ALL HAIL MACBETH THAT SHALT BE KING HEREAFTER...

So, as you guys may have noticed, I have finally popped my Shakespeare review cherry with my look at Henry IV parts 1 and 2. Moving up to a review of one of the greats – or at least one of the great stories – only seems appropriate. Macbeth is actually the kind of story I adore. You know I have a soft spot for gangster films and the like. You know I have a soft spot for psychological films. Well he we have a man who murders about a dozen innocent people to fulfill his own political ambition and is driven slowly mad with remorse…  In essence, the granddaddy of all the stories I adore - I absolutely HAD to watch it – and the fact that I loved the story is, in essence, no surprise.

Even if you do not know the story of Macbeth per se, you will, without a doubt, recognize it. Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is a Scottish clan chief who is loyal to the King of Scotland during a time of civil war. He has just won a decisive victory in battle for his liege when he is accosted by three witches who prophecy that he will first be made the chieftain of another clan and then King of Scotland. Macbeth is inclined to laugh it off, but then,  news arrives that the King has made him the chieftain of the selfsame clan the witches had prophesied as a reward to his services. From this moment on Macbeth, first egged on by his wife (Marion Cotillard) and later on by his own crumbling sanity and insatiable ambition will set off a string of murders Macbeth feels he absolutely must commit – or have committed – to secure his place, his throne, his lineage, with tragic consequences. After a while it becomes a matter of whether the Macbeths can get a handle on the violence they have unleashed or whether Macbeths already crumbling sanity will give way completely first…

Now there have been more adaptations of this tale than anyone could hope to count. This, to my way of thinking, makes every single new adaptation of the play a little trickier. After that long of a lineage standing out is hard, seeing as a lot of intelligent and creative people have been thinking about it a lot and have had a lot of good ideas about it. There are some strong films out there. It’s a big competition. And it has to be said, this particular adaptation has a lot of good things going for it. First of all, the aesthetics. The film is categorically one of the most visually stunning things I have recently seen. It is a fittingly cold, bleak, unforgiving and stunning visual aesthetic that runs through every aspect of the film from the backdrops to the scenery. I honestly felt as if I could stop the film at a million different random points and just hang the scene up on your wall.

It goes without saying that this choice and aesthetic bleeds into the choice of actors. The choice of Michael Fassbender as Macbeth created a lot of ripples and excitement among the fans. Having seen him perform… Well I can see why he was picked but I am not sure I have seen the best rendition of Macbeth ever performed… Visually Fassbender fits the bill perfectly. Handsome, rugged, a sense of lurking danger under the surface… There is a lot of good stuff in there. I just thought that Macbeth should have been a bit more emotional than the one Fassbender portrayed him. Until the middle of the film I found him almost inscrutable (which is sad really because I would have liked some turmoil as Macbeth struggles with himself before killing Duncan). When his sanity begins to crumble it’s a bit better, there is flickers of some strong stuff there but there was, for my way of thinking, a lot of scope to push the boat right the way out there. This, I felt, was a stark contrast to Marion Cotillard who absolutely glowed as Lady Macbeth – from her initial greed right down to the bitter end when her sanity collapses as well. I have always had a bit of girl-crush on Cotillard. And I devoutly hope her work in this film will be recognized too. Now, before Shakespeare experts jump down my throat, yes, I am aware there is artistic merit in all of this. Pitting the more silent and sullen (talking about his acting style, not necessarily his role in this film) Fassbender against the lively and absolutely electric Cotillard may have been a choice. It is, after all, Lady Macbeth who pushes Macbeth into action and to fulfill his true potential as a king (and, to call a spade a spade, a serial killer). And after all at the beginning of the play Lady Macbeth prays to be unsexed (less like a woman) and before Duncan so much as sets foot in her household she is ready  (or would be ready – were she a man) to kill him herself, with her bare hands. This choice – these choices – set the roles of the two characters off. Lady Macbeth must really push Macbeth to catalyze him and get him to act. Macbeth has to drag himself and his own convictions, as if he and they were made of lead before he can muster up the mental strength to act. I get all that. My point is that the lid seems to have fallen off the jar of sullen Fassbender was using. There is more subtlety there than he is not moving – oh wait now he is. It does not come across in this performance.

So I see why this production of Macbeth garnered so much criticism, especially from the diehard Shakespeare fans. But then again we must be charitable. Every adaptation between mediums (even though in this instance it is from one performance art to the other) loses some of the initial magic by definition. And Kurzels Macbeth has a lot of good things going for it. I would watch it if I were you. I just wouldn’t expect it to change my world… 

NOT SO MUCH A "LEGEND" AS A CHANCE MISSED...

I approached this film about the infamous Kray twins with a lot of caution. Reviews about it has been mixed at best. Still I entered the film armed with a love of gangster movies and a deep appreciation of Tom Hardy’s acting talent. It cannot be that bad, I thought, probably a bit too violent or something. I love true stories – and it doesn’t come much gorier than the Krays – so all in all it should be a good watch. It very soon turned out that Tom Hardys acting was literally the only thing that was going to get me through to the end of the film. I have been flipping through some reviews of the film and it turns out that I (along with the film as it turns out) suffer a great deal from lack of knowledge of the Kray story. Well it just goes to show doesn’t it, if you don’t have a really good story, all the rest of the talent involved can only get the film so far…

Basically the film tells the story of notorious London gangsters and identical twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Told from the perspective of Frances, the wife of Reggie, the story charts the rise to power of the twins and their ultimate fall from it – the latter due in no small part to Ronnie Krays mental health issues…

Now, like I said I only know bits and pieces about the Kray story. But I do have a sense of why people would say that. Because watching the film, from a completely outside perspective as it were, I could feel bits and pieces missing although I did not know what they were. I mean, to put it in a nutshell, the film does give some small detail of the twins dealings with other gangs, their ownership of various nightclubs and casinos and hints at dealings with the police but in all honesty it shows absolutely and categorically nothing that would warrant them being accuse of having a criminal empire. I mean wheeler dealers yes. Not an empire though. Don’t get me wrong, when the time comes the film doesn’t shirk from showing violence. In fact the violence contains, in my humble opinion, some of the best bits of the film (I am the type of girl who a day later is still smiling at the line – I have a joke for you. Paranoid schizophrenic walks into a pub…- ).  Instead, the film centralizes by and large on (what else) the relationship between Reggie and Frances with Ronnie as something cross between comic relief and the impending doom that will ultimately be the undoing of them all (ultimately he is both). Again, this is a sensible choice in a way – Reggie was the more charismatic twin who was better at… Well better at being alive to be honest. But he wasn’t exactly boy scout of the year either. It enhances his struggle with his increasingly unhinged brother to have a positive light shone on him through the eyes of Frances. It harks back to that age old story of the gangster, trying to be good but ultimately being unable to avoid his past. Which would be all very well and good if we had a clearer, more grim and dire picture of what this evil empire the twins lived in was all about. Cue the complaints about how unfaithful to actual events the film is. I can sense what they left out. A couple of hinted talks with American mafia bosses and a few drunken brawls really don’t cut it.

And if the real Kray twins are left underdeveloped by the script, poor Frances definitely is. She is slightly reduced as your typical Mol. Your typical East End girl. There is clearly more to her than that, which is evident by how her story ends, but the film doesn’t do a very good job into going into detail about her. She mainly seems to exist to cast the positive light of love onto Reggie Kray. Now Reggie Kray is also, to be fair, a bit of an offshoot of a certain type – or at least in this film he is portrayed as such. He is the lovable rogue with street smarts and a flair for business. Every other British gangster film has one of them in it. The difference here of course is that Tom Hardy plays him perfectly, to an absolute T. What every other British gangster film doesn’t have, it needs to be said, is Ronnie Kray. Ronnie Kray is a paranoid schizophrenic who is left at the head of the family business when Reggie has to go into jail to serve out the tail end of a sentence. Already both eccentric and highly suspicious (all this despite medication, which he takes sporadically) I will leave you to discover how Ronnie unravels and how he brings the downfall of most if not all around him. Hardy portrays both twins with fluidity and conviction, so much so that you positively cringe at Ronnie’s antics for Reggie’s sake, completely forgetting that they are in actual fact the same person. Boy is this film a showcase of acting talent!

