Change Your Image
garyprosser1
Reviews
Escaping Twin Flames (2023)
Sigh
I don't know why I watch these things, I really don't. I get suckered in by what could be an interesting story, only for it to manifest into the same old story: terrible people manipulate insecure people, control them and take all their money.
What got me with this one though, as others have said, is just how completely uncharismatic and bewildering transparent the two leaders are here. They have all the appeal and charisma of some snot in a jar and yet they took people in. How?
Also, I'd be no use to a cult leader because I don't have the money they need. Time and again with these shows, people talk about losing £20k, £30k, £50k! I'd be shown the door as soon as they knew I couldn't/wouldn't stump up the first £100.
Im not heartless; I do feel for the people in this show who were taken in by the charlatans who run this cult. I just don't understand how anyone ever could be taken in by such blatantly odious characters who barely stop short of admitting that they're crooks.
PS, if you like the sound of people trying to talk while crying, this show will be manna from heaven for you.
The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker (2023)
Not what I was expecting. At all.
I put this on expecting your run-of-the-mill Netflix documentary about a crazed killer who hitched lifts and killed the good Samaritans who picked him up. What I found instead was a bizarre story of new-found instant celebrity, of the media building up someone who didn't go looking for fame, wasn't ready when fame found him and couldn't cope.
Would Kai have ended up where he did if he'd never been in the spotlight? That's something we'll never know but as the program wears on, one gets the feeling that this is a guy who had been through a lot in his life, who had known instability of various kinds (both personal and situational), and who couldn't cope with the way his life went. How this manifested, no-one could have foreseen.
THWH is unlike any story you or I have ever heard and is at various times funny, sad and shocking. It's a well made doc that fully deserves an hour or so of your time.
Oasis Knebworth 1996 (2021)
Era defining is right.
This is what people who don't like Oasis will never understand. Sure, there are technically better bands and there are more competent lyricists, stronger vocalists, better singers and more proficient musicians but what that band MEANT to people, well, that can't be bought or taught.
Oasis were a band of the people, for the people. For two nights to still resonate so strongly 25 years later that a film is made about them says it all. It wasn't about gimmicks, pyrotechnic light shows, 360 degree revolving stages, pyramids, dancers and 40 costume changes. It was about 250,000 people forgetting their troubles, forgetting themselves and singing along to every word as five lads from a council estate lived the dreams of every single member of the audience and millions more around the world.
My fear is that such a musical moment may never happen again. The world has changed; the optimism of the 90's has given way to fear, mistrust and falsehoods. Films like this are a welcome reminder that society used to be so much more cohesive and maybe, just maybe, we can get back there.
Missing 411: The Hunted (2019)
Engrossing
I'm watching this for the second time and if you like mysteries, the creeps and the outdoors, you'll like this. This documentary focuses on stories of hunters who have vanished without trace while out on legal hunts and some will be thinking "well, if they weren't out there shooting animals, they wouldn't have gone missing". Well, there's certainly validity to that argument but leaving that aside, the manners in which these people just vanished are very strange indeed.
For once, here's an American documentary series (there are other Missing 411 docs on Prime) that doesn't rely on relentless recaps, overly dramatic talking heads and intrusive music. What it has are the facts, presented via personal testimonies from those who were there, all set against stunning landscapes that are at once beautiful and frightening in their size and wildness.
For me though, the highlight is the section where footage is played of the eerie, creepy-as-hell sounds recorded by two hunters one night, out in the wilds. Really gets the hair on the back of the neck standing up because, I think, it taps into our primal fears of the unknown, what's out there and what dangers it presents.
Highly recommended.
The Harvest (2013)
Samantha Morton is truly chilling.
Thought this was going to be a supernatural thriller but it was all too human a portrayal of a very strange family set-up.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
The film centres on Andy, a young boy who is wheelchair bound and kept at home by his seemingly overprotective parents. He has no friends and doesn't see the world outside his house while his doctor mother cares for him. When Maryann, a teenage girl of the same age, moves to town and visits the house, they form a friendship but it's one that is swiftly and sternly forbidden by Andy's mother, Katherine.
This is the first true sign we get that all is not well with Katherine (played by the incomparably brilliant Samantha Morton). It becomes apparent that perhaps she is keeping Andy unwell and while the name 'Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy' isn't mentioned in the film, this appears to be the crux of Katherine's psychosis (and, to a much lesser extent, Andy's insular father Richard).
Undeterred by her being banned from visiting, Maryann continues to sneak in and out of the house in her efforts to get Andy doing normal childhood things and in doing so, discovers a secret being kept by Katherine and Richard that is yet more sinister than what they're doing to Andy.
This is one aspect of the film that is rather frustrating. The refusal of anyone to believe Maryann about what she's discovered, coupled with her inaction (maybe go to the police?!?) is baffling but one has to allow films to exercise poetic licence, I guess. However, frustrating as it is, it does add to the suspense and the sense of dread; two things this film does very well.
Charlie Tahan is very good as Andy but the undoubted star of the film is Samantha Morton who is genuinely chilling as the increasingly unhinged Katherine. Watching her, I was put in mind of those iconic, sinister, cinematic caregivers Nurse Ratched, Annie Wilkes and, to a lesser extent, Eddie's Mum in 'It'. The idea of the caregiver being the source of the suffering is one that we can all agree is a scary proposition.
