Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Hush (2016) Review

Hush is a film built on a gimmick, but it is a compelling one, and as far as I am aware an original one. Kate Siegel plays Maddie, a young woman who since the age of 13 has been deaf and mute. She is a fiction author who has retreated to a cabin in the woods to finish her latest novel. Early on we are introduced to some of the struggles of her deafness and ways that her life is different. Her friend Sarah visits and while Maddie is seen to be able to lipread, Sarah struggles with sign language so communication is sometimes frayed. Early into the film we find that Maddie is not alone, as Sarah comes banging on her door in distress. She is brutally murdered by a tattooed man in a mask (John Gallagher Jr. credited as The Man) mere feet away from Maddie, who does not hear it and does not know. The killer therefore realises that Maddie is deaf, and proceeds to play mind games with his apparent vulnerable prey. The film does an effective job of getting this all across in an intriguing way though slightly more could have been made of his stalking her. A recurring theme of this film.

The mask that the killer wears is ominous and almost has expression to it. It presents a constant half
smile that reminded me of the face paint and masks donned by many characters in The Purge series, but in this case not to represent mental instability, but purely fear of the unknown. While the mystery I had been drawn to takes massive letdown of a turn The Man finds many creative ways of ramping up the tension and psychological torture of Maddie while never presenting her as an easy target. The mask becomes meaningless beyond being a striking image for the films poster and I found this to be a huge letdown. Despite us being able to hear every sound effect Maddies deafness still comes into play with her having to use sight tricks to throw The Man off the scent and at one point using her hand to check for the vibrations of his steps. While dealing with her handicap she is a capable opponent for The Man, allowing the film to stay interesting through its 80 minute runtime. As we are for the most part watching a game of Cat and Mouse between two characters, it is to the films advantage that it doesn't overstay its welcome and paces itself well. Plot shifts are done at exactly the right times to further the story and more importantly to prevent any section becoming stale. There was only one sequence that I felt went on a little too long but this was helped by the arrival of another character to add some much needed depth.

Kate Siegel puts on a convincing performance as Maddie and one that has to have been challenging given that she has to perform her role without reacting to any sound at all. This has to have gone against all her instincts and I have to praise her skill at this. John Gallagher Jr. is also solid in his role and is slightly held back by the script. He is armed with a Crossbow and a knife, two weapons that are limited. The film even states this the crossbow is only useful at long range and useless indoors. He clearly knows a fair bit about Police protocol or is possible an expert blagger. Nothing is explained about The Man which would have been a bit more bearable if Hush had maintained its sense of mystery and tension, but this was thrown out of the window leaving Gallagher's character feeling underdeveloped to a fault. If you're a viewer who likes to understand the motivation of characters like me then this film will bug you slightly.

Given that the film is about the struggle of a deaf and mute woman I felt the sound design of the film could have been toned down a bit for extra suspense. While you never truly forget Maddies predicament it would have been nice to have experienced her handicap from her perspective a little more than we do. I keep using the term handicap instead of disability or weakness because Maddie isn't shown to be disabled or weak very often, yet she is at a distinct disadvantage to her opposition. Maddie is resourceful and able to cope with pressure almost too well at times and this is the biggest
flaw with the film. If Hush had presented Maddie as a bit more vulnerable it could have made the film truly terrifying. While this is somewhat countered in the third act by the effects of the night taking their toll and a truly tense ending, the sudden shift from strong heroine to weak victim is almost frustrating. Its almost like the writers (Siegel herself and Director Mike Flanagan) couldn't decide which way to go with her and settled for a bit of both, and this only leads to a watered down Horror film.

Despite Hush being found in the Horror section on Netflix I can't say I was scared or even nervous once but I certainly was never bored. You never truly know who is going to prevail in the end, and given that one side is at a physical and sensory disadvantage, I feel like this is a flaw with the execution of what could have been a more chilling concept. For a modern thriller that presents a dark premise with mystery and twists I would recommend Split (2017) or Get Out (2017) before this film but that doesn't make Hush a bad film in any way. It makes Hush an enjoyable but passable 80 minute thriller and an ultimately disappointing horror film.

Monday, 13 March 2017

Lego Batman review

When I heard about the Lego movie (2014) I was like many people skeptical. I saw it, and loved it far beyond what I could have imagined. When I heard about the Lego Batman movie, I was again skeptical, and I enjoyed it, a bit.