Violence is a strange one isn’t it… I honestly think at the end of the day it’s about striking a balance. I mean if you check out my review of The Revenant on Film Debate, you will find me complaining there was far too much violence. Now I have sort of ended up saying there is not enough. I think the problem here is that the story is in fact a well-known story of two very violent gangsters. They are almost part of the fabric of London. Turning their story into one they could have been cut out of and replaced with any gangster type from any British gangster film anywhere really, really takes something essential and important away from the films potential. We are left to the talent of Hardy, who uses these two characters a lot better in delivering the lines given to him and giving us a hint of what the film could have been… 

A LEGEND LOOKING BACK ON A LEGEND, AS PORTAYED BY A LEGEND... "MR HOLMES"

It’s always a risk to meet celebrities and personal heroes in real life, isn’t it? Who knows what they are like in real life, their public persona is, after all, there to please. In real life, well, they can get away with pleasing a lot fewer people, let’s put it that way. And there you have it, dreams destroyed in instants.

And boy oh boy wouldn’t the long suffering Mrs Munro (Academy Award nominee Laura Linney) know it… She and her little boy Roger (Milo parker) are housekeepers to the famous detective Sherlock Holmes (Sir Ian McKellan). You would think this was an honour, an adventure and a thing to be proud of. The problem is though, that Holmes in real life (unlike his legend) is getting old and he is doing it with very bad grace indeed. He is battling the first stages of dementia, which makes his personal torture double because he is also looking back on his life wracked with regret, regret concerning a particular case that really didn’t go Holmes’ way… The problem is, Holmes can’t exactly remember what happened. And for this reason he can’t figure out if there is a way back from this tragedy… His only source of joy is Roger, a bright and talented boy who adores Holmes. However Roger is only nine and his mother does not approve of this unlikely friendship so his assistance may well be too little too late…

  

I loved this film for so many reasons. First up, amusingly enough, Holmes himself contemplates the legend of Holmes and frankly finds lacking a lot. And quite a few bits added on. It’s a wonderful reflexion on celebrity and the legend created around the famous. It is almost as if celebrities aren’t allowed to be human beings with the occasional bad day and bad mood. More importantly they don’t always have control over what the public imagine them to be and therefore by default “become” something or someone they can barely recognize themselves. Consider the case of Mr Holmes then, who on top of all of that is now also suffering from dementia and having to struggle with his own demons. Or if you would prefer, consider any other star that has to cope with pleasing the public with their performances on stage and off while fighting big and scary personal demons. Think Amy Winehouse or Kurt Cobain…   Sure Mr Holmes spells out the same message in the safety of a nice little whitewashed cottage on the coast, but it is basically the same story and it ain’t pretty…  

On top of all of that, Mr Holmes is an unflinching gaze directed at old age. The skill of Ian McKellan is truly extraordinary as he portrays, in turn, a greying but still very much on form Sherlock Holmes on his last case and contrasts it quite beautifully to the frail old man desperately trying to hold onto his memories, his sanity but maybe most importantly his former self.  As I watched McKellan I couldn’t help but think that it couldn’t have been an easy part to play, not least because he himself is 76 years old. Although he is on top form in the film (and in real life as far as we can tell!) one cannot help but wonder if at times he felt that portraying this aging celebrity looking back at his life and his public persona cut a little too close to home. But then again, this is what it takes to be a truly great actor. You cannot worry about “looking good” if you want to do the part justice. You can only go straight forward, warts and all, and this is what creates performances like McKellen’s where we feel truly sorry for Holmes and feel  - perhaps for the first time – that he has become a real person.

I actually love this last point too. Think for example of Holmes’ more famous modern incarnation in the form of Benedict Cumberbatch. A combination of modern technology and latest fashions means that Holmes is more like a superhero than anything else. Except that his superpowers are quite “human” and even though they are definitely improbable in real life, they are definitely not impossible. In short, the ideal kind of superhero for our disenchanted times… Now we finally see Holmes with the mask off – as it were. And even Holmes (McKellen) cracks a giggle as he watches the “legend of Holmes” in the cinema. There is something wonderfully self-reflexive about this latest addition to the canon of Holmes reenactments watching itself on a (albeit fictional) cinema screen. But I guess this Holmes is slightly different. Just as Cumberbach’s Holmes is a superhero without “super” powers, a more realistic Holmes would not be completely invincible. Old age and death come to us all after all, and Homes’ ultimate battle with his greatest nemesis – dementia – is one that all of us can sympathize with on some level.

For all that though, Mr Holmes is very much an upbeat film. I recommended it to my grandmother and mother, and both are particularly partial to “happy” films. Yes it is melancholy and thought provoking in places, but the friendship between Roger and Holmes – with Roger potentially taking the baton from Holmes in some unseen future – is a sight to behold.    

A STUDY OF OBSESSION AND MADNESS... FOXCATCHER...

Oh boy, I have been wanting to catch up with this bad boy for a while. This got chins wagging back in the Oscar season, remember… First it was Steve Carells unbelievable performance as the archetypal (real life ) crazy millionaire John Du Pont. Carell, by and large known for his comic performances shot right to the top of the Oscar nominations list with his performance, and incidentally with his make-up. Or rather his make-up shot to the top of nominations without him, it is after all a different category. Then there was the whole scandal about Channing Tatum getting snubbed in the best supporting actor category. You know shit just got awkward when even Mark Ruffalo who got nominated instead of him openly says Tatum has been snubbed. And then, then there was the whole matter with the real life Mark Schultz who withdrew his support from the film shortly after its release. Having seen the film he was warned that the film could potentially portray him as gay and strongly opposed to any such thing being the case. Though to be honest everyone also noticed that Schultz was rather opportunely pointing towards his own interviews and books he had contributed to as an alternative source… Mmm… Anyway, you will recall it definitely made its own fair share of ripples, not least because it actually is – that old favorite of mine – a true story.  A story of madness and murder – a favorite of the general public too now you mention it! Oh and yeah, there is the odd bit of wrestling thrown in…

David and Mark Schultz are a brother team of great renown in the wrestling world. Both are Olympic gold medal winners but David (Mark Ruffalo) is generally seen as the superior talent and definitely a much better coach and trainer than Mark (Channing Tatum) who is more hot-headed and definitely full of resentment at not being able to escape his brothers shadow. It is for this reason that when, seemingly quite out of the blue, he is approached by eccentric millionaire John du pont (Steve Carell) he sees in his proposition an opportunity to finally strike out on his own and succeed. The stakes are high- du pont wants to be the coach of the American wrestling team that is sent to the 1988 Olympic games. He wants David to be a part of it and to help coach the team. He will spare absolutely no expense in doing so. For David, living alone in a tiny flat and living off the American equivalent of pot noodles, it’s a whole new world… But it is also the beginning of a relationship tinged with drug abuse, obsession and ambition that will prove extremely destructive in more ways than one…

First of all, let us get the most obvious bit out of the way. The wrestling. I cannot stress enough that this is not a sports film. The wrestling is, in fact, almost incidental – although goodness knows du pont himself would be very displeased with that. This is a very insightful and fascinating look at obsession and how it pushes people to react. Carell must have jumped for joy as an actor when he got the part of Du pont – what a character! Basically a real life Norman Bates (only with added millions of dollars and gigantic estate), Du pont – well into middle age – is ruled by his mother Jean (played rather superbly by Vanessa Redgrave) and deep down wants nothing more than to rebel against her. In his quest, he has come up with a sport she would definitely disapprove of, and that would set him apart from her (she breeds prize racehorses) and becomes completely obsessed with becoming the best in the world at it – so he is not only rebelling but in fact overshadowing her as he does it… And he has the resources that enable him to not stop at anything to achieve this goal…

Then of course there is the whole dynamic between Mark and David, the eternal story of sibling rivalry. Both actors do a superb job of their parts. And I really don’t care how much stick you give Tatum about the Magic Mike franchise – the man can act. And boy can he move. I am not just talking about how good looking he is (and let’s face it ladies and gents he is DAMN good looking) he just has a talent of moving fluidly and looking damn good while he does it. The one piece of criticism I will put across however is that the character of David is a little too perfect. He seems to be the archetypal benign older brother, perfect coach and father. I mean, I never knew the guy, maybe he actually was like that. But I have a nasty suspicion that there is some level of whitewashing – so to speak – going on in the light of, not to give out too many spoilers, what happens next…

Foxcatcher sustains a very robust level of tension throughout. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout and the successful way it sustained the psychological tension between this extraordinary and larger than life characters was a large part of it. It is a wonderful study of the human  mind set against one of the most competitive strands of an already competitive industry (professional sport). I personally found it both hair-raising and thought provoking. And I promise you, you will, at the very least, get what all the fuss is about…  

FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD IN THE 21ST CENTURY

I have said this before and I will say it again, there is nothing quite like a good period drama. The sweeping skirts the high emotion, that sense of being transported to another world… Many are the cases where there isn’t much thinking needed – we are watching a thing of beauty, to be admired as the embodiment of a beloved tale but then set aside – except possibly to form mental pictures when we read the book itself if, like in the case of Far From The Madding Crowd, it was an adaptation.