The look in Katherine's eyes at times are so cold and disturbing and that is acting that can't be taught. This would be an okay film if left to just the script and the premise but it is Samantha Morton that makes this a very good film. In Katherine, she has created a truly memorable movie monster.
You'll find this one on Prime under the name 'Can't Come Out To Play'. Not sure why the film's name changed but there we are.
7.5/10
Arctic (2018)
A film that makes you feel colder and your house feel warmer
SPOILERS AHEAD
We join 'Arctic' after Mads Mikkelsen's 'Overgård' has crash landed his plane in the frozen North and having survived, is awaiting rescue. This arrives in the form of helicopter pilot Maria Thelma Smáradóttir (character unnamed) whose craft also succumbs to Nature's fury as she attempts to land. Overgård races to her downed helicopter to find her clinging to life and brings her back to the plane fuselage he calls home.
The rest of the film focuses on Overgård's decision to try and get himself and his almost permanently unconscious, silent companion to safety by trekking across the frozen tundra. The two are literally the only characters on screen for the whole film and that's a good call in my book. With films like this, we don't always need to see the build up, the leaving behind of civilisation, the aftermath. Survival films are about isolation, suffering, determination and the battle of Human vs Nature so let's focus on those elements. 'Arctic' does this and does it well.
You could write the entire film's dialogue on the back of a stamp but it never gets boring because this is a film about struggle and about primal instincts that pre-date language. There's something about survival films that speaks to something deep within us, asking if we could survive against all the odds, fighting everything Nature can throw at us with just our ingenuity and reserves of strength.
'Arctic' is a very decent film that succeeds in that most basic of requirements of a survival film: you really want the characters to make it out alive. It also carries on a rich tradition of survival films that are imaginatively named for the place where the action takes place (off the top of my head: 'Everest', 'Jungle', 'Open Water', 'Into The Wild'.
7.5/10, well worth a watch.
American Beauty (1999)
Written whilst drunk 😳
American Beauty: A Review.
So, there are a hundred reasons why I adore this film. Too many to list, especially after numerous White Russians, but I'll try.
Firstly, this film was made and released at exactly the right time in my life for it to land with me. I was 16 when this movie came out and when I saw it, emotions and hormones were raging. My parents had split up again and so I empathised with Janie, the teenage product of a broken home. I was lost and confused but as a man who wanted to be his own man, I empathised with Lester.
However, I also empathised with Carolyn because of how Mum was and I also wanted to be Ricky Fitts, the dope-dealing neighbour who seemed so sure of himself.
So, straight off the bat, this is a film where I see myself in four major characters. But it goes further and further.
Lester is lost. He hates his job, he hates his home life, he hates his family. Now, at 16, I didn't hate all of those things. My family were (and are) no more or less dysfunctional than any other but they were (and are) solid and my home life was always one that was supportive and caring. It's not even like I hated my job. Yeah, Tesco sucked but every subsequent job was great. No, this film just tapped into what it was like to be a teenager without ever forensically delving into the minutiae of that time of life.
And yet, there are so many more layers because this isn't just a film about being a teenager. Nowhere near. It's about being a teen, a middle aged man, a middle aged woman, a person of limited neurological means, a spent force. Every character is so well rounded and developed within the first half hour that I feel like I've known them all my life.
The teenagers: Ricky, the elusive and enigmatic stoner; Janie, the lovestruck and lonely, insecure girl; Angela, the Lolita and the 'perfect' cheerleader;
The adults: Carolyn, the unhappy housewife; Frank, the Marine living on former glories; Barbara, the wife living completely within herself.
Between these six characters does the world of the film exist. That such fully-formed, rounded personalities could be established within such a short time is a testament to the script of Alan Ball and the direction of Sam Mendes. Every time I watch this film, I'm blown away by the subtlety of what we're seeing.
It's such an easy premise to get wrong. In the wrong hands, Lester could be portrayed as a Humbert Humbert-style pervert rather than a man who is unhappy and looking to reclaim a lost youth. That he realises this himself (and holds back) is quite right and just; it also does much to reinforce his character as a man who just wants to be happy but won't obtrusively hurt others to get there. Even when he's questioned about his reluctance to act upon his urges, he's just in how he reacts. He IS the hero of this film.
He's not alone though. Besides one (purposefully) flawed character, everyone here is a hero(ine) because any pros or cons they display are innately human. That's why I love this film: it may well be set in an unnaturally perfect, white-picket-fence suburban American ideal but the characters are so relatable. Whether you're 16, 36 or 60, you can find kindred spirits and if you're in tune with your whole life, you'll find all of them.
It goes on. The cinematography on display here is spectacular; Howard Atherton's Oscar-winning attention to detail is exquisite. From early on, the colour red (passion, danger, death) takes centre stage. Doors, roses, bricks, blood; time and again, red is at the very centre of the screen and each time, it isn't an accident. It is there to inform our emotional response, to lead us towards the reaction the film-maker wants us to reach. Passion, danger and death are present; it's only a matter of time before they rear their heads.