I had seen a few reviews of the film before I decided to go and see it and the main criticism seemed to be "too many jokes". I didn't know how to take this at first but the film reminded me of Aardman animations' Pirates (2012), in which there are gags on seemingly every wall to spot while you are expected to take in sight jokes and dialogue not to mention the actual plot. I found that film to be comedy overkill in some ways though it was clearly intentional to encourage a second and even third viewing. The jokes I tended to laugh at were poking fun at the conventions of superhero movies in general, like the bluntly announced setup of a plane carrying thousands of explosives flying over the most crime riddled city. There is a not so subtle guarantee that something was going to go wrong, and that they are simply asking for trouble.

I sat in a screening room with a few adults, but mostly very young children who couldn't have
possibly understood many of the various references to Batman's past screen adventures. There is even a gag where they recreate in lego many of the past film posters that I liked, but it would have had no bearing on the vast majority of the audience I shared the screening with. Some of the nods to Batmans past were lost even on me as a viewer old enough but not comic book nerdy enough to get. It is therefore a massive achievement for this film that there is still a lot in this film for viewers of all ages, and they did a great job in trying to cater to everyone. The Marvel and DC universe can be feel convoluted and alienating with its depth and recent films like Deadpool (2016) and Logan (2017) aim at older comic book fans, but this film has to be commended for being friendly and welcoming to all. You could watch this with little knowlege of Batman or be a superfan and still find something to enjoy.

As with the original Lego movie the animation is beautiful throughout. The only thing I could pick fault with is that the film moves at such a fast and sometimes frantic pace that sometimes you want to take in a scene but it disappears, but this is something that happened in The Lego Movie too especially when ploughing through the many dimensions that film had. Regardless of this it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into every location and backdrop and care was taken to make this blocky environment feel like Gotham City. It evokes the early Tim Burton films and also the 90's animated series in that it is dark but still has a stylish use of colour to it like the orangey skyline and the effective use of light in the Batcave.

When I saw The Lego Movie one thing that grated on me a bit was Will Arnett's voice as Batman and so I had worried that it would bother me, but I was able to go with it over 144 minutes of this film. What I couldn't cope with was the bafflingly awful story. The plot hangs on the idea that the Joker can't cope with not being Batman's number one nemesis despite the glaring flaw that we all know he is. Batman claims that Superman is in reference to the 2016 film (and various graphic novels) and but this Screen Junkies video does a good job of explaining them. The plot of this film only gets more overcomplicated from here as the Joker finds a way to recruit the most sinister villains from other peoples intellectual properties to prove some sort of point to Batman. How does bringing in loads of villains from other franchises make The Joker Batmans main nemesis? If anything it muddies the water even more. I started to wonder if the film was fast on purpose so we didn't have the chance to put all of this together. Clearly we are not supposed to put too much thought into any of this and just go along with the ride, and if you're able to suspend your disbelief and do that then the ride is at least an enjoyable one.
after the Joker points out that Superman is a hero, Brucey states he has no main nemesis and is merely "fighting other people". This makes no sense. That is the sentence that I came to over and over as the plot progressed. Furthermore Batman defeats his entire famed rogues gallery (42 villains) within the first ten minutes of the film. Some of them only exist to the most hardcore of fans and some ludicrous ones I assumed had been made up for comic affect but it turns out are real and came from the 60's. Even now I still can't decided whether 'Polka-dot Man', 'King Tut' and 'Kite Man' were the result of a creative dry spell or all the drugs the 60's are associated with

While I found myself irritated by the ending of the film the message I took from it was at least worth the journey and had been built up to well. The character of Lego Batman is the brooding loner dark knight we are all familiar with from the Nolan trilogy turned up to eleven, maybe even twelve. He spends his days watching movies alone in a home cinema that for some reason has way more seats than he needs, and his favourite meal is a microwavable lobster thermidor for one. The caped crusader actively discourages cooperation with anyone, yet is insulted when the Justice League doesn't invite him to their party at the fortress of solitude. A party being held in the fortress of SOLITUDE was another nitpick that would have annoyed me had I thought about it in the screening room but by this point I decided I was thinking too much. Batman learns that you can't just isolate yourself because you want to avoid the pain of rejection or loss and this is a lesson I took seriously, and its a lesson that is good for children to hear, especially as bluntly as it is presented in the films conclusion.