This newest incarnation of the spirited young heiress Bathsheba Everdene comes at a very interesting time in cinematic history. Her current embodiment, Carey Mulligan, is a part of a very vocal part of a growing and high profile movement in the arts promoting equal pay and opportunities for women. Her next big film will in fact be none other than Suffragette, the story of the birth of the women’s rights movement in England. Unless you have actually been living under a stone, you will have heard something about how Viola Davis triumphed at the Emmys and you will have read something of her acceptance speech that underlines the need for more opportunities for actresses of colour . You might not think that a 19^th century novel taking place on a sweeping country estate is not the ideal place to start discussing women’s equality (except maybe to point it out as a terrible example). But those who are in the know will know, Bathsheba Everdene is not your average 19^th century heroine…

She is, in fact, a young woman of very modest means who is swept to the head of an illustrious country estate as an heiress  and fear not, the whole Deus ex machina nature of this is really, really not lost on me.  But this is not about her rags to riches story. It is more about what she does after she arrives at the riches. It is common to think of 19^th century heroines as faint hearted little things, all tight corsets and smelling salts, but Bathsheba is a definite exception. She is a canny businesswoman, excellent at managing her staff and brave in the face of the disapproval surrounding her. Her beauty and intelligence (and of course her riches) make her the catch of the area, soon suitors of all walks of life start openly courting her… Bathsheba  is her own woman, and has a lot of plans about her life – and becoming someone’s wife is definitely not among them…

What strikes one straight away is what a modern heroine Bathsheba is. Even in modern cinema and literature one struggles to find a heroine that is so much an active agent in her own destiny – so it is surprising to see a heroine from a hundred years ago putting modern heroines to shame. Carey Mulligan, it must be said, takes the role on with gusto and spirit. I can, at this point, barely imagine anyone else taking on the part. Another performer who has been highly praised is Michael Sheen or stars as one of her suitors, her neighbour Mr Boldwood – I honestly wish we could see more of him in the story but he has two other suitors to contend with so we must make do with relishing the sheer quality of performance over the comparative lack of quantity. One of the main suitors, Gabriel Oak, is brought to life by Mathias Schoenarts. Schoenarts is well suited for the handsome yet slightly sullen Farmer Oak, although – and I don’t  I can never decide whether he has simply been cast in a series of characters that find it difficult to display emotion or that the actor himself actually finds displaying emotion hard… 

A lot has been said on how pretty the film is, and I must agree. The stunning Kent countryside is a character of the film itself. And although there are some very poignant moments in the film where you are literally hanging off the edge of your seat, by and large, the film is beautiful. But not that deeply engaging. This is an unsurprising result of adapting a long and complex novel into a two hour commercial film intent on getting bums on seats (as is the want with all of show business).The resulting film is rather pretty but has lost some of its grit along the way. It is polished and a little too perfect – as if it is trying very hard to get all the requirements for a period drama correct so that we can focus on the more thought provoking aspects of the film. Or possibly so we can pardon them…

The problem is that the lack of grit makes the whole affair even less believable. The story loses some of its strength through sheer poise and grace. To give but one example, I would have wanted Gabriel Oak to have a bit more of a rant – not full-blown broken furniture but still something – when he realises that Sergeant Troys insistence on ignoring the approaching storm may well ruin them all. Similarly, in the scenes that follow I think Bathsheba could very well have made a bit more of a fuss (to put it mildly) as the details of Troys past come pouring out. I mean of course she reacts but it all feels very much single tear rolling gracefully down the cheek… It is as if marriage (minor spoiler alert) has deflated Bathsheba’s spirit overnight, making her very elegant but about half the woman she was at the beginning of the film. This change may well have taken place during married life but I very much doubt it would have happened within about a week of being wed…  

All told, Far From The Madding Crowd is enjoyable. Yes it could have been bigger, stronger, more. But what it has is still quite strong, elegant and graceful. It is an artistic choice at the end of the day – you could go down the route of underlining the feminism in the story and going for something more gritty, modern and realistic. But another choice is to hint at those themes and stick with the period drama routes of the production – it makes it the best of both worlds, edgy but just safe enough… Being a businesswoman, I am sure Bathsheba would have understood…   

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT "MY WEEK WITH MARILYN"

I have an embarrassing confession to make. Before this whole Oscar malarkey happened with A Theory of Everything, I hadn’t really heard of Eddie Redmayne. I’m trying not to feel too bad about it, judging from the sheer volume of Eddie Redmayne films now emerging on TV, the powers that be are banking on a lot of other people not having seen the films or heard of him either. Still, these films were out there and they weren’t exactly kept on the hush – hush so how I managed to miss him so completely is a bit of a mystery to me…

That said, here is yet another film by Eddie Redmayne that I personally had never heard of. Or I mean I had, but I had no idea that it was such a star-spangled cast, that it starred Eddie Redmayne (and that he was quite so good in short, I had no idea what I had missed out on. Marilyn Monroe is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most iconic women that ever walked the earth. Her mystery and how truly complicated she was, no doubt is now an integral part of her mystique. She is Marilyn because she is so hard to understand. This is the true story of a one-week long look a regular lad got into her world…

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) has just launched himself into the world of film. He has started from the very bottom – and at 3^rd A.D. it doesn’t really get closer to the bottom than that – but he is quick witted and sociable, so set to go far. And as luck would have it the very first film he finds himself on is The prince and the showgirl starring (in case you didn’t know) Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams), Sir Lawrence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and Dame Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench), it doesn’t really get much bigger than this. The trouble is, of course, Marilyn is, well, Marilyn… Notoriously difficult to work with for all kinds of reasons, within mere hours of arriving Marilyn risks throwing the entire production in to jeopardy. Colin’s job is to “manage” things and try as best he can to make sure things are running smoothly. This is how he ends up so close to Marilyn… And like a moth in front of a flame,   he cannot take his eyes off her….

First of all, of course, it was an iconic and wonderful love story. The eternal attraction of a “nobody” (Colin is the son of a very rich and privileged family, true,  but this means nothing on the film set. Well I mean apart from that this is what got his foot through the door, but I’ll let you discover that as you go along), anyway, a nobody,   capturing the heart of an icon dreamt of by millions is present here. Add the attraction of an “insight” into someone like Monroe with the aid of a “personal diary” pulls the crowds right in. And as the film attempts to provide this insight, I have to say, Michelle Williams is simply mind-boggling as Marilyn. Her chemistry with Redmayne’s young and naïve Colin is really extraordinary.  Of course how much of an insight we get we can actually never know. Even if Colin’s diary was followed to the letter (and in these adaptations this is a rare thing, as most of us know by now) how accurately  and objectively does the diary describe the enigma that was Marilyn? Williams captures and channels the energy of the on screen Monroe perfectly and displays a thought-provoking performance for the off stage one. If nothing else, this is definitely a film to build a dream on.