And then we come to the music. You'll know the works of Thomas Newman even if you don't know you know. Skyfall, 1917, Finding Nemo, The Shawshank Redemption and many more; his style is quite unique. Here, though, he excels himself. The use of strange, ethnic and popularly unfamiliar instruments such as Marimbas, metal bowls, saz and ewi (among many others) gives an alien and unworldly feel to what should be (even to us Brits) a perfectly familiar world: that of suburban America.
Time and again, the music doesn't just inform our emotional response, it drags us there. The emotional moments are handled with breathtaking dexterity; the tense moments barrel us along; the needle drops, when required, are perfectly judged. Most importantly though, the music doesn't have to enforce our emotional responses; it merely reinforces them. If the subject matter can't inform how you react, no amount of pertinent music can make up for that. It can only enhance how you feel, assuming the story is strong enough to begin with.
I could go on all night about how wonderful 'American Beauty' is. I could talk at length about how I was 15 when I found it and how, like Lester, I just wanted to be happy. Unlike him, I didnt pay the ultimate price in my pursuit but then, I never found the love that Ricky and Janie did, I never had the drive that Carolyn did, the local prestige that Angela did, the aggression that Frank did or the isolation that Barbara did. And yet, I see bits of me in all of them and for a movie to convey that much in two hours is only a product of imperious writing.
'American Beauty' won many awards but it didn't win enough. For me, as a piece of cinema, it is an exquisite, 10 out of 10 movie that leaves one at the end with questions, answers and emotional responses that put it far behind most films and certainly beyond any film I've seen in the last 22 years. I've laughed and cried (on numerous occasions) watching it and I don't think that will change.
My greatest compliment is this: I only watch it once every two years or so because I never want to run the risk of tiring of it. Not that I think I ever could.
Da 5 Bloods (2020)
An important message but a flawed delivery
Spike Lee's latest effort sees four Vietnam veterans returning to the country where they fought as much younger men in order to recover two things they were forced to leave behind. That's the basic premise but along the way, we see that there are three wars involved in Da 5 Bloods, one of which ended in 1975. The other two are being fought to this day by millions of people the world over, with no sign of a ceasefire.
As you might expect, Lee's latest effort focuses heavily on the ongoing fight for racial equality. This is war #2 and Lee utilises his almost-trademark style of using narrative to educate the audience. Through the film's dialogue, the characters refer to icons of the Black Power movement, some of whom are household names, some of whom are not. It's effective and it's a reminder that for too many people, the wars they fight at home last longer and have more riding on the outcome than the wars they are conscripted to fight.
War is hell, and never more so when one is at war with themselves. Each of the main cast was naturally and deeply affected by what they went through and what they saw when they were enlisted but it is Paul (played by Delroy Lindo) who most viscerally carries the emotional scars and continues to wage war against the ghosts of his past. PTSD always far outlasts the events that originally instilled it and long after the guns fall silent or the event concludes, whatever that event may be, the horrors remain.
Lindo is far and away the most engaging character in this film and to be honest, his is the only memorable character in this film. Lee's script gives Lindo so much to do and so much to say and he is more than up to the task. The rest of the cast offer very little but that isn't their fault. That's the fault of the script.
And here's why this film only gets a 6: the script is poor. Really poor, in places. The dialogue is hammy and cliched while certain characters seem completely unnecessary (most of them, in fact). I was more than happy to go along with what is a pretty far-fetched storyline at times but there were times where I just couldn't take the story seriously because of the amateurish script.
All too often, the characters sound like the words they are saying have been written for them to say; good scripts make you forget this basic truth, bad scripts don't. Alas, this script is in the latter category and sadly, you have 156 minutes of clunky dialogue to deal with. The cast do what they can with the words they are given but the voice is only as good as the words it is given to sing.
It's not, however, a bad film. The stars of this movie are Lindo, the awesome soundtrack and the stunning country of Vietnam. The messages the film extols are important too and well worth making again and again. Da 5 Bloods may suffer from the way it delivers these messages but what I took from it is that most wars aren't fought between nations; they're fought at home, between neighbours and they're fought in the mind.
6/10
22 July (2018)
An important piece of cinema
Remembers well the events of July 22nd 2011. The utter horror and revulsion felt by right thinking people that day and in the weeks, months and years that followed were widespread and yet somehow, as time moves forward and takes us with it, even the most horrendous acts can start to fade from memory, leaving only those who were directly affected to soldier on in sufferance.
For that reason, I feel that, done right, films such as this that cover unspeakable atrocities and the effects of those involved are of critical importance. There are certain tragedies that are so entrenched in the collective consciousness that they will never be forgotten. Pretty much everyone knows what year 9/11 took place and when the two World Wars began and ended and yet there are so many grotesque events that people might struggle with. When did Dunblane occur? Or Columbine? Or the Paris attacks, the Tokyo Subway attacks or even 7/7 in London?
Paul Greengrass, who previously directed the astonishingly powerful United 93, is a director who has a firm grip on how to approach subject matter that we may feel like turning away from but that we mustn't ignore. In '22 July', he only devotes as much time as is necessary to the terrorist attack itself, never glorifying or giving too Hollywood a sheen to what was nothing less than cold-blooded mass murder, perpetrated by one warped individual, based on a flawed and vile ideaology.
