyfall.

After his incredible turn as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, it would'v e been easy to see Javier Bardem as a vengeance-seeking ex- agent. But that's not what happened, far from it. I think Bardem's Silva will catch everyone in the theatre off-guard, in at least one way. His introductory scene is incredible, his speech chilling. His character is unsettling, his appearance ghastly, but inside he's smart, and it's his mind that really holds his menace. He's a justified villain and a very worthy opponent.

Thematically, Skyfall smartly chooses to acknowledge technology. The film deals with the irrelevance of humans in conflict, and the prevalence of computers. The old in society being displaced by the young, the technologically- minded. The topic is interesting on its own, but in context it's brilliant. James Bond is a 50 year tradition, now forced to change with the world. Skyfall is the start of a new Bond era.

If nothing else, Skyfall is an engaging and satisfying film. But it's more than that, it speaks about our changing society, examines relationships usually forgotten in Bond films, and features incredible actors and technical work. So it's really more than a Bond film, it's a modern landmark. 8.5/10

Cloud Atlas (2012)

A soul's odyssey

[9/10 · 3 November 2012]

Cloud Atlas is unlike its contemporaries at the multiplex. It tells a big story in an engaging, difficult fashion. It has big names and a big budget. But it also is thematically dense… it wants to tell you something through plot, characters, dialogue and symbols. Cloud Atlas is also thankfully a very enjoyable film, much longer and denser than much of what is available today. "Ambition" defines this film.

In just under 3 hours, six radically different stories are told, and they appeal to a broad audience: a 19th century tale of unlikely brotherhood, the letters of a gay composer to his partner in the 1930's, a San Francisco- set conspiracy in the 70's, A hilarious account of an old publisher's woes. A Blade Runner-esque clone's struggle for freedom, and the survival of a tribe after 'The Fall'. Genre conventions are toppled, as these stories with different tones are juggled in short intervals, leading from comedic highs to shocking drama in minutes.

But as with the characters, these plots are connected thematically, and clever wordplay and visual imagery links the stories, such as the end of a monologue referencing "the gates of Hell" and cutting to a shot of the gates of a building that, for Cavendish at least, is the gates of Hell. Each of the stories has strengths, a few have faults, but together the medley is incredible.

I found that while the earliest two stories began slowly and plainly, they developed very well and provided fantastic drama, especially the 1849 story. The Nuclear thriller was strong, Halle Berry is great and there are some real twists, and I also loved the 'Dirty Harry' and 'China Syndrome' vibes, but comedy bled into it from the 2012 story which diminished the climax. The 2012 story is hilarious, and its first scene is a standout; Tom Hanks is incredible as Dermot Hoggins. Although while the story is interesting, it doesn't fit quite so well thematically- it's almost too light. Listening to the 'Cloud Atlas Sextet' fits with all the stories, but can't resonate with Cavendish's. The future Korea is visually stunning and communicates its themes well, certainly the darkest plot, but the action can get over the top (Yes, I know who directed this) and there are some horrible clichés. But that scene of horrendous dialogue, the weakest in the film, can't derail a great piece. Lastly is the bleak, Hawaii- set post-apocalyptic story. It was my favourite, possibly because I'm a sucker for anything involving apocalypse. But Hanks and Berry are fantastic again, the barbarians are menacing and scary, and the story is cool. It also concludes the film perfectly.

I've only talked about the plot! The actors really steal the show. In the credits, each actor's name is placed with a clip of every one of their characters… everyone in the theatre stopped and stayed. People play characters you had no idea they played. A few highlights: Sturgess' lawyer and the slave Autua, Frobisher, Hugh Grant's sexist nuclear boss, Cavendish and Hanks' Hoggins. Doona Bae as Somni and Hugo Weaving's "Old Georgie" round it out- the latter is truly a demon. Much credit has to go to the makeup, literally making actors disappear into their roles. There is a huge number of transsexual and even race-bridging roles- it's worthy of note that Lana Wachowski was at one point Larry Wachowski. Also deserving of praise, and possibly Oscars is the large scale visual effects that cover hundreds of years and look so believable. Sound quality is top-notch as well, listening to Old Georgie is chilling, as is the vision of Korean diners, and well... the whole future.