Redmayne’s part is one that could actually have been given to a young Hugh Grant back in  his day. Luckily the canny young actor has gracefully side-stepped being typecast and has taken on bigger and more complicated roles since. It’s by no means an original role for him, the typical ingénue getting to know the magical, cynical world that is acting and cinema. He pulls it off with aplomb, as does Emma Watson (who I haven’t had a moment to mention up to this point) who has a secondary and unenviable role of Colin’s initial love interest and Marilyn Monroe’s “rival”.

The other thing is of course, we come close to the enigma that was Marilyn but the film doesn’t really “explain” anything. Then again, what is the point of a legend that has been explained to death? We strike the balance, take a closer look only for a minute – pretty much like Colin – and then the curtains close. We are left to our own musings and dreams. But this, as we have said, is as it should be. 

AMERICAN SNIPER - YET ANOTHER CLINT EASTWOOD FILM ?

This was another big name last Oscar season, even though it only managed to take away the award for Sound Editing. Well, with names as big as Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper attached it could hardly help being in the limelight. I have infinite respect and admiration for Clint Eastwood. I quote High planes drifter on a regular basis when I write. But I do also have to point out that I – and quite a few other – people have accused him in the past of basically playing himself in films and making the same film over and over again. This time he has a rather extraordinary true story on his hands – so how has he fared? Same film again – or something a little different?

The hero of our story, brought to life by Bradley Cooper is legendary American sniper Chris Kyle. During his four tours in Iraq, Kyle quickly raised to rank of legend through his sheer dedication to service, accuracy when shooting and determination to do what is truly right. The men admire and support him, his superiors admire him and the public read about him with admiration in the papers… But one cannot see the things Kyle has seen without changing. Every time he comes home to his wife and children, Kyle finds it harder and harder to leave the war behind… In fact, even if he does survive the fighting, his memories may well end up consuming him… The question is, will he admit this – even to himself – and start fighting back in time ?

Looking at the list of wins, I can’t help but think that Bradley Cooper deserved a little more than he actually ended up receiving – his performance is pretty much what makes the film not just another Clint Eastwood film. Because given the subject matter, I cannot quite imagine anyone else making this film. And Eastwood makes it exactly the way we imagine he would make it. Kyle was evidently quite an extraordinary man, don’t get me wrong, but the way the story goes, how all American he is throughout, his easy rise to stardom as a sniper… It is all… Just too smooth. Eastwood finishes the film with real footage of Kyles funeral (I reckon his death is not a spoiler as it pretty much counts as common knowledge) which was of course a military, patriotic affair. No wonder his critics accuse Eastwood of tubthumping banality – it is JUST like a  million other films made to show the horrors of war. Smooth, polished but without an original bone in its body.

Take a film like The Hurt Locker. Jeremy Renners character William James is Kyles equivalent in the film and paints a completely different picture. He is a lot harder to like, he is a lot less of a gentleman, he has lost a lot of his positive emotions in all aspects of life and, to be honest, I think he is a much more realistic portrayal of what war can do to a good man. I almost feel the film is in denial about the sheer amount of trauma Kyle would have had to cope with. We do not see the grit and dirt of the matter at all, only the polished surface you present to visitors. 

Which is precisely why I say Bradley Cooper needs a few more accolades for the work he did here. Cooper sticks to the letter of the script, it is true. His character is always polite smiling and courteous, and yet… The nuances, the tiniest gestures, the little moments Cooper manages to insert into his all round good old American cowboy routine give us hair raising insights into what must be going through Kyles mind. It is without a doubt the tonic the films overly varnished surface needed – I just devoutly wish there were more of those hints. If our imaginations were meant to make up the rest of the horrors, well, the film does not give us enough to work with.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that all films pertaining to war should necessarily end badly, be dark and not have any positive emotion in them at all. But the trauma Kyle went through lies at the heart of the story. The characters ark consists of his entering this state of trauma and coming out the other side – at least supposedly. We have to be able to see the trauma so we can rejoice with him and his family when he comes out on the other side. If we do not believe in the trauma in the first place, well, there is a part of the film that becomes completely pointless – the emotional journey has been aborted before it even began. Bradley Coopers extraordinary performance rescues the story to a certain point, but the other failing is, in my opinion, simply too great.

American Sniper is without doubt a good film. It is fascinating to watch, it is a story well worth being told. But it is, sadly, yet ANOTHER war film and something of a missed opportunity. By all means watch, but don’t expect it to change your world…    

"TRANSCENDENCE" - THE FILM THAT JUST DOESN'T...

I used to be such a big fan of Johnny Depp. No, I really was. I remember the excitement welling up in me when I saw the second pirates of the Caribbean. Jack Sparrow was atop a mast of a small dingy, you saw him from behind and... A proper “squeeee” moment. One  has to say, the veteran actor’s looks have not dimmed at all with age. But as for his output… It’s definitely a series of “oh dear” moments. The latest film critics love to hate being Mordecai – no one seemed to have a single good word to say about it. He seems to have quite a few films coming out this year, let’s hope one of them is the film to relaunch the Johnny Depp we remember and love from classics like Edward Scissorhands or – a particular favourite of mine – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In the meanwhile, this week we peruse the latest booty from my trip to the DVD store – a little number called Transcendence.

Sporting a cast absolutely chock-full of stars – Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Rebecca Hall and Kate Mara – and a first-time, though passionate director who had Dp’d on many films before, Transcendence looked more than promising. The subject matter was current and thought-provoking too, as it explores the domain of AI (one of a long series of films to recently ask questions on the matter) and in particular – as the name suggests – Transcendence. It’s a weird one. You can see promise and lots of “good things” bubbling right beneath the surface, but when all is said and done the film just doesn’t…  You know, it just doesn’t.

Dr Will Caster (Johhny Depp) and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) are scientists at the cutting edge of AI, they are working on creating a sentient machine. Will would much rather tinker about in his laboratory with no contact with the outside world at all but anti-AI activists has other plans.  An attempt on Will’s life pushes the team’s hand to attempting Transcendence, that is to say, uploading Will’s consciousness onto a computer. The attempt is successful and what seems to be painfully similar to Will’s spirit now resides in a computer. And the moment the computer connects to the internet truly extraordinary things begin to happen. For Will, the sky is literally the limit… The question is, what does this mean for the rest of the planet…

There were several problems with this film as far as I was concerned. First of all, the characters seemed unfinished. Of course there are a “set” lot of characters in every story and a little bit of digging reveals them for the tropes they are. The key in that case is in the digging. A combination of the actor’s performance and the director’s vision make the characters complex and we don’t just yawn and go “mentor” or “turncoat”. In this film, the actors performances are good – but I suspect they were just doing what was being asked of them, which, sadly, was not enough for my money. I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the two main female characters (heck the only two actual female characters in the film) were the worst when it came to being caricaturised. Both Evelyn – Will’s wife (though credit where it’s due, she is a scientist so at least credited with intelligence) and the leader of the rebels Bree (Kate Mara – again at least in a leader’s position) are by and large portrayed as “excitable women” acting on their emotions, making mistakes and being “guided” by men. Morgan Freeman is the typical older mentor, Paul Bettany is the “sceptic”, Cillian Murphy is “the cop”. All the characters are perfectly executed but that is what you would expect from a veteran cast. Things could definitely have been made interesting through performance alone – and an opportunity was missed…

The bit things were “added to” was the storyline. And oh boy, did they add “things” to that. When you take a gander at the extra features you see a clue as to what went wrong – “It’s a sci-fi film” say the crew members, “so the film definitely has a fiction and fantasy element”. Well of course it does.  Basically the film has taken the much disputed concept of transcendence – the uploading of the human consciousness onto a computer system and – coupled with the developments that would allow us to have –in theory at least – artificial bodies thus leading to immortality for all intents and purposes. Some scientific centres claim that all of this could be a mere and unbelievable 30 years away. Others aren’t quite as optimistic.