It would be all too easy to make such a film centred solely on the killer and while he, of course, is prevalent throughout (having surrendered so he could spread his message), this film focuses on those that died so needlessly and, most movingly, on the survivors and the battles they faced and still face as they come to terms with what they went through.
This is also a film about a country healing. When such an act of barbarism occurs, it isn't just those who were there and who were literally in the firing line who suffer and struggle to know how to move forward. From top to bottom, society as a whole faces the same challenges. We see the responses of the government, the police, of parents and medical staff. We see how those that were there but physically unhurt cope with the guilt of just being alive. We see just how people change; the bullet fragments may be removed and the legs might regain their strength but the mental battle is one that may never stop being fought.
As with United 93, Hotel Mumbai and any film covering a real life terrorist attack, great care must be taken to ensure that the killers aren't glorified, the events aren't cheapened by poor direction, the story is told as it should be and that the overall message is loud and clear: terrorism cannot and will not win.
There is no one archetypal terrorist; they and their intended targets come from all races, colours and creeds. They will posit different goals and have varying reasons for doing what they do. They will wave flags of any given nation or faction and do so for any one of a thousand different reasons. They may do their bidding for personal reasons or for a common cause, willingly or unwillingly and lest we forget that while they may come from far overseas, they could just as easily be the quiet, unobtrusive guy next door of whom no-one saw it coming.
'22 July' is on Netflix and I implore you to give it a go. The opening half hour or so is not an easy watch and noe is it intended to be but by the end, as is the case in life when such acts befall us, the green shoots of hope and recovery break through and start to grow just as they always have and always will because good will always be stronger than evil.
8.5/10
Joker (2019)
Troubling, dark, engrossing
Was never into the whole comic book thing (the last Batman I saw was played by Michael Keaton) but this film was sold to me on the basis that it's more a portrayal of one man's descent into madness than a CGI-fuelled superhero adventure.
Comparisons with Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy certainly helped (not to mention the presence of the star of both of those films, Robert De Niro), as well as the leading man, an actor of whom I'm quickly becoming a devoted fan, Joaquin Phoenix. With all this considered, I armed myself with the extremely scant knowledge of the Batman universe that I possess and off to the pictures I went.
Well, what I and the packed cinema saw was an acting tour de force. I never saw Heath Ledger's legendary portrayal of the titular character but I really don't know how it can beat Phoenix's portrayal here. Admittedly, I think I'm right in saying that Ledger portrayed Joker whereas for most of this film, Phoenix is portraying Arthur Fleck and perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much. There's no denying that Joker is an intensely interesting character but for me, seeing the human behind the face-paint and his tumultuous unravelling is far more fascinating than the monster he becomes.
Much has been made of how dark this film is and that is certainly true; how it is a 15 certificate is more a sign of the times than anything because this film pulls no punches. The violence is, at times, extremely graphic and the portrayal of a man so troubled is often deeply unsettling. All of which, set against a relentlessly grim Gotham backdrop, is utterly necessary to give the film the atmosphere and the feel it requires but I did wonder how this film will sit in a franchise that, while not explicitly aimed at kids, nevertheless appeals to younger audiences the way Batman always has. 'The Dark Knight Rises' was a 12A; Joker should really be an 18 and trust me, you really don't want to be taking your kids to see it if you want them to get a good night's sleep afterwards.
What isn't in any doubt is the extraordinary performance Joaquin Phoenix delivers in the title role. He has always been a very dependable actor and has given some incredible performances over the years ('Walk The Line' and 'You Were Never Really Here' to name but two) but here, one gets the sense that he is throwing absolutely everything he has at the role. As well as a physical transformation (he clearly lost an awful lot of weight to attain the skeletal physique required), Phoenix brings a manic intensity to the part that is, at times, hugely uncomfortable to watch but is never anything less than utterly fascinating and absorbing.
It is unnerving because even for someone like me who has such a flimsy knowledge of the Batman story, there is a strange contradiction in the sadness and pity felt for a character who one knows is going to become one of pop culture's great supervillains; a murderous madman who will come to thrive on anarchy, violence, death and destruction. For most of the film though, he isn't Joker, he is Arthur Fleck, a sympathetic character exposed to the violence, the mockery and the ostracisation that those on the edge of society suffer all too often. With what's thrown at him, it is no wonder that he eventually snaps and fights back in the most spectacular and public way.
I might have got even more from this film if I had any interest in the comic book world but it says a lot about Joker that I was able to watch this as a stand-alone film and leave the cinema utterly mesmerised by what I'd seen. Director Todd Phillips' vision aside though, all praise has to go to Phoenix for delivering such a pained, intense, visceral and thrilling performance. In lesser hands, it could have felt cheap and exploitative but not here. I can't say either way whether this is a sensitive portrayal of mental illness but then again, Arthur's specific condition isn't explicitly defined and also, this is a fictional character whose defining feature, his greatest weapon, is that he is "insane" (for want of a better word).
Already, there have been debates about whether or not the portrayal is healthy and there are arguments on both sides. I don't know for sure but if nothing else, some good will surely come from increasing the spotlight on what it means to suffer from mental illness. The film itself, while set in a fictional city in an undefined timeframe, does touch upon issues that are seemingly timeless.
