Interstellar (2014)

Interstallar (2014)

*Review contains mild spoilers*

Christopher Nolan films now seem to arrive with so much anticipation and furore, keeping so many details about the film under wraps until the last possible moment, it puts a lot of undue pressure on for it to be something special.

And Interstellar is sadly not very special. Although it offers a refreshing counterpoint to a lot of the empty blockbusters that are rammed down our throats on a monthly basis, encouraging the audience to think and ruminate on big weighty topics, it's ultimately a noble failure.

We start out on Earth, the not too distant future. Humanity is on the brink, epic food shortages have brought the population to its knees, all land is given over to farming simple crops and people no longer look outwards with thoughts of exploration: Survival is key, and the focus is on staying bolted to our little rock.

Matthew McConaughey is Cooper, an ex test pilot turned farmer (everyone is a farmer in the future), a man who clearly doesn't belong in the dust and longs for more. Frustrated at the lack of drive or desire to grow and explore, it's not long before he stumbles upon a secret NASA base and is recruited to take part in a top secret mission through a worm-hole with the aim of seeking out a new home for the human race.

There is plenty of positive to things to say about Interstellar. McConaughey in particular is excellent as Cooper, a smart and noble man who is constantly trying to do the best for his children. It's a challenging role, requiring subtle emotional touches and he pulls it off well. Likewise the other cast admirably dedicate themselves wholly to their characters, however most are given short shrift in the script department, given stilted and overly expositional dialogue to chew on rather than anything emotionally meaty. Poor Michael Caine (and Anne Hathaway as his daughter) suffer the brunt of this, with countless instances of cringe inducing semi-scientific bunkum spewing out of their faces. It's a crippling flaw for a film that wants to encourage the audience to look on in awe, but instead more often than not has us drifting off in boredom.

Narratively speaking, it's a grand and epic affair as one would expect, pin balling from the dying Earth into the far reaches of space, time and even into other dimensions. For the most part it all works well and the plot is surprisingly coherent, but even with the almost three hour running time, a lot of the big moments come across as strangely rushed. The notion of interstellar travel, of wormholes, black holes and relativistic time warps are all inherently compelling and lend themselves to comment on what humanity is, where we are and what we can become, but Nolan fumbles around so much with unnecessary detail and dry dialogue that the bigger picture often gets lost and apathy kicks in.

On the positive side, the film does take flight on more than one occasion, literally, once we're into the depths of space, with a whole host of lovely imagery being thrust our way, and a handful of impressive set pieces to keep things entertaining. Nolan has proven himself time and again to be a skilled director with technically impressive and often stunning set pieces, and Interstellar has some of his best.

So too, with such a dry script, it's also a nice surprise to find some small humour, mainly from interactions between McConaughey and a very entertaining AI named TARS, a clearly HAL homaging robot created impressively with a minimum of CGI.

Indeed, the visuals and much of the story as a whole obviously homage and mimic Kubrick's definitive 2001, and it's easy to see Nolan's lofty ambitions with this regard; however never once does he come close to matching or surpassing it in any way. Indeed, as admirable as Nolan's dedication to old school effects are (there's some lovely model work here), the insistent and repeated motif of the spinning space-craft seems strangely lazy and gets boring quickly.

Come the finale fatigue is definitely setting in, and the ham fisted denouement seems crow-barred in. It's all very silly. It aims for emotion and wonder, but dwells too long on an admittedly neat plot point about about scrambled time and gravitational messages (it ends up making more sense than you'd expect) that the final emotional reunion with his daughter isn't given the time to breath that it needs and passes by without much notice. So too, the optimistic ending doesn't ring at all true with the bleak and often miserable goings on for the preceding 160 minutes.

In all then, it's an admirable piece of film making and Nolan does show considerable skill with the action and visual elements, but with such lofty and philosophical ambitions, a poor script, a bizarre lack of humanity and poorly judged pacing prove to be critical flaws. It's worth seeing, and it's very entertaining at times, but it's also a bit of a wasted opportunity.