What the film tries to do is to give us a terrifying hint at what could happen if this Transcendence somehow “got out of control” and “took over the world”.  Apart from the fact that the whole concept stinks of The Terminator,  the film simply does not do enough to instil this fear into us. What it does do is at best hard to follow and very loosely based in logic (for those who have seen the film, I credit myself with at least average intelligence and good education but I am still at a loss as to how Will can actually manipulate the gravel and the concrete in the town around him). The film should have either leant a bit more on the plotlines that were actually laid out within the domain of logic, or gone a bit more spectacular on the “fantastic” elements and made more of a spectacle of them. I mean I get it, they are trying to go understated and hint at the horrors to come but with the cast performances already reduced to clichés and none of the storylines quite followed through the film just… Doesn’t. By the time you go “Ok fine, I officially suspend disbelief, he can manipulate nature via wifi or whatever” the film is done. You just don’t have the opportunity to “settle into” anything.

 I have a feeling that our first time director Wally Pfister just had so much he wanted to do with his first feature that he just crammed it all into the same film on a superficial level and explored none of them in depth. I do wish he had picked a few concepts and burrowed down instead of across. It could have been a fascinating film… It ends up being just.. Meh… 

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY FIT FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY ARTIST - "MR TURNER"

I am SO glad I caught this one. In an awards season characterised by biopics, Mr Turner should have been in its (his) element but it was curiously passed by… The one mention I remember of it was from several different critics tearing out their hair when the BAFTA nominations came out this year about Timothy Spall’s perceived snub in the Best Actor category. I say perceived simply because I had not perceived it myself at the time. It then got nominated for four Oscars, in fields such as Cinematography, production design, Costume Design and Original Score. Now these categories are more than worthy – not least because the film is a visual feast more than worthy of an artist such as Turner. But they are not the categories that get the massive headlines and the endless discussions on various film related talk shows that emerge around the time… Anyway, as you will have noticed, as the DVDs hit the market here in the UK, I have been scrambling to catch up and keep up with cinematic output. I am rather pleased my progress so far. So, long story short I got round to perceiving this little number. Consider this film a belated rant about why this film didn’t get the attention it deserved – it has the makings of a huge masterpiece.

This is the life story of British painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall). We specifically focus on the last 25 years of the great painter’s life. He is now a celebrated painter, but his celebrity has come at a price. And the price has a lot to do with Turner’s own rather difficult character. While Turner is personable (if a little eccentric) in public, in his private life Turner’s relationships are marked by his cantankerous nature – and more often than not breakdowns and arguments. Leigh takes a sensitive look at what makes Turner tick as an artist, but also, what gives him peace…

Leigh’s Turner is a complex and fascinating character. Clearly a very accomplished artist, Turner has revolutionary ideas about painting (I know. It’s a little hard to imagine a household name like Turner as a revolutionary painter whose works weren’t always well received, but there you go… ). He experiments with his art, he is in the heart of “the in crowd” in the artistic circles of his time, he is an active (if not always easy to get on with) member of the academy and his works are almost a given in the Great Exhibitions over the years. He is without doubt a businessman and makes his living, in the true sense, with his painting and with his business sense.

What Turner cannot seem to take too much of is the personal relationships this kind of life requires. For most of his life the only people who can truly tolerate him are his doting father and their long-suffering maid Hannah Danby (admirably portrayed by Dorothy Atkinson – don’t you be fooled, she is more than just “the help”). He is estranged from his wife and his grown children, has few friends outside of business circles and is all in all quite difficult to get on with if you were to approach him as he seems to have a minimal interest on getting on well with you if it was not for business reasons. However there is more to Turner than a cantankerous recluse from the world. What he actually wants is to live a simple life, by the sea, make sketches and have the love of an honest woman (as opposed to a “London lady”). Spall handles this duality of Turner’s character quite beautifully. He is unapologetically terse and sometimes quite difficult to watch throughout, and yet ably portrays the softer side of Turner’s character that is harder to come by, barely seen but still very, very much present – and of course a great part of his art and his work.

Leigh has, it is quite clear, paid close attention to the fact that this is a film about a painter. Turner’s muted tones and colour scheme dominate the film, as does a lack of close-ups or extreme close-ups, thus the film mirrors the style of the painter it depicts throughout which brings us one  step closer to the inner world of the artist.

The honesty of the physical depiction also rather beautifully continues through into the way the entire story is told. You will look in vain for the clear blacks and whites of normal popular and mainstream films. Every single character is beautifully developed and come together with extraordinary harmony to tell the story of a rather extraordinary man.

Of course when the awards seasons come around we look for something a tad more grandiose. We need jazz hands and technical gimmicks, a classic true story of extraordinary people overcoming difficulties or, perhaps, a rather more dramatic insight into debilitating illness (now I come to think of it there is a little sub-theme of disease running through this awards season too, no…). The British costume drama is seen as just the tiniest bit twee as a genre. But if the genre is considered twee, this does not mean that the combination of a visionary director, talented cast but perhaps more important than all of them the enigmatic and extraordinary artist J. M.W. Turner at the centre of it all make for a truly extraordinary film in this case… 

ESSIE ON THE BIG DEBATE PART 2 - " BIRDMAN (OR THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE"

Well… Welcome to the second half of the big dual of 2015! From the moment Birdman hit various festivals earlier on in the year, it had critics up on their feet, applauding and stamping their feet. “A masterpiece in the making!” They cried, “An unforgettable experience!”  And most critics nodded knowingly as they applauded director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu as he took away not only the Oscar for Best Film but also for Best Director. I personally hadn’t watched either Birdman or its “nemesis” Boyhood during the Oscar season so had no opinion on the matter. And now the film scene has calmed down a bit and I have a tiny tad more time on my hands, I decided to take a gander at the two and see what I thought for myself. You had my opinion on Boyhood last week. A couple of days ago I finally sat down to watch Birdman…

I am not saying that Birdman is not a masterpiece. I am not saying that it is truly an experience to watch. But in case you hadn’t pieced it together, yes I am firmly in the #Boyhoodwasrobbed camp. In my post today, I will attempt to explain why, while giving as objective a review as I can of it.

Of course if you have any connection whatsoever to films and news, you have some idea of the plot. Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton)is a washed up actor, best known for playing iconic comic book inspired superhero Birdman (cue endless comparisons made with Keaton’s own career playing Batman). In the autumn of his years – in any case in what looks suspiciously like the autumn of his career – he is trying to do something that truly “matters” artistically. He is putting on a play on Broadway. He has written an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s story What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, he is co-producing it with his best friend Jake (Zach Galifianakis), directing it and playing one of the lead roles in it… If he pulls it off, it is going to be one heck of a debut on Broadway. However, with what artistic reputation he has left (and his fans would really prefer him to just do Birdman 4) and his life savings riding on this, Riggan is in the process of finding out that there is more to putting on a Broadway play than he might of thought. It all starts with him having to replace a key actor at the eleventh hour. Mike (Edward Norton) – the replacement – may well be the talent the team needs but his ego threatens to destroy the project. Then there is his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) who is really worrying him… And on top of all that, the shadow of Birdman, the old character he loves and hates so much just will not leave him alone in more ways than one… As the previews begin Riggan sure has a lot on the line – and so far he seems set to lose it all…

This is the first heads up to me, to be honest. I enjoyed writing that blurb, but anything that takes that long to explain needs to take a good long look at itself just to start with. I am a big fan of philosophy being used in film of course multi-layered stories and metaphors are a delight to watch when well-executed. But I reckon, the minute you have to explain a film to death as a mere introduction or if you have to google multiple concepts to understand what the film was trying to tell you, well… Something has gone awry. Birdman is absolutely knee-deep in metaphors. It is laugh out loud funny and heartbreakingly touching when it comes to the storyline itself just on face value. Sprinkled into this beautiful story are truly extraordinary and deep considerations on being an artist, growing old, how the two combine and how we come to terms with our own fading glory – be it as an artist or simply as a human being past their prime… By and large the metaphors are quite easy to follow and we can marvel at the way Innaritu has woven them into his story. Except, of course, there is the obligatory few incredibly obscure ones, you know, the ones you have to have pages and pages online discussing. I am, principally, talking about the famously obscure finale. I personally lean towards the “it’s the afterlife” interpretation of it. I also think it’s the scene what pushes the film over into having one foot firmly planted in “pretentious” as opposed to both feet in “intelligent”.