The lack of funding or of proper care for those living with mental illness is explicitly referred to in the film and are highlighted as major factors in Arthur's continuing decline. The therapist who just repeats the same questions, the lack of funding for proper care, the constant mockery from those who don't understand; these are all daily battles waged by those living with mental illness. Of course, in reality, said sufferers very, very seldom reach a point whereby they turn violent (or indeed murderous) and wreak revenge on society. Their battle to be heard and to get proper care, however, is all too common.
This is just one debate that the film will ignite but great cinema always does that and for me, 'Joker' is great cinema with a performance at its heart that surely cannot go unrewarded when Awards Season comes around. Certain scenes will stay with you long after the credits have rolled, debates will be had, lines will be quoted and meaning will be attempted to be extracted from what the viewer has seen. THAT is what only great cinema provides.
8.5/10
The Clovehitch Killer (2018)
A decent watch.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
I gave this a go after being recommended it by a friend and after watching 'Extremely Wicked...' and 'My Friend Dahmer' the night before, it seemed fitting to round off the weekend with one more serial killer film.
The premise of the monster in plain sight is hardly a new one but what The Clovehitch Killer gets right is the sheer normality of the monster in question here. Don is a normal, loving, God-fearing, Scout leader Dad who hides a despicable side to his psyche; one that manifests itself through his propensity for murder but one that has always remained hidden to the world. In this respect, the film gets it right; here is a man to be trusted by all who know him but who is anything but trustworthy.
What it gets slightly wrong is that when Don finally reveals his true, horrendous colours (long suspected by his son) via his actions, the evil of his character isn't quite realised. Even in the very act of murder, the monster that the film promised isn't fully delivered. This guy is pure evil, sure, but I didn't celebrate his downfall the way I should have. Ultimately, I didn't care enough about him getting caught and I wasn't suitably moved by his son's act of redemption to feel like the film had done its job.
The Clovehitch Killer is well scripted and written, thoughtfully portrayed and realistically acted. All the required pieces seem to be there to make a fine film but somehow, it falls short. This is a good movie and it's worth a watch but something is missing. Something needs to tie the film together and it isn't there. Maybe a clovehitch knot would do the trick.
My Friend Dahmer (2017)
A Prequel To A Monster
Was intrigued about the idea of a film about one of the most notorious serial killers in modern times that is set before he embarked on the murders that made him infamous. In that respect, it's similar to this year's 'Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil And Vile', the Ted Bundy biopic that focuses not on the murders Ted committed but on his relationship with his long time girlfriend and the trial that followed his final arrest. And like 'Extremely Wicked...', 'My Friend Dahmer' mostly succeeds.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
It probably is important, however, to know something about Jeffrey Dahmer's later life in order to fully appreciate this film. If you're unaware of the monster he will become, it may well be that Ross Lynch's portrayal of a teenage Jeffrey will be lost on you. Without prior knowledge of his crimes, this is a film about a gawky, awkward, socially inept High School kid struggling to fit in, to interact with his peers, to fathom who he is. Of course, there are a thousand million teenagers who have fit this bill over the decades but very few have gone on to kill 17 people and that's what makes this film so chilling.
The FBI has a ticklist of traits that they use (or, at least, used to) when profiling serial killers. In this film, we see a number of these traits burgeoning within (and directly affecting the character of) Jeffrey; a dysfunctional home, social isolation and awkwardness, animal abuse, alcohol abuse, a preoccupation with death, confusion about sexuality, a desire to fit in and more.
Having been befriended by three guys (who may well have started out seeing him as a figure of fun but do come to like him), Jeffrey briefly feels a sense of belonging. He acts out to entertain his new friends, joins school groups to fit in and even asks a girl to the prom. It's a very human trait to want to be liked but when his unusual manner starts to push those same people away, Jeffrey struggles to accept this and begins to turn even further inwards emotionally.
The film documents his slow decline into the mindset that would make him a serial killer, hinting at what is to come but always holding back from showing it. At the end of the film, we see him pick up hitchhiker Steven Hicks, a young man who would be immortalised as Dahmer's first victim. The film ends here with the accompanying text informing us that Hicks went back to Dahmer's and was never seen again.
At this point, the uninformed viewer would look back at the references to animal torture, Jeffrey's increased alcohol dependency, the scenes where he is stopping just short of violence and other clues that point to what was to come and realise that what they had just watched was the genesis of a murderer in the making. For those who watch this film already knowing what Jeffrey would go on to be, it's no less unsettling to see how his malevolence evolved. Perhaps it's more chilling when you know.
Jeffrey's life was one of being abandoned, either by those in whom he trusted or by those he drove away. In much the same way as Britain's Dennis Nilsen would do (coincidentally, starting in the very same year, 1978), Jeffrey killed because he didn't want his victims to leave him. As 'My Friend Dahmer' shows, murder was the only way Jeffrey had to ensure that he wasn't left alone.
7.5/10
Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing (2018)
Wonderful
Sometimes in life, all you need is half an hour of two incredibly funny men fishing, chatting, introspecting and making you laugh and that is what you get here. Gone Fishing is relaxing, beautiful on the eye, occasionally quite moving and, above all, just funny. It's a show I could watch again and again.
American Made (2017)
Pure entertainment.
I love films like this. Pure, unadulterated excess from start to finish and the fact remains that such films are usually based on true stories. For every ten million people who work dead end jobs, live from payslip to payslip and have modest ambitions, there are guys like Barry Seal.