3/5

Magic In The Moonlight (2014)

Magic In the Moonlight (2014)

Much has been said of the variable quality of his output over the last decade or so, but even after nearly five decades in the business, when Woody Allen hits his stride he can still knock it out of the park. So after the sublime Blue Jasmine last year expectations were always going to be high for the follow up, and with that in mind Magic In The Moonlight is sadly a bit of a disappointment.

The story follows Colin Firth's Stanley Crawford, alias Wei Ling Soo, a world renowned magical artist and debunker of mystical bunkum, as he is recruited to out the young Sophie (Emma Stone), a naif-like clairvoyant, as a fraud. The more he gets to know her the more bewildered he is by her apparent powers, and a third act romantic tangle naturally rears it's head.

There's plenty here to enjoy, littered with many recognisable Allen-isms (obsession with magic, that trademark razor wit, a middle aged chap falling for a much younger woman), it has the potential to be classic Allen, but in the end it falls quite a long way short of the mark.

That's not to say it's a complete write-off; even off form, as he sadly is here, Allen still delivers plenty of great humour and effective observation on the human condition, but it just doesn't seem to amount to much in the end.

Recruiting a great cast (they must be queueing up to work with him), they all do the best with the lines they're given and for the most part it all holds together fairly well, if a little too breezily.
Firth and Stone are both fine and charismatic as the leads, although the rushed script leads to some fairly clunky line readings, and as a result most of the big moments utterly fail to convince. And although he settles in eventually, Colin Firth's abrasive (and often unlikeable) Stanley takes far too long to get used to thanks to an excess of expositional dialogue that renders many scenes unwieldy and even dull.

On the plus side the film looks beautiful thanks to sterling work by cinematographer Darius Khondji (who has photographed most of Allen's recent European output). The idealised 1920's southern French setting is beautifully realised, every shot shimmering with a golden sunshine glow, the period costumes twinkling from the screen. This is how last years Great Gatsby should have looked.

In the end then, it's an entertaining enough diversion offering a few good smirks and some decent work by the cast; but by stretching the premise too thinly it comes across as more of an under-developed half film with more potential than it can fulfil. Fingers crossed for the next one.

2/5

Pride (2014)

Pride (2014)

Much like Brassed Off or The Full Monty, Pride is one of those true-life comedy-dramas that the British film industry seem to do so well. Set in the forlorn working class industrial ruins that were the days of Thatcherite Britain, the film follows the unlikely alliance formed between the population of a small Welsh mining village and a motley crew of gay and lesbian activists from London during the height of the 1984 Miners' Strike. Friendships and human connections are formed due to the similarities in the way they have been oppressed by the media and conservatives.

Directed with vitality and genuine heart by theatre alum Matthew Warchus, (who directed the recent Matilda adaptation and will soon succeed Kevin Spacey as artistic director at the Old Vic), Pride provides a razor sharp balance between funny, sad and affecting.

Much of the success must also be attributed to writer Stephen Beresford, whose punchy script juggles a number of narrative threads and finds humour in areas that may not seem obvious, while offering smaller genuinely intimate moments for the varied cast. The humour may often be broad, but the characters are all given a natural depth and humanity that gives them an endearing quality and renders the inevitable defrosting of the relationships all the more heart-warming.

And what a cast it is, an impressive roster of British (and American) talent, with Bill Nighy, Paddy Considine and Imelda Staunton all shining as Welsh Union members, while Fay Marsay, Dominic West, and Ben Schnetzer stand out as members of the LGSM. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, with the Jessica Gunning standing out as the pro-active and lovely Sian and George MacKay as the innocent and wide eyed young Joe, who is thrust into this world almost by accident and through whose eyes we experience the story.

As the bonds are formed and strengthened, the real backbone of the film becomes apparent, mostly casting aside the politics in favour of a focus on the value of friendships and finding a sense of belonging and unity; of shared interests and the similarities we all share. Amongst all the laughter it's hard not to become a tad misty eyed, particularly as the film reaches its natural and touching denouement.