I must confess as I have in previous blogs that when it comes to comic book films I am very much a casual fan. I am part way through the Marvel films and still way behind, but I'm trying to catch up. What I'm saying is that I'm not someone who is drawn to this genre, but I was interested based on the original Lego Movie and my familiarity with Batman, and I would say that by the end I had a reasonably good experience, just not one as good as other seem to have had. In a world currently oversaturated by superhero universes and crossovers that are frankly hard to follow and are somehow still expanding, I found Lego Batman to be at least unique and you could say innovative. It is not the first of its genre to put comedy before action but to my mind it did it better than Deadpool in that it is accessible to all.

Sunday, 5 March 2017

The Founder Review

From the first time I saw a trailer for the Founder I was enamoured with the subject matter, but also with the timing of its release for what was going on in the news at the time. Sadly I didn't get to watch the film on my first attempt as the projector malfunctioned after a 30 minute wait reminding me more of Burger King. I was nevertheless still keen to watch this film based on the names Michael Keaton and Nick Offerman alone and so I did. Fair warning as this film is based on true events there will be plot spoilers.

Michael Keaton plays Ray Kroc, a struggling businessmen attempting to sell a milkshake machine that he claims will revolutionise business, but is failing to gain any momentum. As the film begins we are quickly shown that Kroc has to carry this machine around and give the sales pitch to managers of diners and drive-ins who just aren't interested. The film opens with an impassioned speech directly to the camera and we hear versions of it repeated with diminishing enthusiasm. Kroc is painted from the very beginning as a sympathetic character, a man trying to do his job and not succeeding. All the tropes are there, the slightly beaten down weary look, the positive thinking records, the phone conversation with a wife who is not all that supportive. Even down to opening a bottle of wine alone in a dimly lit motel room. Keaton then pulls a hip flask out of his jacket and I shouted Bingo! People have made comparisons to Willy Loman in other reviews but Kroc's vulnerability is shown in a more direct manner minutes into the film and is shown to change as the film progresses. Michael Keaton put on a performance that is endearing initially but turns us sour on Kroc as his head gets bigger. The key thing though is that Keaton is charismatic enough to play a hard nosed and relentless salesman with charm that endures until you consider the real actions that took place in the film. It's staggering to thing that Michael Keaton was considered a non entity in Hollywood until Birdman (2014), yet is so good in his role in this film. It is fair to say that Keaton carries this film with his salesman charm.

Rays luck seems to be about to change when he receives word that a diner in California has ordered six machines, which he immediately assumes to be a mistake. Once he realises it isn't Ray makes the around 1800 mile drive (according to Google) to find the restaurant and witnesses something he has never experienced, fast food and good service eventually referred to as the "speedy system". Kroc is at this point basically desperate, and so when he sees this he goes all out to be part of it. What the film doesn't show is that this wasn't the first food establishment Kroc tried to get into as he had attempted the non-hostile takeover plan before. A lot of his character is revealed through not so subtle hints that sound off alarm bells. One such instance of this is Kroc skimming the contract presented to him going over pages in seconds. This becomes pertinent later on as Ray states that "contracts are like hearts, made to be broken" but you already knew his mindset at the time. The one thing that remains consistent about Ray Kroc from when he is penniless to when he is rich, he always goes for what he wants regardless of who has it and what the moral restrictions are. This means that despite our change in the perception of his character, he never actually changes himself which is a well written development. He is the same man, but we see him differently as events progress.

The McDonald brothers are played by John Carroll Lynch and Nick Offerman who both do brilliantly with what is on the page but portray the brothers very narrowly at times. This is not an issue with Offerman or Lynch but more to do with the films writing which offers an increasingly brief insight
into the two. I especially liked the scene early on where Mac (Lynch) and Dick (Offerman) are telling their story so far to Kroc. The scene is mostly presented through flashbacks that are charming and believable, and they make you like the brothers from the start. One sequence in particular really made me smile as Dick draws the outline for the not yet finished kitchen in chalk on a tennis court has has his staff spend six hours practicing efficient service while he rearranged the imaginary work station to help maximise output. This was unlike anything I have seen before and it felt eccentric but not far fetched. As the film goes on we see less and less of Dick and Mac, and at points they are only there to say no to Kroc's ideas whether good or bad. They remain true to their principles and are unwilling to budge believing that Kroc will have to live with their decisions. In the end the impression we are given is that they were naive and perhaps a little soft in protecting their business and family name but as I said before this is more due to the writing of the script than the mostly warm and sympathetic performances by Offerman and Lynch.