Spoilers Ahead!
Guys who are offered an opportunity, grab the bull by the horns and end up smuggling drugs and people into the USA whilst smuggling weapons into Nicaragua, all whilst doing deals with the Colombians, evading the DEA and FBI and laundering more money than there is in Silicon Valley. Guys who are in bed with the CIA, Noriega, Escobar and everybody else. Guys who go from a modest salary to monopolising the local bank's main vault just for their money because they've run out of places to store it in their mansion.
Okay, so Hollywood takes liberties with the truth for artistic licence and while this film really takes liberties, having read American Desperado and other books about the Medellin Cartel, Barry Seal's life is well documented and every bit as crazy as the film makes out. With such people, one wonders how the hell they survive day to day but eventually, everyone's luck runs out. Even if you do dodge 30 years in prison to work for the White House.
American Made is gloriously excessive, brilliant fun and wildly entertaining. There's no complicated plot, subtext or layers of meaning to unravel; sometimes, all you need from a film is good old fashioned escapism and an insight into the life of a man who ended up getting community service when he was hoping, nay, praying for prison. For his own good.
8/10
The Mountain Between Us (2017)
Promises much but left me cold.
I gave it a go, I can say that. I held up my part of the bargain but sadly, this film didn't. Is it a survival film? Sort of. Is it a love story? It thinks it is. Is it any good? Not really.
Spoilers Ahead!
With two heavyweight talents like Winslet and Elba, you'd think you'd be in for a cracker but from the very outset, both stars are let down by a script that offers little in the way of depth, action or heart. Maybe films like The Revenant spoiled us but during the survival part (after the ludicrous plane crash when the pilot has a stroke), one never FEELS the hardship and the suffering Alex and Ben are enduring as they face life on a frozen mountain, hopelessly lost. It's never tense and it's never dramatic because at no point are you in any doubt at all that they'll make it out. It's not that kind of film and it doesn't pretend to be.
Don't forget, these two have just crashed into a mountain in an out of control plane and yet despite a few cuts and abrasions and one bad leg, they're fine. Okay, Alex is in worse shape but people have suffered more injuries on a drunken night out and besides, Ben is a surgeon (that's handy) and he can fix her without any equipment at all. He even stitches the dog up (cos it's sugary Hollywood and dogs can't die) with a needle and thread that came from nowhere (apparently, surgeons travel with all the kit). He's the manly hero, she's the fragile woman who keeps snooping on his phone when his back is turned to find out about his personal life. Cinema can do better than this.
All the while, Alex and Ben are chalk and cheese; two characters who clash at every turn. And then they fall in love. Of course they do. It's blatant from the bloody outset and the film makes no attempt to even try to pretend otherwise. There is no reason why they should fall in love; she is on her way to her own wedding when the plane crashes and he is mourning his wife.
They've only just met and yes, people can meet and fall in love at first sight but here, it's inexplicable. Would they have fallen in love if they were stuck in a lift or trapped on a Ferris wheel? Is it the situation that brings them not just closer but all the way to true love? If so, surely that would pass when they made it to safety but no, they stay in love despite the fact that neither has any redeeming qualities to speak of (again, blame the script).
If you want a great survival film, watch The Revenant, Alive, Jungle, Castaway, etc. If you want a love story, watch any other love story. If you want a film without drama, comedy, heart, suspense or anything else, watch this. I watched it because a) it's only on Now for 5 more days and b) Winslet and Elba are a formidable cast. Alas, I was left colder than they were.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
So clever, so different, so brilliant.
Finally got around to watching Birdman, not really knowing what to expect. From the synopsis, I wondered if this would be a superhero film in the Marvel/DC vein and those films, despite their huge audiences and rave reviews, just aren't my thing at all. I took a chance though and what I found was a film that is very good and a piece of cinema that is utterly brilliant.
Alejandro Inarritu had made some fantastic films prior to Birdman (including Babel and Amores Perros). He would then follow it up with The Revenant, a film that earned a first Oscar for Leo DiCaprio as well as Best Picture and Best Director for Inarritu. That made it two Best Director Oscars in a row for him because he won the same award for Birdman and upon watching it, it is easy to see why.
The film itself, as I say, is very good. Michael Keaton stars as Riggan Thomson, a somewhat washed up movie star who is writing, directing and putting on a play on Broadway. The play is beset with the kind of problems that probably affect a great many plays and all the while, Thomson's personal life is falling apart and there's the ongoing memory of the career he had that haunts him, not least by the voice (and appearance of his Birdman character and by the imagined superpowers that he once pretended to have.
His urge is to make real art, rather than succumb to the wishes of his agent, rekindle his superhero role (Birdman) and take the easy money. This has to be a bit of a dig at Hollywood's propensity to take less risks than it used to. Why gamble on something original and different when you can just churn out another blockbuster, sell a ton of merchandise and make another $2bn, regardless of whether or not that latest franchise piece is even any good?
The name, the characters and the actors will ensure that it's a box office sensation before anyone has even seen it because it conforms to a tried and trusted template. Riggan could be a part of that again but no, he wants to make art and in doing so, he risks losing absolutely everything.