This is not the only showing off going on of course. A lot has equally been said about the “extended shot” format of the film. I have to say I was filled with dread when I first read this – my first encounter with the style was in Magnolia. I found it nauseating (as in, it made me physically feel sick, I did respect it cinematically). This one is a lot “tamer”. It’s like the camera has its own mind and it wanders the halls of the theatre quite playfully. Another famous sore point was the sound track – I wasn’t that bothered by the drumming to be honest, but the whole gimmick with the drummer (you know what I mean if you’ve seen it) is again, in the domain of the pretentious as far as I’m concerned.  

But of course, between it being a story inherently about art, acting and Hollywood itself (Birdman – Batman, what’s a couple of letters between friends!) the technical “showing off” and Innaritu openly trying to make a film that “cannot be explained”… Well it’s showy. It’s good but in my humble opinion in tries too hard. It crams in too much. Yes, Inarritu crams the too much in with elegance. But there is more skill involved in doing less sometimes. I would argue that Boyhood achieved to make a much deeper philosophical point with less show and a single “gimmick” that was executed with grace and dedication… Birdman is definitely a carnival you should pop in to see. Just don’t go putting it on a pedestal… 

ONE OF THE SCARIEST THRILLERS THIS SEASON - "NIGHTCRAWLER"

As we all know, Hollywood loves films about itself. And it doesn’t necessarily need to be Hollywood per se, if it involves filmmaking on any level and you have some idea of what you are doing, well, you’re pretty much guaranteed a warm welcome to the table. The length of your stay there will of course largely depend on what you have to offer.

In this context, we have to admit Nightcrawler has A LOT to offer. Not only is it a piercing look at our hunger for information – more specifically the gory details – it is, through the analysis of this obsession a very, very powerful thriller… And when you add talent like Jake Gylenhaal to the mix… Well… Let’s say you’re in for one heck of a ride.

Lou Bloom (Jake Gylenhaal) is unemployed. He is a high school graduate and largely self-taught but he doesn’t let that stop him – he is on the lookout, actively seeking out his next chance and ready to grip it with both hands when it comes along… And come along in does, quite literally in a blaze of smoke and fire : Lou witnesses a traffic accident purely by chance and as he is idly watching the goings on – as one does – he notices the two men with cameras jumping out of another car. They film the event and dash off again. And lo and behold, next day their footage is in the news. Lou likes this idea. He likes it a lot. And he quickly sets about setting up his own business… At first, no one takes him very seriously. True, the news director of KWLA, a local tv channel (Rene Rousso) tells him that he has a good eye but apart from that, as far as anyone is concerned, Lou is small fry… But there is something about Lou… Something people dismiss as just being “a little odd”. They have no idea what truly lies below Lou’s witticisms memorised from the internet… It is blind ambition and determination, at a level that goes way, way beyond the average entrepreneur…

I have said this before. I will say it again. Lou Bloom is categorically one of the most frightening heroes I have ever seen on film. We learn quite early on in the film that Lou is self-taught. He talks a little too much, his sentences are just a little bit too long and he parrots generic phrases that he has clearly read off just about every job-hunting website on the net. The front is both ill-fitting and a little too perfect. And try as Lou might to “be like everyone else”, the effort is obvious – which is why, we feel quite clearly, he fails to find work at first. But suddenly, it turns out, Lou has a “good eye” for news footage – the gory kind, just the kind KWLA needs to lead stories with – and the rest is history… Thing is no one – including us – wonders how come Lou is so at his ease around blood and gore. (SpOILER ALERT – skip to next paragraph) And the grim realisation comes two thirds through the film when Lou turns to his unfortunate associate Rick (who will be the very first to clock the fact that something is very wrong with Lou) and calmly asks “What if my problem wasn’t that I don’t understand people but that I don’t like them ?” Yes ladies and gents, Jake Gylenhaal actually portrays one of the most terrifying psychopaths I have seen portrayed on film. The entire first half of his performance is beautifully balanced; we go through it feeling very clearly that there is something “not quite right”- it is not until the big reveal that we realise how “not right” things are inside his head… Gylenhaal – and of course writer/director Dan Gilroy- have us exactly where they want us throughout; I honestly think the film – and more specifically Gylenhaal -  deserved every honour it got bestowed on it this awards season.

But apart from being a very impressive thriller, Nightcrawler also clearly contains criticism and allegory. We are officially living in the digital age, we are hungry for constant information, constant thrills, we are being bombarded by multiple channels vying for our attention, each with bigger, better, more shocking, more interesting wares… And if Lou is the villain in this story, he is only able to become so because the news director Nina (Rene Rousso’s character) enables him. Nina is worried about her ratings, her position and – of course – her job. And as their relationship evolves, Lou brings her better and better stuff and she becomes so dependent on his gory wares that ethics and the “how”s and the “is this ethically right”s fall to the wayside one by one until she becomes the very embodiment of the capitalist media monster that we accuse of doing things like killing princess Diana. There is a clear indictment of a greedy information and technology driven society, too preoccupied with its own thrills and not in the least worried about potential consequences for others…

Technically the film gives a nice balance of contrasting fast paced segments, car chases and gory accidents shown in the style of the news it criticises with moments of stillness that adds to the underlying eeriness the story has built up and brings no peace. I guarantee you, you will be on the edge of your seat from the beginning of the show to the end… Definitely one of my favourite films this season… 

A STORY OF SAVAGE GRACE CUT SHORT...

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed at some point that I do a lot of viewing on BBC Iplayer. I would strongly recommend it to the uninitiated; it is often brimming with interesting if rather under advertised propositions. I only clicked on Savage Grace because I thought I recognized Julianne Moore in the thumbnail and only then realized what a relevant film it was to this Oscar season as it co-stars this seasons other favorite, Eddie Redmayne. Savage Grace is a disturbing true story and a true acting masterclass by the two stars. And with controversial director Tom Kalin (of Swoon fame) at the helm, we would not be wrong to expect big things from this one. Which is why I was profoundly disappointed when it ended up not quite coming together in the end…

This is the story of the American actress and socialite Barbara Daly Bakeland (Julianne Moore) and her murder at the hands of her son Anthony ( Eddie Redmayne). Barbara is the epitome of the histrionic actress, driving her husband away relatively early in the marriage and being left to raise their son Anthony alone, with the help of various family friends and relatives. Barbara being obsessed with getting her old position with society back, Anthony is pretty much left to his own devices to experiment and find his own way in life. And his mother’s reaction to these experiments is, shall we say, not exactly conventional… Thus swimming through a strange, fluid atmosphere quite devoid of boundaries, the pair arrives at the ultimate tragedy that will end Barbara’s life.

The film has one heck of a lot of potential. But what looks like has happened is that Kalin has tried to take a formula that worked incredibly well for him in the early nineties with Swoon – namely a murder with sexual motivations laced with madness and a strange sort of folie a deux and re-adapt it. The problem is, while this works well for Swoon, it falls strangely flat for Savage Grace. The acting was superb and the direction very atmospheric if in places a little old fashioned but throughout, I felt as if there was something missing. The last half-hour or so came together a lot better, with Anthony finally making it quite clear that the – something is not quite right – feeling we had been harboring for a while now was bona fide insanity and having a magnificent breakdown on screen. In fact I finished the film wishing that there had been more of the last half hour and less of the first hour – if that makes sense as a sentence. Then I went online to see what I could find out about the story and promptly discovered what was missing. Basically it was a whole chunk of the real story

.

WARNING.THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS BASICALLY SPOILER CITY. BUT THE MURDER IS IN THE Public DOMAIN SO… EHM. YEAH. Don’t get me wrong I am ALL for artistic license and – within reason – playing around with real life stories a tiny bit to suit a vision. And I also see that cinematically speaking what Kalin was trying to do was have a tense but understated first two thirds with subtle hints at the underlying incest with a dramatic reveal and “descent into madness” type finale. The problem for me was that the hinting was a little too subtle and didn’t quite get one on the same emotional level. In real life, it transpires, Anthony had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before the murder had occurred (in the film there is no mention of it) but his father wouldn’t allow him to be treated by psychiatrists. The incestuous relationship with his mother had also been going on for years (in the film this is hinted at but never elaborated – I got the impression the scene in the final half hour is the culmination, not one in many if you get what I mean). The incest had its roots in the fact that Barbara could never quite accept Anthony being gay and was “trying to fix him”. In this attempt he had also been coerced to have sex with prostitutes. Again, none of this had been mentioned. In fact Anthony and Barbara had had numerous violent quarrels involving knives and a previous attempted murder, all of which is overlooked in the film.

