Thursday, 21 April 2016

Film: 'Midnight Special'

Not a film for those who like all loose ends neatly tied up by the end - and don't waste time wondering why the title either.

Difficult to say too much about the story for fear of revealing spoilers. However, it's basically a pursuit film, involving a young boy (Jaeden Lieberher) with unusual powers being rescued from a religious cult by his father (Michael Shannon) and his hunky friend(? - Joel Edgerton), the boy being reunited with his mother (Kirsten Dunst) and all of them being chased by authorities, military and police as well as by the cult now deprived of their 'prize possession'. I never quite understood the relationship between the two adult males, as well as that between Edgerton and the boy. In at least one of the reviews I read that it was explained in the film so perhaps that was at the point where I walked over the aisle and told off a young woman with crutches for repeatedly checking her mobile for messages every ten minutes, the light from it being maddeningly distracting.
I must also state that the last ten minutes or so of the film really need to be seen on a big screen for full impact, an episode the sight of which I found mightily impressive and quite breathtaking.

I liked this film, though opinions about it are divided, some complaining that it's much too slow, though I found it exciting throughout.

Director Jeff Nichols draws very high acting standards from his entire cast, which also includes Sam Shepherd. (I've never seen Nichols' 2012 film 'Mud', which got some very positive reviews).

This one is not a film for everybody. I can see why some might dislike it, even a lot, especially if you like your films to be 'cut and dried'. But if you can just accept what you see on screen without asking too many questions about it when it's over, as I managed to do, you may well find yourself liking it as I did.................................7.

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Film: 'Marguerite'


I had high anticipation of this one and, although I found it agreeable enough, it did fall a little short of my hopes for it.
Foreshadowing the imminent release of, and 'inspired' by the same true story of the American, Florence Foster Jenkins (the upcoming film of that title starring Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant), this French film, actually shot in the Czech Republic, is set in the 1920s and relates how the middle-aged Marguerite Dumont (Catherine Frot - magnificent in the part), self-deluded into being unaware that her execrable singing is being derisively laughed at by everyone except herself, while she believes that she's widely loved and admired by the audiences at her informal concerts and recitals. Her long-suffering and philandering husband (Andre Marcon) has for years played along with allowing her to retain her fantasy. But now, as she becomes determined to achieve fame as a renowned opera singer, and taking professional singing lessons for the first time, his uneasiness, as also the disquiet of all those who've been humouring her, becomes the source of conflict which he doesn't know how to resolve without letting her know the truth about her hopeless vocal 'skills' and hurting her deeply.


Right through Xavier Giannoli's film I was longing for a lighter touch. It's true that there's a serious undercurrent to this otherwise superficially whimsical story, but it does get over-heavy at times. Other than Marguerite's hilariously bad singing, there are one or two other laughs to be had, but no more than that. All the arias she 'performs' (as well as two or three by 'proper' singers) will be familiar to opera lovers.
Perhaps I've been unfairly spoilt by the trailers currently playing of the Stephen Frears/Meryl Streep film, and that one really does look like great fun. So through this French film I kept reminding myself to see it on its own terms. Though that did make it slightly better I yet felt something wanting, which wasn't helped by it being a colour film shot largely in what looked like matter-of-fact monochrome.

But it's an interesting take on a story - or at least its central character - of which I've been aware for something like 50 years. The remarkable thing is how it's taken so long for a film to be made about it. I hope I'll like the forthcoming 'Florence Foster Jenkins' even more when I see it in a couple of weeks time or so, but in the meantime I award this French version of the story a fairly commendable................6.5.