Keaton is utterly fantastic but he's not alone. Every actor in this film is at the top of his or her game and they are working so hard and here's why: when I say that it's a very good film but a brilliant piece of cinema, perhaps I should explain what I mean.
It occurred to me early on and once it had, I was engrossed. Remember the single shot camerawork in Fight Club? Where the camera flies through a keyhole, swoops across the sky, through a window, down the barrel of a gun and into Edward Norton's mouth? David Fincher, Fight Club's director, also used this technique in Panic Room and Hitchcock was doing it in the 60's. Well, in Birdman, that same technique lasts for an hour and 45 minutes. We don't see a jump cut until the final 15 minutes of the film. The planning and direction, as well as the acting, that must go into composing such scenes and shots is only worthy of, well, the Best Director Oscar.
Seriously, I'm not an expert, but imagine this. An unbroken scene, moving from room to room, unfolding in real time over as much as twenty minutes or more. As the scene progresses, everyone must be in position, ready to deliver their lines, knowing that if they get it wrong or screw up, the last ten, fifteen, twenty minutes has been for nothing and they must all go again. They can't say "we'll cut it there and go from that last line" because the whole scene is in one unbroken take and therefore, the whole scene must be done again.
Apart from the aforementioned sequence of jump cuts near the end (which portrays a dream sequence), the whole film is one unbroken camera shot. Even when time is moved forward to present a new scene, clever editing or time lapse is used and the camera doesn't move. There are no cutaways, cuts, fades, dissolves, screen cards or blackouts. The actors have to learn and remember huge tracts of script and get it right first time. Just like a play. Technically, this must be incredibly difficult because Birdman is a film about a play, acted like a play but shot like a film.
Everyone here deserves full marks. The cast (Keaton, Emma Stone, the aforementioned Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Zack Galifianakis, everyone else), the crew (Emmanuel Lubezki also won an Oscar for Best Cinematography) and of course, the Director because Birdman is a compete triumph and an engrossing watch.
Inarritu himself described the idea of a full, single shot film as "almost suicidal" whilst remarking that he went with the idea because "we live our lives without editing" and that's what he wanted to convey. Boy, he really did too.
Birdman is an extraordinary film and one that I'd happily watch again and again. You should too.
9/10.
Dunkirk (2017)
Visceral and intoxicating.
Chose to rewatch Dunkirk tonight for two reasons. Firstly, it was the last day it was available on NowTV and secondly, I wanted to see if it transferred well to the small screen, having seen it in the cinema first time around. Well, for the most part, it does.
Christopher Nolan set out to make a film about the infamous withdrawal of troops that was as accurate as possible. Reading up on Dunkirk, it becomes clear that while historians and experts on the operation can and will find fault, many of these inaccuracies were either intentional in order to allow for artistic licence (the German plane liveries, the lack of real characters, etc), underplayed (the role of the RAF) or embellished (the role of the 'Home Fleet').
The latter of the three can be read two ways. The popular image is that thousands of pleasure boats, yachts, schooners, tugboats and rowing boats, skippered by civilians, crossed the Channel and brought everyone home. The reality is that just 5% of the more than 330,000 who were evacuated from Dunkirk came home in such vessels. Now, that shouldn't be sniffed at; we're still talking about more than 16,000 men who may otherwise have died on the beach in France.
To his eternal credit, Nolan recognises this fact and other inaccuracies. In interviews, he was at great pains to explain the need for a director to balance realism with dramatic narration and in this regard, I feel that he succeeds because Dunkirk is, for the greater part, a very accurate telling of those 9 days. It is also tremendously watchable, gripping and, though it feels like the wrong word, entertaining.
The tension throughout is palpable. At Dunkirk, the men were sitting ducks waiting to be rescued as the enemy closed in on land and in the sky. We, the viewers, feel this sense of ominous dread throughout, interspersed with moments of intense action, death, pain and hopelessness as the seemingly impossible task of evacuating so many men slowly grinds into action. We feel the desperation of soldiers who just want off that beach, to be away from the bullets, the bombs, the noise.
The noise. Dunkirk won Oscars for its sound design and sound mixing while it was also nominated for Hans Zimmer's score and rightly so. The audio is utterly integral to the film's sense of foreboding and dread and it never lets up. The screams of planes and men, the shuddering impact of the bombs, the stinging smack of bullets into metal and flesh; I vividly recall being in the cinema and wanting it to stop, praying for the noise to cease so I could think straight. Just imagine what the hell it was like being there at the time. Hell.
Similarly, the score adds layer upon oppressive layer to the cinematic experience. Zimmer provides the sweeping orchestral score that underpins all great war films whilst making inspired use of an audio effect known as The Shephard Scale. Google it for a full explanation but in essence, this is an illusory effect achieved by stacking several scales on top of each other, all rising in pitch at once. As the high notes drop away, the low notes replace them, tricking the listener into thinking that the music is constantly rising in pitch. The effect, especially when the sounds of war boom over the top, is incredibly unsettling and brilliant. There were reports at the time of cinema goers feeing nauseous and even throwing up just from the soundtrack. Cinema doesn't get more visceral than that.