But all this plot serves a purpose, and Cloud Atlas intends to tell you things. Freedom is possibly the biggest theme, as well as the idea that our actions affect others greatly throughout time: we're part of a large human network. Really though there's so much to talk about you should just see the film. There are small stumbles every so often, but the structure hides them very well. No one story takes more time than others, no one character takes more time than others, and the structure and pacing drives the film forward briskly. It's a shame this film hasn't been better received commercially, because it's a phenomenal achievement, interesting sci-fi and drama, and as of now, the best film I've seen in 2012. 8.8/10

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Entertainment as it was meant to be

[9/10 · 29 October 2012]

Film exists to provide entertainment. Raiders of the Lost Ark does just that, in its purest form. Very few other films can claim to such a beloved status as this, adventure's masterpiece.

I feel like this is a film that anyone who ventures onto the IMDb has seen. As such, it's redundant to tell you to see this one. No, there's no deep message, or allegory, but 2 hours of unrivalled fun. Action, explosions, suspense, wit, romance, comedy... the ultimate blockbuster.

Cinephiles may look down on Indy for not having thematic value, but that was never the intent. Armed with the most lethally sharp script in Hollywood, Spielberg and Lucas created an extraordinarily likable character put into a unique, original situation. Religious mystery? Shooting lots of people? Yes, but it's OK because they're Nazis. Or Belloq. Everything about this film is top notch, from its acting, to music, cinematography, set design... pure joy.

I'd always seen this film as timeless: the version I saw was of fantastic quality and the film looks fantastic, explosions are convincing, the violence is surprisingly graphic but not extreme, but the little thing that bugs me is the CG. It's the only part of the film firmly rooted in the 80's, and it bugs me to see such primitive effects next to the most pristine presentation otherwise.

But this little thing can't hold back Raiders. If there was ever a film with style and substance, this is it. One of the warmest, most entertaining films of all time, telling one of entertainments greatest stories with one of film's iconic characters. 9.3/10

Fanny and Alexander (1982)

Pretentious and messy

[7/10 · 9 October 2012]

The first Bergman film I've seen is the director's last: I was excited, his reputation puts him in the upper echelon of directors, as far as I'm concerned, and I thought I could stomach his 'more accessible' film easily- I've seen tougher. This is a review of the 188- minute version, and perhaps that influences some of my opinions.

Took in all kinds of things- why does the statue move? What does it say about Alexander? I tried to get a grasp on who's in the family: but then it all- falls- apart. Maybe I'm not yet ready for this type of film, but my god as an objective viewer I was sadly, sadly disappointed.

The exposition at the very long Swedish version of the Godfather's opening fails: which bearded man is which? Who is the old lady? Who the hell are Fanny and Alexander's parents? On that note, where's Fanny? The titular character doesn't appear for nearly an hour and never does more than stand around and sometimes stick up for her brother, but she has about as much emotion as Bella from Twilight- yes, that comparison just happened. I didn't know who the father was until he died (that's not a spoiler) and didn't connect with who the mother was until we see her grieving in admittedly an excellent scene, one of the best.

The kicker is that the family is interesting but it doesn't come to much. Helena, the grandmother, is a wonderfully warm presence and one of the film's great cheers. Gustav Adolf is very lively, but I am baffled that the whole family is OK with him having impregnated his mistress, one of Helena's housekeepers. His wife is OK with it! Everyone treats it like a normal thing! Carl and his wife are just miserable, but their plot goes nowhere, and finally Isak is cheery and likable. The film's greatest, saving strength is its acting: the performances are sublime, and the chemistry between actors is that of a tight- knit family. The tyrannical Edvard is not even that horrible of a person, only a stark contrast from Oscar, but his portrayal and the way the film plays out leads us to see him as a monster.

So after the ridiculously long party, and once Oscar dies, we see what the new home life will be like and then the intermission occurs. After that things change radically and things become surreal. It's captivating, especially with the minimalist piano (fantastic music throughout) but I was never sure where real life ended and fantasy began. In its context, talking to the dead makes sense: but miraculous mirages? That's the best answer even Bergman came up with, miracles. Telepathy? I couldn't buy it after seeing a family drama for 2 hours.