Warm and endearing from start to finish, Pride is one of the better British comedies of recent years thanks to a sharp script and a uniformly excellent cast. And while the issues in the film may on the surface seem very much of their time, there is still a pertinence to present day events, particularly in how two apparently wildly dissimilar groups or communities may find a common ground and unity if only they just bothered to try.

Oh, and it has a cracking soundtrack.

* * * * *


Review originally written for York Nouse

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Much like the original Sin City, “A Dame to Kill For” is a hyper-stylised, hyper-violent and hyper-macho brute of a film. But while it's predecessor was a fresh and modern re-jig of film noir tropes, this sequel lacks the pizazz and power that lent it's forebear such elemental thrills.

In the decade since director Robert Rodriguez and comic book king Frank Miller exploded their innovative visuals onto our screens the cinematic landscape has caught up: the stunning graphic style that made the original so distinctive has been aped so many times (not least by that other Miller adaptation, 300) that this second outing lands with a less of a bang and more of a “been there, done that” thud. Sure it's as crisp and bloodied as ever, but it's just not special any more.

This wouldn't be much of an issue if the plot and narrative had something new and interesting to offer, but it doesn't. Despite the over the top excesses, the sex and violence all just seems a little boring this time round, with Miller and Rodriguez recycling most of the characters and many plot points from the first film and in the process the gritty thrill has been substantially watered down.

In fairness, the splintered narrative holds together fairly well, splicing together three tales of debauchery, pain and misery – two taken from Millers comic book pages, while a third (The Long Bad Night) is a new addition written especially for the film. Joseph Gorden-Levitt proves to be the freshest (and best) part of this new gambling-gone-wrong plot with Powers Boothe offering great scenery chewing value as primary antagonist Senator Rourk.

Eva Green also tries hard as Ava, the titular dame, a psychotic femme fatale who makes the men around her crumple into heaps on the floor. However her pivotal role is poorly written and ends up descending into farce with scene after scene of titillating nudity with little of any actual value to say about her as a character. Likewise, the majority of the women in the murky depths of this world are sorely under sold, standing around in skimpy outfits with little or no dialogue while the male characters go about their business around them.

Elsewhere Mickey Rourke and Jessica Alba are fine, reprising their roles from the first film, and, barring a fairly thrilling shoot-em-up finale, not really offering much new to expand their characterisations from what we already know.

Not terrible, but it is a bit of a let down and an exercise in style with little in the way of substance. Fans of the first film and the comic books may find something to like here, especially in The Long Good Night segments, but for the most part it's like a picture that has been photocopied too many times - you can see where it came from, but you'd probably much prefer the original.

2/5

**This article was written for York Nouse**

Blue Ruin (2013)

Blue Ruin (2013)

Broken and homeless, Dwight Evans (Macon Blair) spends his life eating out of bins and sleeping in his car. Upon discovering that Wade Cleland, the man responsible for his parents murder is to be released from jail, he sets out for revenge, killing Wade and setting into motion a series of events that can only lead to one logical conclusion.

Unflinching and achingly brutal, Blue Ruin is an incredibly sparse piece of film making, almost silent for much of the runtime, save for the background noises and an impressively crisp ambient score. Information on Dwights predicament and motives are slowly drip fed, until we realise the seriousness of his intentions, and furthermore, the pain that will surely be coming his way.

The revenge thriller is a well worn genre, and for the most part Blue Ruin sticks to a blue print that works, while injecting an indie freshness by focussing on the human story, the morality of such a venture and the effect it has on not just the killer, but his loved ones and even those he is seeking to destroy.

We follow Dwight through literally every scene, seeing everything through his eyes, feeling everything he feels. Macon Blair is mesmerising in the role, giving Dwight a single minded drive that in the hands of another actor could so easily be play as hammy and overly emotional. Turning from beach living Stig of the Dump to mild-looking yet brutal killer in the blink of an eye, he manages to makes us empathise with him, despite every questionable deed.