But then again, there is no great dramatic reveal in a young man with previous mental health issues tipping over the edge I suppose, so all of that is abandoned in lieu of a dramatic reveal at the end that leaves us gagging for more. Grand reveals are all very well and good in their place. But especially when it comes to mental illness the slow and steady descent into madness can be just as dramatic, not least because it usually corresponds more to the real experience people have of mental illness. And I mean it is not as if there weren’t plenty of dramatic events for this to lead off from – not least since the concept of “fixing” gay people is sadly still an actual topic today. Between that and the incest – the fact that technically his mother raped him – just sticking to the facts and doing much less in the way of editing and contributing would have made a completely sensational story. Especially with actors as brilliant as Moore and Redmayne.

 I would, in short, class Savage Grace as a missed opportunity more than anything else. It has some wonderfully dramatic glimmers but it never quite opens its wings and soars. Still it is well worth the watch if only for the wonderful performances and one of the most terrifying depictions of madness I have seen on screen for a while.

I WILL NOW PROCEDE TO PLAY WITH YOUR MIND... "THE IPCRESS FILE"

I know, we’re all on the quest for that one truly original story these days. There is much eye-rolling about all kind of cinematic cliché. But then again, some clichés, sometimes are not all bad. And you don’t get much more archetypal than a 60s spy movie starring Michael Caine.  But then again, as I often say, clichés are clichés for a reason. They wouldn’t have made so many of these movies if there wasn’t something about them that attracted the public – right?

Michael Caine stars as the hero of the show, Harry Palmer. He is a counter-espionage agent and he has been handed a particularly sensitive case. Some of the UKs most prolific and important scientists have started leaving their positions in drones. Not only that, one of the most important physicists, whose discoveries could give the UK the edge in the Cold War, no less, has now been kidnapped. Now, Palmer has a history of being insolent, doing things his own way and having far too much of an eye on the ladies – trouble is, he also happens to be one of the best agents in the service. Will his unorthodox methods carry him through and save the day?
Ok here's me being all technical and sh*t. Let's check out some moving pictures!

  I know it’s not a particularly novel concept to create antiheroes or to give the hero some negative characteristics (that, especially in more modern works the hero seems to redeem him-herself of without fail). But well, in the first place I was surprised they would make Palmer an anti-hero in the first place, it being the ‘60s and the “Russian Threat” being a very real thing in those days. I genuinely thought all the goodies would be “dashing”. I definitely didn’t expect them (Palmer I mean) to be, at times downright annoying. I mean the man must have been an absolute pain to work with. That said, we are entering the murky world of double agents (I won’t give you any further clues because it’s literally impossible to do without giving some plot point or other away). So, on a level it makes sense that our hero would not look quite the way we would expect him to look. Even if you are a seasoned spy film fan, I can pretty much guarantee even you will get briefly confused about who’s good, who’s bad and who’s “actually” working for who at some point in the proceedings.

And the other point is, of course that making Caine’s character a tad on the annoying side (not an actual jerk you understand, just, you know, a nigglesome bit annoying) is a lot more realistic than having him, for lack of a better word “all dashing”. He’s a top agent, used to manipulating people, outsmarting very dangerous baddies, getting it right and you know, saves the known world on a regular basis. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure I’d be a tad big-headed if that was MY definition of a regular day!  Needless to say Michael Caine absolutely nails it in his performance – I know he’s old-school but so am I, and I really enjoy his performance every single time ;)

Of course, coming from our modern perspective the “special effects” and the various “science things” border on the comical but I would really strongly advise you kind of suspend disbelief and just get stuck into the movie because, well, you didn’t REALLY get this far in the film because you expected fantastic HD explosions or something, did you?  Besides, it would be truly foolish of you to let this spoil a perfectly good film for you - I’ve personally never quite understood the point of view which states that “mind-blowing” special effects is almost the whole point of a film, it’s a completely different but equally erroneous school of style over substance… But I digress…

The again, of course, this is the 21^st century, everything is extremely visual and parts of the audience (not all, but definitely parts) want to be almost literally spoon-fed storylines without making a particular effort to “unravel” a darn thing. And I’m not even talking about unravelling some Tarkovsky film or the philosophical musings of Terrance Malik. Consider Bond films. It is only recently, under the “tutelage” of Sam Mendes that Bond is “slightly too old” a bit insecure about his abilities and even genuinely confused about the loyalties of the ones around him. But before that for the most part (say, since the mid ‘60s where this films hails from) Bond was perfect, for my taste; he’s slightly simplistic, won every battle – and never really provides one with any kind of doubt as to whether he would ACTUALLY make it or not . Bond films were all in all a rather brilliant collection of whatever the visual effects technology of the day could offer – especially in areas such as shoot-outs, high-speed chases, explosions etc.  – and not much else. That’s probably why I’ve never REALLY been a fan of Bond – I mean I have said a million times before, I’m all for escapist entertainment, but what is the REAL point if you know exactly what is going to happen in the end? You can get only so much pleasure from HOW you get there (in my universe) but basically, the moment I start, I know he’s going to beat the baddie, get the girl and save the world and my interest in watching is down to roughly a third of what it was (not very high in the first place). The one recent exception was Skyfall, where I had a moment’s hesitation what with all the build-up on Bond being so unsure of himself and all…

Ok, so, The Ipcress File. Definitely one for your head, not your “sense of explosion”. It may have been a combination of both at the time (this kind of film inevitably was – is). Now, with the “role” of the visual significantly diminished by our raised standards, do you know what… The part for the head STILL appeals. If you actually enjoy using your head when watching films, that is. And if you don’t, you know what, it’s a pretty darn good place to start… 

WHERE HEARTS AND MINDS COLLIDE IN A WOMRHOLE... "INTERSTELLAR"

Well this was a big one – in so many senses of the word! Not least because it was yours truely’s first ever IMAX experience! I did smirk slightly when the usher warned the audience to look away if they felt disoriented or sick – but I did actually feel quite sick during one portion of the film (although, ironically, telling you which bit would constitute a spoiler) and I felt as if my head was full of cotton wool for quite a while after the film… I still loved IMAX though… Especially with a highly visual film like Interstellar, it’s almost obligatory to have it either in 3D or in IMAX… I mean, there are some films (*cough* Gravity *cough*) whose entire USP is based on its visuals and being viewed with “advanced” technology. Interstellar’s aim is to be a bit more than a pretty face though. And Christopher Nolan being Christopher Nolan – the film has plenty to say for itself. Is it all coherent – I hear you ask – or does the film actually deserve the hashtag Interstellarplotholes Well…

In a dystopian world where “the system” has been destroyed and everyone have become farmers in a desperate attempt to  keep the world (and by that I mean the entire planet) from starving to death, Cooper, once an astronaut, is restless… His children have known nothing different but he remembers a world where mankind was adventurous and exploration of the final frontier was still on the cards… That is why he is delighted to happen upon a top secret space mission run by what remains of NASA and headed by Dr Brand Sr (Michael Caine) and his daughter (Ann Hathaway) Cooper gets the chance to return to his vocation, and possibly save the world while he is at it… However this is a mission like no other, Cooper is headed for truly uncharted waters and picking the new planet humanity is going to live on is a tricky business at best…

Now, this film has, you may have noticed, a huge number of fans. This is because the film is ambitious, incredibly ambitious, on so many fronts… First of all, visually… Well what can I tell you the film is a stunner… There are so many so called set pieces of space, the planets and (mild spoiler alert) the wonderful visuals of the galaxy beyond the wormhole and (major spoiler alert for like one sentence) the universe actually inside the worm hole (this is the point at which I started feeling nauseated by the way) are wonderful feats of technology and imagination. Best viewed with some form of HD, you will definitely be visually satisfied by Interstellar…