Monday, 11 April 2016

Film: 'High Rise'

I spent a great deal of anguish in deciding whether or not to see this; principal reason being that I knew it features a dog which meets an awful fate, something that regularly happens in certain countries, especially in Asia and some in Africa. Although only a brief detail (which isn't dwelt on) in the film, I don't have to see it depicted for it to affect me deeply and distressingly.
In addition there's the presence of an actor who now carries such heavy negative baggage for me that I want to hiss every time he comes on screen - which is often in this one. Yes, it's the vociferously blood-sport supporting and gay marriage-opposing figure of Jeremy Irons, whom I'd only seen very recently as butler Alfred in the mega-dud 'Batman v Superman' (though he did virtually no 'butling' in that film).

My reason for deciding to go was that the director is Ben Wheatley, who has already made some highly interesting, curiously off-beat films in recent years viz 'A Field in England' and 'Sightseers' (the latter I particularly liked) - as well as the well-regarded 'Kill List' which I wasn't able to see.

'High Rise' is based on a 1975 J.G.Ballard dystopian story set either in the future or in some parallel contemporary world where a certain semblance of social order is maintained only within a residential high-rise block of apartments in an unspecified location, probably London, each of the occupants being mutually dependent on each other for fuel, power, food, waste disposal, social cohesion etc, everyone living so close to each other that friction between the residents only needs the slightest provocation to set off a major riot, which is exactly what happens after the film's opening section when a fragile peace was being maintained.

I've seen Tom Hiddleston in a major film role only once before, in Terence Davies' admirable adaptation of Rattigan's play 'The Deep Blue Sea' a few years ago. I know he's also done quite a bit of TV work. In this film he's the principal character, a doctor living alone, trying his best to interact to people around him without being riled by them. The main female part is given to Sienna Miller (I was never quite sure how her character fitted into the overall plan).. Then there's Jeremy Irons as an ageing authority figure, who continues to exercise a crumbling influence as the block's architect.
The tipping point of the film is the riot, with plenty of violence (though I've seen a lot worse) when all hell breaks loose between various residents with conflicting loyalties. It's all very depressing and I didn't find the film an easy watch. Yet, in spite of feeling a bit 'soiled' watching all these anarchic activities I have to say that there's also something compelling about the film.

Btw: Why is it that in so many films set in the future or in a different dimension there is still so much smoking going on - when I, at least, would have expected that it would have been confined to very few or, indeed, have died out completely? In this film practically every adult character is smoking his or her head off, including the doctor, as well as one of the woman characters in a very advanced state of pregnancy.

Not a bad film by any means, then, but not one I'd want to see again. Neither is it one which I'd heartily recommend. It's disturbing, though not in the satisfying way I've found some others of Wheatley's films..........................6.

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Film: 'Eddie the Eagle'

Even at the height of his national (and, briefly, international) fame in the late 1980s I never bought into the adulation of English amateur ski jumper, Eddie Edwards, who attained quasi-mythical status. Right from the start I'd found him an intensely irritating man, while others at the time cheered on his hopelessly flopped attempts to make a mark in a sport for which he'd had no formal training or even experience, culminating in his participation in the 1988 Winter Olympics at Calgary, Canada. I just wished he'd go away - rather like crabs.
However, it must be said that he did endear himself to many, with his clenched teeth and thrusting-chin determination to succeed. These fans took him to their hearts with what was perceived as a plucky, try-and-try-again spirit - whereas I didn't view him as quite the national embarrassment that some did, rather as just a tiresome individual.

This film, overloaded with sentiment, though very ably accomplished by director Dexter Fletcher (the admirable 'Sunshine on Leith' of 2013), ticks all the right boxes of the threadbare formula in this old-fashioned, 'inspiring' tale of fighting against the odds, despite it being 'based' on Edwards' own story - though how much of the background story is invention I've no idea, and don't really much care.