Jeremy Saulnier directs and photographs the film with an efficiency and naturalism that one wouldn't naturally associate with such a brutal thriller, providing calm and beautiful scenic imagery to directly counter the genuinely nervy tension and agonising violence that punctuates the rest of the action. Much like the lead character, the film itself calmly and methodically works its way to the logical conclusion, dragging us by the hand. It's compelling yet also jarringly distancing.

The supporting cast are mostly fine in their roles playing second fiddle to Blair, particularly Amy Hargreaves as his sister, lending the film a humanity and warmth where otherwise it could have come off as overly mechanical and soulless. Devin Ratray also provides some humour as a childhood friend with an unexpected armoury, although it's arguable that his scenes veer too sharply away into humour and detract from the naturalism cultivated so carefully elsewhere in the film.

So too, the denouement lacks the punch it so sorely deserves given how sharp the preceding journey was, with the methodical narrative collapsing and losing momentum as Dwight holes himself up for the final showdown.

Nonetheless, Blue Ruin is an immensely impressive thriller for those with the nerve to stick it out, and can certainly show its bigger budget siblings a thing or two about how to craft a engrossing narrative based around one man, a car and his desire for revenge.

* * * *

~This review was originally written for York Nouse~

Review: Locke (2014)

Locke (2014)

A construction worker leaves his job as a site foreman on a skyscraper build and drives to London. He leaves behind everything he holds dear, the reasons for which unfold over the course of several phone calls with friends, family and colleagues.

Locke is a daring conceit, a story propelled forward purely by the power of the spoken word, contained within in a tight theatrical box and filmed in almost real time, the film doesn't immediately lend itself to cinema. Yet, what initially seems like it could be a boring, repetitive premise lends itself a thoughtful, ruminative character study, beautifully shot and deeply affecting throughout.

Kudos, particularly must go to director Steven Knight and cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos, who strive to inject the film with dynamism one wouldn't immediately expect from such limiting set-up. We are forced to focus on Locke's words, the neat hypnotic camera work dousing the screen in a myriad of colours, the hazy blur of the passing world goes almost unnoticed, enabling us to visualise the drama unfolding off screen. It's abstract yet strangely beautiful.

And indeed, for it's limited premise, Locke never feels claustrophobic, Tom Hardy draws you in with his sharp calm performance, inviting empathy and even sympathy in spite of his actions. It's a brave performance for an actor mostly known for such loud, brash characters, and yet it works. So too, the voices on the other end of the line are pitched perfectly. Heard but never seen, each one carefully drip feeding the requisite drama, humour and tension with limited means.

The script, too is well crafted, focussing on the minutiae, creating a kitchen sink drama that delivers big (admittedly obvious) metaphors about collapsing buildings and cracks in concrete. For the most part it's very successful, although some of the imaginary chats with his deceased father are jarring and don't quite ring true and distract from the main thrust of the narrative. It also may have benefited from some quieter moments, with Hardy and his co-stars talking fairly constantly for the entire 90 minutes. For a film about one man alone in a car, there isn't much breathing space, pauses for thought are few and far between. And although this serves to ramp up the tension, especially towards the end, it also makes the film seem overly busy and doesn't afford the viewer a great deal of time for things to sink in.

Nonetheless, the film is held together by a towering performance from Tom Hardy as a man who can barely keep himself together, with subtle physical tics and assured vocal delivery demonstrating a fragile psyche in mid breakdown. Together with a great supporting cast and hypnotic photography, Locke comes together as a very compelling little film indeed.

* * * *

~This review was originally written for York Nouse~

Review: Noah (2014)

Noah (2014)

Whether you're religious or otherwise, the story of Noah is a pretty much ubiquitous bedtime classic, one of those perennial tales that everyone remembers from their youth; a key part of western culture and cornerstone of Abrahamic religion, featuring as it does in both the Quran and the Judeo-Christian book of Genesis. 

Bearing that in mind, it would take a person of mighty cojones indeed to not only consider adapting it for the screen, but to also dare to modify the tale. Step in Darren Aronofsky, an auteur and defiantly independent film maker who has assiduously developed the film over the best part of a decade and produced what must be the most downright bonkers, wilfully bizarre studio blockbuster in years.