You will also be emotionally satisfied by it. Nolan produces quite a few very successful full-blown tugs at your heart strings. Even the toughest in my group welled up a couple of times during this one. I cannot state examples without giving spoilers as a lot of the most emotional moments come at crucial parts of the story – sort of jump cries as opposed to jump scares if you will…

But on the third hand (I appear to be an octopus for the purpose of this review) the film is also very, very cerebral. Nolan puts in a lot of science and a traditionally complicated storyline, successfully blending quantum physics, theory in a dystopian space context… Or I mean, does he really? This is where the hashtag Interstellarplotholes comes into play… Because Interstellar is a thing to be felt and enjoyed, sure… But if you start actually thinking about it seriously, holes begin to appear… I mean it starts from the smallest things – how, for example, in a world where purportedly nothing grows except corn, does mankind still have beer? How come Cooper never loses his tan for the duration of his “decades” in space? And – this is a big spoiler so look away now if you’re sensitive but I need to get this off my chest it’s a big pet peeve of mine  - why oh why oh why does this wormhole somehow magically end up behind a bookshelf? I mean I get the whole circular storyline thing, much like the Alchemist of Paulo Coelho we find the answer to the mystery we were searching for back where we began as it were but… I mean why of all things behind a book case?? I mean I get the importance of circularity. I really do. It’s the whole Humanist mindset of human beings “not needing any mysterious beings to take care of them”, that we and all the resources within ourselves are the only guides we’ll ever need if only we realize our own full potential. And I have to say, this is one of the more beautiful and intelligent ways I have seen of putting this message across. But I do wish Nolan had paid a bit more attention to the science as he went along. I mean I’m not even getting started on the fact that the only explanation we have of a wormhole is the same old folding a piece of paper thing every other sci-fi movie seems to do. Nolan either wants to mystify the viewer or, and I feel this may be the actual answer, this is not necessarily about “accurate science”. It’s a parable of love, humanity and life in a science fiction context and we should follow what our heart is picking up and not get “entangled” in the whole scientific context making sense to the “t”. Then again, it is the 21^st century and there are people out there who have made a bona fide hobby out of hunting for plot holes so I’m not entirely convinced this was the best way forward for this film if this was indeed what Nolan was after…

Whatever it was, true to form, we will very obviously be chatting about Interstellar for a good while yet… 

ESSIE RANTS ABOUT AND ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT "CLOUD ATLAS"

The moment I found out that Cloud Atlas was a story involving reincarnation, souls meeting in different lifetimes etc. I felt a worry beginning to brew in the pit of my stomach. I know this kind of film only too well. Full of grandiose messages about life, “the truth” and the universe. So packed full of metaphors and similes you need a dictionary of filmography to work your way through it all. Coming out way too pleased with itself at the end. This kind of film often annoys me because, well, firstly I don’t believe there is a single, easy “unifying theory of everything” so I get annoyed with films that claim they’re it. Secondly, while I do appreciate double meanings and depth in a film I certainly don’t think I should need to actually have to do research to figure out what exactly is being said.

Now I will not say Cloud Atlas is easy to follow. I mean there are six stories, separate yet interwoven, with the same characters (or rather the same souls) changing bodies, sex and race in practically each one and the stories are of course in true Buddhist style, repetitions, variations or rather, on the same theme, each one evolving with time, adding something, taking something out, some mistakes being repeated through the ages, other ones being changed, and changing history. I have gained infinite respect for the Wachowskis, not least because it must have been a complete mind-f.ck to write, never mind to film. But shall I tell you something? Unlike Donnie Darko (who I watched once and then discarded on the basis of having entire websites dedicated solely to deciphering the story) I will watch Cloud Atlas again. The Wachowskis have tried something rather daring and, would you believe it, they have pulled it off. It comes together beautifully, just like a symphony.

The film is, of course, full of grandiose emotions – but we all expected that, right? Concepts like eternity, everlasting love that survives death, immortal souls that death cannot separate… But never fear. It never reaches the point where it begins to get sickly, and we do go to this kind of film precisely for a dose or two of this kind of emotion, after all. In short yes, there is a certain amount of the preaching mentioned in the introduction, but not too much. Just enough. The same actors are often used, especially in the minor roles, as the same “type” of character, or rather the character that has the same role from one story to the next. Our heroes however, seem to almost change with every story, which doesn’t seem to make sense, but then again don’t try and read too  much cold logic into it. The whole point of the story is to give us a feeling of transcendent love, and this, the film manages very well.

I need to re-watch the film to clarify this point, but one thing I am not entirely sure of. As the same actors are not always used to represent the same souls, I did not quite get the pattern in how the bodies changed around. I am pretty sure the Wachowskis didn’t simply pull names out of a hat. There is, for example, the curious case of Tom Hanks. Now I know he’s meant to be the bad guy who evolves into a hero in the last story – or at least I think that’s what he was meant to be – but then there are discrepancies. I mean Ok, up until the very last story but one (chronologically that is) (and here it starts raining spoilers so look away now if you’re sensitive) – i.e. the one with Sumi, the clones and the Purebloods etc – I have to presume he is the third party who is trying to thwart our couple, the one who is trying to ultimately harm or use the protagonist (whichever character who was born with the shooting star mark in that particular story). If we follow that pattern, we have to assume he is the government official that Sumi “turns” just before her execution at the end of her sequence. Well ok, then it makes sense that he would be reborn as a good person in the next chronological sequence – you know the post-apocalyptic, cannibalistic humanity bit starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry. I mean ok, sure, he evolves, he becomes a hero, he gets the girl in the end and that’s all very nice but here’s the problem  - what happens to the other protagonist? You know, the love interest. And if you tell me that was Halle Berry, well what happens to the original hero then? Ok another thing, let’s assume he has been evolving through the story, in the sequence in the ‘70s, he is the scientist who actually decides to help Halle Berry (as Lisa Ray the journalist) so I mean, ok, he’s becoming a better person etc, right? Wrong. Fast forward to the ‘90s, he murders a book critic in cold blood and then, albeit as a different character in a comedy sequence clearly inserted for comic relief more than anything else, he is also the brother who locks our protagonist (Jim Broadbent) up in the first place. There has to be something I’m missing here. Because we KNOW Tom Hanks is the protagonist of the (chronologically) last story as he has the birthmark. But then, THEN, the whole premise of love everlasting falls apart as he was the bad guy in like, 4 of the other 5 stories (in the ‘30s story the main big baddie is Jim Broadbent, Tom Hanks is the inn keeper, not a nice guy but not a major player either). So ok, then it was completely random, in fact he doesn’t evolve at all, the bad guy Tom Hanks was playing somehow just vanishes and they put Tom Hanks as the last hero to make it a nice, Hollywood-style beautiful couple for the closing scene with the shooting star in the sky and all that… Because, I would like to point out, that the 6^th story does not actually have a proper, focal “bad guy”. You might argue the cannibalistic tribe, but no, their actual equivalents in the other stories are the “muscle” baddies, you know the racist captain in the first story, the hit man in the ‘70s sequence, the CEO in the Sunmi sequence, Nurse Noakes in the comedy sequence…

So yeah. I mean maybe we’re not meant to puzzle over it too much. But worst case scenario, the 6^th story only kinda fits in with the other five. A good job as been done with hammering it in, but it is still a square peg in a round hole. One thing we can stop and admire is the commentary made on the universality of love, as the souls seem to change body indiscriminately, Forbischer comes back as a young black woman, Lisa Ray and actually sees  her/ his true love again. I found the sequences where she puzzles over the letters she herself wrote in her previous lifetime particularly touching. She is then reborn as a clone waitress – making a rather neat comment about artificial intelligence and the future of machines.

Like I said, I’ve got every suspicion that I am missing something here and it will all come clear if I watch the film a few more times. Either that, or I am really loosing myself in details. But in any case, rest assured the film is an incredibly enjoyable and emotionally charged way of spending a couple of hours.