Another thing I liked throughout the film was the music by Carter Burwell. It seems to match Kroc at all times, it is upbeat and energetic when he is and low and dreary when he is also. It picks up for example when Ethel Kroc shows her support for him and has a sense of exploration about it. Kroc is after all expending West to make his fortune so this feels appropriate and brings you along for the ride, making you feel the way Ray feels in any given moment rather than having us passively experience Rays journey. This feeling of sunny optimism is also backed by beautifully coloured scenes, particularly outdoors. The reds and yellows of McDonalds and the sunny blue California skies notable in the early scenes for the film when Kroc is discovering the Brothers' diner are reminiscent to me of Director John Lee Hancock's last film Saving Mr. Banks. (2013), with which there are many similarities with The Founder. What came to mind especially was the scene of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) giving P.L Travers (Emma Thompson) a tour of Disneyland, as well as many of the exterior shots of the Disney studios. In that film I took this to be a representation of Disney magic brought out by glorifying light and colour, and similarly in The Founder I interpreted its use as shining optimism of its lead character pouring trough the screen.

The score and setting of this film might not be out of place in a western at times which was perhaps helped by the 1950's decor of the film. A great deal of this had to recreated from scratch with McDonalds locations having to be built in car parks and other areas that wouldn't clash with the time
period. This again reminded me of Saving Mr. Banks and the recreations of 1960's Disneyland used in that film. Both are set in a similar time period with the events of The Founder taking place a few years earlier, so Hancock and his set designer on both films Susan Benjamin had great experience in recreating the style. The real life Ray Kroc and Walt Disney knew each other so I liked the subtle connection between the two films here. The film ends with photos and interview clips that help to lend authenticity to the film which is a trick also employed by Hancock in Saving Mr. Banks. While in many ways completely different the two are similar in that Tom Hanks' Walt Disney and Michael Keaton's Ray Kroc both exude charisma and passion for their own quests. They are both pursuing something relentlessly, and they are both strong performances that carry their films, more so in Keaton's case. I'm hoping John Lee Hancock continues this trend and focuses his next project on Col. Sanders or the Michelin Man.

While the McDonalds brand was never going to be shown in any negative light, it is also not pandered to or shoved down the viewers throat. The story is heavily focused on the changing relationship between Kroc and the McDonalds brothers mainly from Kroc's side, and the brand is prominent but is still very much a setting and a historical context above all else. One exception to this is a speech Kroc gives comparing Dicks 'golden arches' design for restaurants to the flag on a courthouse or the spire of Churches, claiming that McDonalds could become the "new American Church". It is important to note the context of this line though as the point Kroc is trying to make a deal and of course he is going to glorify his subject. For those of you scared of clowns don't worry, Ronald makes no appearance either.

In the following days after I saw The Founder I later learned that much of the film was written based on Ray Kroc's own autobiography. Knowing this made everything come together, because while being presented from a third person perspective the film is very much Krocs version of events. Unlike Krocs empire however he himself doesn't escape the film with his reputation unscathed. I noted before that the one thing that doesn't change about Ray is that he relentlessly goes after what he wants regardless of who has it. This is not limited strictly to business but refers to his second wife Joan Smith (Linda Cardellini) who is introduced as the wife of one of Rays franchisees and Ray is enamoured by immediately, like Pepe Le Pew whenever he sees the girl skunk. Her introduction signposts the beginning of a colder more ruthless Ray Kroc, and one that while the same character fundamentally is more driven and will go after what he wants regardless of who it will hurt.

I mentioned the the start of this review that I was interested in the timing of this films release, given that it seemed to coincide with trumps inauguration. I wondered what the films tone would be like in light of this. In reality the script was on the Hollywood blacklist of unmade but worthy projects for a few years, and the films original release date was this past Summer which was moved to January in hopes of Oscar nominations (it received none). The Founder in the end felt like a slightly baffling misstep for our modern times. Today where corporate greed and corruption are more public knowlege than ever, and a certain business tycoon currently holds the keys to the kingdom I had expected something totally different to what The Founder presented. Something a little more biting and judgemental, maybe even an antidote, but what we got was basically an advert for all of the above. Once the film had sunk in I felt like I had watched a shiny happy promotional film where the plot is basically big business over the little guy, which didn't seem appropriate for what is going on in the world these days. If The Founder had a bit more of a satirical edge to it then it would maybe have remedied this but while I enjoyed the presentation and performances I couldn't help but be disappointed by the films message and overall tone. I later discovered that Joel and Ethan Coen were interested in making this film but couldn't due to clashing schedules with Hail, Caesar! (2016), which while I like John Lee Hancock, I can't help but think would have made for a totally different and perhaps better film. The Founder is saccharine, but leaves a bitter taste.


Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Fifty Shades of Grey Review

It's Valentines Day and I'm alone again so fuck it, why not review Fifty Shades of Grey. I remember when the books had a softcore porn aura around them and I remember the buzz they got despite starting life as Twilight fan fiction (maybe I'll review those next year). I also remember the hype around this film before it was released, and the 'came too soon' nature of its reception.

Anastasia Steele (lol) begins the film about to interview the gaudily introduced Christian Grey. She is greeted by his young female mostly blonde staff and enters his office by falling down with a wide eyed look presenting unnecessary foreboding. I have used the term 'subtlety of a sledgehammer' in previous reviews but this entire film has the subtlety of a bulldozer plowing through a greenhouse. In a way though this is fine as you have to know what you're getting into by now. Ms Steele is immediately portrayed as submissive and needy and the scene with her first meeting with Grey is frustratingly foreboding. I felt like a better writer could have improved this scene, but E.L James enforced her will and the dialogue especially suffers from that.

When Grey offers Steele an internship her reaction is "I don't think I'd fit in here, look at me..." This screams of desperation, the kind that introduces us to the setting but has no connection to the real world. The films dialogue in general feels like it was written by a teenager who thought his wet dream would make a good movie and now has to build a story around it. When Grey arrives at the hardware store (whey hey) where Steele works for comedic value asking for tie wraps and masking tape I laughed, a lot. Her line that he is now the "complete serial killer" put the exclamation point on it. These things based on the score underneath are supposed to build tension but are instead hilarious. Thats not a good sign when you're only ten minutes in and already finding the film overdramatic and funny rather than tense. At this point I'm going to stop recounting every case of terrible dialogue because if I didn't this review would be 47 pages long. Every line seems to indicate something that a better writer could have implied. The non-disclosure agreement for example that Steele signs without questioning baffled me, and at this point the film leaves reality and delves into sexual fantasy completely.  The film feels like it was written by a thirteen year old boy. It wasn't, but the characters lack both emotional maturity and rational thought and act purely on basic instincts. At times it feels like a sex scene is parachuted in because we haven't had one in a while. While other reviews have I can't fully blame E.L James' for this as screenwriter Kelly Marcel who worked on Saving Mr. Banks didn't exactly show any sense of restraint in that film either (cheap plug for my review of that film). Much of the drama of this film could have come from Steeles' hesitancy to sign Greys contract, but this is often times ignored in favour of a tantalising visual display leaving no need for a contract to begin with, and the idea is basically neglected by the end of the film.

One thing I can praise the film for is engrossing me in its world with great set design and presentation. Greys apartment feels authentic and appropriate as do all the other locations used. Nobody can deny the film isn't shot well either as there are some beautiful lighting and colour choices throughout. I particularly liked the business meeting scene halfway through where Grey and Steele are at opposite ends of the boardroom table almost in silhouette with a sunset-like gradient behind them. The sex scenes mostly feel "artistically shot" and not cheap and gaudy. The director Sam Taylor-Johnson and DOP Seamus McGarvey deserves a medal for this as their work is stellar despite their limitations.

While there are a fair few supporting characters who are mainly there to offer opinions while remaining oblivious to whats actually going on, the only performances worth noting are Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele and Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey. Johnson has a sense of vulnerability about her at all times that is appropriate to her character. Given how notoriously awkward sex scenes are known to be the ones in this film can't have been easy, but Johnson does them believably and appealingly. Dornan as Grey does also but has a more challenging job as he has to contend with the majority of the lousy writing and has to explain the concept of the plot in an often wooden and forced way. He isn't quite as believable as his co-star given his robotic nature but this was intended to be part of the character, and Dornan does well given his restrictions. Grey for the most part comes across as emotionally vacant in a way that no real person would but that is more an issue with the material he is given. These two were relatively unknown at the time of casting and that was perhaps the best decision, as they inhabit the characters better than well known stars would. It will be interesting to see in the upcoming years if Johnson and Dornan struggle to find roles without being typecast given that this film is their most well known.

Given the terrible dialogue throughout its almost as if you could watch this film on mute, make up your own dialogue and it would be a masterpiece. Almost every line is cringeworthy, but porn was never known for its character development, and what we are watching is basically a highly evolved version of the stereotypical porn tropes with a messed up male character and a disturbingly obedient female lead. Fifty shades of Grey could have been far worse but it is by no means a bad film. Its visuals and performance carry it, but don't except writing better than you'll find in the adult section of the TV guide.