The story itself adheres fairly closely to the old familiar, albeit with with some fairly mighty embellishments:

Humanity, cast out of paradise for eating the forbidden fruit, have forged a path of self destruction and selfishness. Noah (Russell Crowe), the last good man on the planet lives a quiet, righteous life away from the rest, foraging berries and generally living in peace with the world. One day he receives a message from “The Creator”, who is vexed with mankinds lack of respect and plans to dispose of them all with an almighty flood, tasking Noah with the building of an arc that will save all the animals (two of each), while leaving the other humans to die. These others, led by angry cockney king Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone), are understandbly miffed about the whole thing and do their best to inhibit Noahs arcly enterprise.

Darren Aronofsky has always been a maverick film maker with a history of thoughtful, deeply individual films: if anyone was to make a decent go of making this it would be him. Indeed, even with such a massive blockbuster canvas to work with, Aronofsky's Noah is little different to his other films in its bold, uncompromising, and gruelling vision; full of compelling, often divisive story telling and beautiful visuals, as well as the unerring potential to divide an audience in two. However, unlike his other films it is also the closest he has come to making a bad film.

Based on his own graphic novel, the film is laden with a frankly shonky script that, although hitting the key narrative beats and adding some neat flourishes along the way, never really offers any of the characters, Noah aside, any form of development, nor is there any compelling reasoning or motivation for the main characters actions. It's also fairly hard to determine a genuine focus behind the film thanks to choppy edit, robbing it of its clearly intended meditative core. The film is stuffed with varying degrees of social commentary and moral sermonising on the ills of modern society that never come to come to any fruitful conclusion either way. It's all fairly murky.

As mentioned, the story deviates from the source in some key ways. Noah is assisted by giant walking, talking rock beasts, fallen angels called The Watchers who come across as the bastard child of Optmus Prime and the Ents from The Lord of the Rings, who are admittedly fairly entertaining but seem to belong in a different film entirely. So too, a massive sweeping battle, deftly put together and possessed of a gritty realism evokes something from Peter Jacksons Rings saga more than anything else and just doesn't seem to make sense within the confined narrative of the story.

That being said, the film is often so dazzling to look at that these shortcomings can sometimes be ignored. The beautiful Icelandic scenery is shot with a loving eye, the cast frequently silhouetted against beautiful lingering sunsets. So too, a stunning two minute sequence telling the creation story from big bang to the ascent of man is a thing to behold, and will no doubt rile the religious purists.

However, for every beautifully crafted image there's another, jarring over the top CGI shot of poorly animated snakes and elephants walking through a pixel forest to jolt you out of your seat and remind you that what's on screen just doesn't seem to want to cohere into something great. Likewise, the post apocalyptic costume design is often laughable, screaming Benetton advert rather than a biblical epic.

The cast are varying degrees of fine, Russell Crow in particular shining as the gruff loner with some very difficult lines and fairly dark character developments late on, while Jennifer Connelly humanises the film and lends an empathetic core, no mean feat given that she has hardly anything interesting to say or, for that matter, any character development whatsoever.

Anthony Hopkins is the highlight of the film, delivering his four or five lines with a twinkle in his eye as the strangely magical and berry obsessed Methuselah, who doesn't fit in with anything else going on around him.

Going down the ladder, Logan Lerman and Douglas Booth are both completely boring background fluff as the sons Ham and Shem, while Emma Watson isn't given much else to do apart from cry, which she does fairly well. Bottom of the heap though is surely Ray Winstone, who is woefully miscast as a naff king who spends the entire film shouting and forging swords in the rain, or lending unintentional comedy from sitting in a darkened corner and quietly eating what I assume are dinosaurs and unicorns.

Despite all this though, Noah isn't a complete failure, and you can't deny Aronofsky's lofty aims and ambitions even if his final product falls way short of the intended mark.

Noah is a daring and interesting film, wilfully bizarre and unrelentingly annoying, yet strangely compelling and often visually sumptuous.

Not quite a biblical catastrophe then, just a disappointing misfire.

2/5

Thomas Shutt