In the adult title role, Taron Egerton cuts a convincingly gauche figure with single-minded ambition. Having made up his mind to be a ski jumper while still at school, he travels against his parents' wishes (Keith Allen and Jo Hartley) to an Alpine ski training centre in Germany where he meets up with washed-up, alcoholic, chain-smoking, former star skier, Hugh Jackman - though you'd never have guessed, retaining as he does his athletic body and ruggedly handsome looks. The relationship between them follows the predictable path of Jackman's initial animosity, then indifference - and then, recognising Edwards' serious aims, helping him to train, and finally accompanying him on his participation in major events.
Even if you don't know the story you can guess where all this is going - and, no, it's not giving anything away to say that he doesn't win an Olympic medal, but for all the worshipful attention he gets from the media and the public (complete with triumphal music, of course) you'd think he'd come away with a gold.

Towards the end of the film there are a couple of shortish appearances from Christopher Walken, as well as Jim Broadbent as the ski-ing commentator at Calgary.

The audience I watched this with lapped it all up with glee, laughing their heads off every time he clumsily bumped into something or fell over (though not on the actual ski jumps). I felt all this aspect was overplayed for effect.

It just wasn't my type of film. If you liked the character (assuming you even remember him) then you may well be entertained by this. I found it all a bit of a bore........................5. 

Film: 'Victoria'

This film (in English and subtitled German) has at least one remarkable feature which you may have heard about, namely that it's filmed in one long, continuous take (with hand-held camera), uninterrupted for its entire two hours and a quarter's length. (This has been tried - or at least attempted to give the impression of being so - famously in Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rope' - where one can actually make out the 'joins' for oneself, he in 1948 being restricted by cameras that had to be replenished with new film every few minutes. Also, very recently it was attempted with only partial success in 'Birdman'.) 

'Victoria' is set in present-day Berlin (refreshingly, we see none of those 'touristy' sights) where a bubbly, twenty-something Spanish woman (Laia Costa) who speaks no German, is dancing the night away in a disco and attracts the attention of an English-speaking German of similar age (Frederick Lau). Once outside she's introduced to his three pals, an unsavoury trio of rowdy yobs busy breaking into a parked car - and, unbelievably, she decides to stick with them. After her clubbing she's certainly light-headed, though hardly too drunk to explain her unaccountable action. (She even gets into a lift/elevator with two of them, already acting familiar to her - and she'd only met them a few minutes before!) This is just one of a whole series of stretches of credibility which pervades the whole film.
It's too late for her to return home as she's got to open up the nearby coffee shop where she works in a few hours time, so she takes the first guy back there, after a little shoplifting, (Ho ho! What larks!) with his three hell-raisers in tow. Things take a strange turn when it turns out that all four males are required to do something for someone else, only one of them finding himself indisposed, she offers to fill his place - and soon gets into deep water, their meeting with the man demanding the 'job' being done, with his armed 'heavies' manhandling them and turning out threats if they don't comply. It all gets very serious!

During the film's course there were moments where the suspense screws were effectively applied and I was drawn in, but time and again this agreeable mood was demolished by the unlikeliness of the development, usually to do with the decisions of Victoria herself.

Director Sebastian Schipper has no doubt achieved a pioneering product in terms of continuity. How on earth they managed to keep the whole sequence going for so long with no breaks, and without needing to re-shoot is beyond me - and how everyone knew what to do and say the whole time was really something. That aspect alone was singularly quite breathtaking. However, pondering afterwards on what I'd just seen I began on hindsight to recognise flaws in the timing aspect. Twice during the film the actual time of night/dawn is stated - and as it was set in 'real time', which it indeed was, then only just over two hours had elapsed between dead of night and full morning daylight. It seemed, on reflection, something like five hours had gone by. 

But it was the strains on my credulity which took the biggest toll. I think if more care had been taken to make the story-line more plausible then it might so easily have been an even better film than it was....................6.

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Film: 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'

Oh, poo! Why bother?......................1.