So the plot trips all over itself, made extra painful by the aforementioned acting and the exquisite script, with amazing dialogues that translate well to English. That essentially sums up the film: top- caliber everything except for a failure to build initial thoughts on characters, and having a terrible plot rife with holes. I'm reminded of a Shakespearean comedy: I think they get buy just by having his name attached. Midsummer's Night Dream is awful. This is not awful, but not nearly what I expected. This is now the definitive example as to why plot overrules everything. 7.0/10

High Noon (1952)

Stand Alone

[9/10 · 6 October 2012]

High Noon blew me away: it's a very short film but very dense; the concept is very simple but intriguing. And it all rolls out in near- real time. If you see Lee Van Cleef at the beginning and suspect a final duel for a showdown you're in the wrong place: this is a very American film, in both plot and theme.

Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper)has been married for less than 10 minutes when he receives news that a killer he sent to jail is coming back for his revenge, his posse already waiting for his train. Despite his reputation, the townsfolk insist "things are different" and are hesitant to help. This is mixed with constant looks at clocks, showing that time is short: there's literally 90 minutes between the news and Miller arriving. Action is second to dialogue and crowd dynamic. In this regard, the film is a drama dressed up like a Western.

Have you ever tried to get a group to do something, but everyone is hesitant to help because everyone else is hesitant to help? That is what I found to a major theme in the film- the lack of mob confidence and therefore strength of the individual.

High Noon serves also as an allegory to the Communist hunts in Hollywood, siding with the accused unlike the later 'On The Waterfront', which sides with the accuser but parallels this film in many ways. Kane's final expression perfectly expresses the stance on this topic, and is a very memorable image.

I feel like High Noon is one of those films that should be written out and taught in high school like a Shakespeare play. The many supporting characters are interesting, symbolizing and crafting reflections for Kane, one of cinema's great hero. The plot, character decisions, cinematography and themes could be analyzed for hours, but that's not the point of this review: I just want you to take the time to see this 60 year- old classic that you've probably heard of but haven't seen. It's fantastic. 8.7/10

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

An unapologetic, **** you look at World War II

[9/10 · 26 September 2012]

This is a great film, and the finest example of the world through Quentin Tarantino's eyes. Taking an alternate perspective of WWII, it primarily follows Jewish Americans brutally killing Nazis. Take that in! There are other plots too, including a stellar opening segment and a theater owner's vendetta. It's tense, badass, classy and barbaric all in one package.

A key factor in this film's enjoyment: receive it as a drama. When I first saw it, I expected a light film heavy on bro action, almost comedic. I can thank the bizarre advertising, slogans and title for that. I was disappointed by the film. On my second time I figured it out and enjoyed it, and now on the third viewing I got to truly appreciate the film.

The five story chunks are all captivating, switching up enough to feel fresh. Being a Tarantino film, the script is a 10. Everything that is said is interesting, witty and natural. The pace fluctuates from a simple briefing to a suspenseful standoff and back again, but every scene is captivating- magnetic.

Another plus of seeing a Tarantino film is that the characters are gems, performed by all to perfection. Waltz's Landa is amazing and terrible to behold, a contained psychopath. The Basterds are all slick fellows, especially Donny. In particular though I want to mention Fassbender's Hicox as a charming fellow who I wish had more screen time, Mr. LaPadite (Denis Menochet), the dairy farmer, and Til Schweiger's Stiglitz- the most memorable single shot in the film for me is him, in a flurry of activity, stabbing that Nazi in the head- somehow.

Inglourious Basterds is a good show: entertaining, gripping and definitely not mindless. Did I take a life changing message away from it? No, but I do hate them Nazis. I feel that the violence, though a Tarantino staple, is a bit gruesome, but that's just me. The climax is outstanding. Let's rewrite our own history. A very bold film. 8.8/10

Amadeus (1984)

Inspired

[8/10 · 20 September 2012]

IMDb Top 250: 82

After you've seen a few, biopic can become fairly repetitive. They show a scene or two about the topic's childhood, the show a few moments that craft the subject's character, show the breakthrough, optional fall from grace, and death. The film is linear, well made and wins some Oscars..

But here's Amadeus, a film that could've easily dropped the more interesting aspects of the play and done a linear narrative. But it keeps the perspective of Salieri, long after the action takes place, in the asylum. That adds a whole layer to the film. Also, not having the camera follows Mozart's every move shows that even in his prime, a composer isn't the center of the world.

Amadeus is an impossibly lavish film: like the similarly timed- Barry Lyndon, costumes and makeup are luscious, and the sets and decorations are grand. The opera scenes are incredible. Visually and technically, the film is marvellous.

Then we get into the characters. The film focuses on the one-sided clash between jealous Salieri and childish Mozart. It makes the film more interesting than simply showing Mozart's life. I found the clash relateable: there's always someone who's better than you at anything, though they may not be the eccentric Mozart is.

I found it wrong that everyone speaks in a plain English accent, while making reference to "our language, German". Also the film runs long, longer than it could have. And lastly, I don't know what to get out of it. The end is quite nihilistic. Mediocrity. You lose. But they can't spoil one of the best biographical films ever. 8.3/10

Stand by Me (1986)

Memories of a simpler time

[9/10 · 20 September 2012]

IMDb Top 250: 177

What a sweet film. Even though I was born well after this film was released, the story of growing up and messing around with your friends is timeless- the times before the complications of life take hold.

The film follows four childhood friends on their summer trip to find a dead body, and the tolls the trip takes on them and the things they discover about themselves. The quest has many interesting stops, like a junkyard and one famous bridge. I loved the swamp scene.

You may not have been those kids who smoked and got into trouble, but one should be able to identify with the boys. Gordon is the worldly, smart one, living in his brother's shadow. Chris is the kid who has a rough family life, the physically mature one who acts as a big brother. Teddy is the crazy one, and Vern... well Vern was the one who you always wanted to shut up. How the hell was that kid your friend? The actors are fantastic. Though I couldn't stand Vern.

This film is a classic the moment you start watching it. All the staples of the rural 50's are here: the cars, the slick hair, the music and the lingo. It's fantastic. And then at the end with the skip to the 80's... 30 years is a long time.

Essentially, this film wants you to cherish your childhood. Ironically, with all the swearing, you probably won't see it until after that time is done. The memories this film extracts from your brain are vivid. Sweet, sweet nostalgia. Life and death and the coming of age are central to this very touching story. A wonderful film. 8.6/10

Rope (1948)

A rotten film in all the right ways

[8/10 · 19 September 2012]

IMDb Top 250: 234

Rope is beautiful in its simplicity. The whole thing takes place in one room, the cast of characters are all related, carefully chosen, interesting and cover a wide variety of personalities, and the premise is jumped on instantly and then followed for the next hour and a bit.

From the second they murder the classmate, the race is on to see if they get away with it, or who will catch them and how. The crime itself is wretched, especially considering the perpetrators "reasoning" behind it. All the vocabulary that keeps popping up related to the crime makes us uneasy as well- it can't be a coincidence, can it?

The acting is stellar- Doll and Granger carry the double edge of guilt- one is confident and egotistical, the other about to break down. Then there's Stewart, George Bailey himself in a very different role, inquisitive… knowing… his speech at the end is remarkably powerful and damning.

This is a weighty film, pound for pound. The character dynamics are interesting. The minds of Brandon and Phillips are worth studying. But it's the final question posed: who decides what is superior and inferior? that can have the most extrapolated from it. Apply that question to anything, politics, social science, you name it. People eschew things horribly in the name of what they think is right. There seems to even be a religious aspect to it all. To think this is all condensed in a little thriller is fascinating: a very worthy watch. 8.5/10

City Lights (1931)

Tender and wacky

[8/10 · 5 September 2012]

IMDb Top 250: 51

City Lights- arguably Chaplin's greatest contribution to film. It completely could be, just not for me. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but looking at my record with his films- The Great Dictator is one of the best of all time and Modern Times was hilarious, while The Kid was boring, I have to say this one is just below Modern Times.

I watch a Charlie Chaplin movie to see slapstick primarily and watch a very high quality silent film. City Lights is more of a drama, due to the primary storyline of the blind flower girl. The story is incredibly touching. The actors involved put on the performances of a lifetime, especially considering their off-screen relationship. But it reduced the laughs, and not once did I laugh out loud like the food machine in Modern Times. The subplot about the millionaire was funny though.

I think a second viewing in the future will be very rewarding, knowing what the film really is. That's my advice to you: recognize this as a dramedy. The film will be much more fulfilling. 8.4/10