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Film: '10 Cloverfield Lane'

I'm pleased to report that I found this to be a cracker!
One proviso, though. If anyone remembers the equally enjoyable 'Cloverfield' of 2008, it would be better to ditch any thought that this might be some kind of sequel. Anticipating a connection between that film and this is unhelpful, and if there is one it's only tangential.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young woman driving alone when she's involved in a car crash. She wakes up to find herself apparently a prisoner in a sparsely furnished locked room, chained to a wall, and with a medical drip attached to her injured body.
When her 'gaoler' (John Goodman) arrives with some food for her, he explains that he's saved her life by bringing her down to his underground residence as the air above has been contaminated and that there is no one left alive. How and why this came about is left rather vague (warfare? accident? aliens?). She finds the story hard to believe and doesn't trust him, thinking that he's made up a pretext for keeping her imprisoned with him, despite his assuring her that he's no 'pervert'. She then discovers that she's not the only one being detained. In another room is a young man of similar age (John Gallagher Jnr) who's been here for several days and been fed the same story, which he seems to accept more readily than she does. They are both shortly given free access to the rest of his subterranean abode where they have meals together, though they both have to spend periods alone in their respective quarters behind locked doors. Otherwise, all doors and windows to the outside world are bolted and sealed. Goodman remains disappointed by her sceptical attitude to his being her 'saviour' and her continuing desire to be released.

At first I found John Goodman in the role not so easy to take - his considerable backwork of memorable characters (quite often funny) in previous films always leaving a deep impression, no matter how weighty or short his appearance is. But soon I found him exuding the true menace and ambiguity that this character requires - a dormant volcano which can erupt spectacularly at any time, and does. He's terrific here! The other two actors, not yet having anything like the same body of work to their credit, are both very good too.

In this claustrophobic setting there are some truly nail-biting sequences with the tension ratcheted up to max in most effective manner. If there were one or two 'clunky' bits they didn't detract from the effectiveness of the whole. (Why do so many women have their ear-rings drop off in the most 'convenient' places?)

The final slice of the film may well be regarded as not quite as satisfying as all that went before - it certainly lets rip with being 'wild'! - but it rounds off the film fairly well, and at least it gives a sort of reason as to why the Goodman figure was keeping these two captive, even though on reflection it raises rather more questions than it answers.

Director Dan Trachtenberg (his first full-length directing feature here?) is a name to look out for on this evidence.

Overall, it's good, taut, escapist fun. I enjoyed it and can heartily recommend...................7.5

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Film: 'Hitchcock/Truffaut'


I found this a fascinating documentary, as I suspect most cineastes will - most especially, those admirers of Alfred Hitchcock films. 
It's based on interviews over several occasions which the then 30-year old French film director Francois Truffaut made with the then 63-year old Hitch in 1962, and which Truffaut then used as material for his 1966 publication 'The Cinema According to Hitchcock'. 
We see stills from the interview sessions, with interpreter on hand, while we listen to part of the audio tapes, each of the two speaking in his own native language.
My sole disappointment was that the conversations are very desultory, covering a range of aspects of Hitchcock's techniques though hardly ever going into significant depth on any of them. These discussions are punctuated by comments from several notable present-day directors (Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Wes Anderson, plus others) who are remarking on thoughts thrown up by their reading of Truffaut's book. 
Right through this film we are shown clips from quite a number of Hitchcock films (some very brief indeed), including the few he made subsequent to the interviews. There are also a few short excerpts of the handful of films that Truffaut had made up to that point. 
The two Hitchcock films discussed the most are 'Vertigo' and 'Psycho', though even these are not gone into with the searching profundity for which I'd been hoping. It was just beginning to get interesting when Hitch (and Scorsese) remark on how the story of 'Vertigo' doesn't hang together, despite Hitchcock considering it as one of his better films, but then this aspect is curtailed. In fact, quite frequently it became regularly exasperating in that whenever I felt that something searchingly illuminating was going to be said, the subject was switched.
(A sad footnote is that Truffaut, despite being 33 years younger than Hitchcock, survived him by just four years).

Nevertheless, despite my reservations, I found it totally absorbing, and - very rare for me this - I only wish its 83 minutes had been double the length................................7.