Watching Dunkirk, one often feels like one is viewing everything through the eyes of a shell-shocked soldier. Dialogue is intentionally sparse (and sometimes feels a bit too corny, too 'Hollywood', when it arrives) and the action often feels like it's taking place over in the distance. That is until it roars up on the characters and the audience and suddenly, the fog of disorientation lifts and we are plunged straight back into the mayhem of trying to survive in dreadful circumstances.
No one character is the hero. This isn't one man's story but an obsessively considered and thoughtful retelling of the whole incredible saga that was Dunkirk. It is open to debate what would have happened if Dunkirk had failed but if it had, we would have had a very different war. At the time, the British Empire stood alone against the Nazis. America hadn't yet joined the war and Russia still had a peace treaty with Germany. Surrender at Dunkirk, with the loss of 200,000 British soldiers, would have put huge pressure on Churchill to make peace with Hitler. Would he have done so? We will never know but in the aftermath of the miracle of Dunkirk, Britain was galvanised and Churchill would go on to make his famous promise:
"... We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."
As a historical retelling, Dunkirk is mostly spot on. As a piece of cinema, it is quite brilliant and frequently overwhelming. As a chapter in history, the real Dunkirk spawned a million heroes whose story deserves to be told as well as Nolan has told it here.
8.5/10
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
What's In A Mind?
Didn't think I'd watched A Beautiful Mind. At first, I thought that maybe it seemed familiar because of its similar feel to the later films The Theory Of Everything and The Imitation Game. Misunderstood, awkward geniuses in elite institutions, struggling to find their place in society whilst engaged in a battle with their own brilliant (or, indeed, beautiful) minds; it's no wonder that I was drawn to this film because I've already seen and loved it.
Sadly and also fortuitously, I don't have a mind like John Mash's so I was able to watch this film with new eyes despite having seen it and it really is remarkable. Whether or not it is as true to life as the other two films I mentioned (both of which, while brilliant, deviate heavily from reality), I don't know. What I do know is that I'm clearly drawn to and fascinated by those whose brains are wired differently from those of mere mortals. Nash, Hawking, Turing, Curie, Lovelace, Weeks, Da Vinci; these people see the world so utterly differently and beautifully that I'm compelled to want to see what they see, even though I never, ever could.
Ron Howard won 4 Oscars for this film and it's easy to see why. Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly are exemplary in their roles as the Nash's and the film itself doesn't waste a scene as it tortures us and John with what is real and what is not. This is part biopic, part thriller, part mystery; all wrapped up in the mind of one remarkable brain. It is a blessing that John lived at a time where his conditions, to use a basic term, were at least attempted to be understood, albeit primitively, rather than him being locked away in a padded cell for the rest of his days.
Such minds change the world if they're allowed to. The person in question might never be able to understand themselves or the world they live in but if and when the light shines through and they unlock whatever is lurking in the recesses of their capabilities, beauty and magic are released and the way we all view things is altered.
Hawking's body let him down, the medical profession let Nash down and everybody let Turing down (look it up; it is a source of eternal national shame what happened to him after the war). Great geniuses are so often misunderstood and let down by those around them but we can only be grateful that these people's minds were allowed to shine so brilliantly and with such intensity for however long they did.
A Beautiful Mind is a beautiful film about a beautiful man. We mere mortals are so lucky that such insight comes along once in a blue moon, even if they themselves must suffer so much. I just wonder if it has to be that way. All minds are beautiful but some are painted with a greater palette of colours.
9/10
United 93 (2006)
Blistering cinema
The events of that sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001 need no introduction. As the cliche goes, everybody remembers where they were on 9/11 and thanks to a million documentaries, YouTube videos and opinion pieces, we all have a detailed knowledge of what happened. Or rather, we all have a detailed OPINION of what happened and how events unfolded. While many accept the official account of the day, still more are moved to question the words of officials.
Conspiracy theorists will tell you that the US Government were behind it, the CIA did it, President Bush sanctioned it; all to sway public opinion into backing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are literally hundreds of exposés online that point to 'evidence'; where are the remains of the plane that hit The Pentagon? Why didn't the military act sooner in getting planes airborne? What brought the twin towers down when they should have stayed standing? Some of the questions posed by the doubters are valid and worthy of real debate, others can be safely dismissed as groundless nonsense and tin foil hat worthy paranoia.
Where 'United 93' shines so brightly is that it doesn't ask any questions like this. It doesn't ask you to lean either way politically and it doesn't offer any opinions of its own as to the reasons for the atrocities. It focuses on the insurmountable truths of the day: that four planes, containing innocent people, didn't make it to their destination. What the viewer sees is an almost real time account of the doomed Flight 93, it's passengers and crew and those on the ground who attempted to make sense of the unprecedented events unfolding before their very eyes.
We see the very familiar scenes (if you've ever flown with an airline) of boarding, of finding your seat, of placing orders for food; the usual hubbub that is involved in any flight. The crew attend to the passengers while the pilots go through their pre-flight routine while elsewhere, air traffic controllers fulfil the almost superhuman role that they do everyday. It's all so normal and you feel like a fly on the wall, observing both the process of flying that you are so familiar with and all the behind the scenes activity that you are blissfully unaware of. If anyone stands out, it's four men of Arab appearance but they stand out because we already know who they are. That morning, they don't stand out at all because, acting calmly and normally as they are, there is no reason why they should.
And then, it all changes.
From the moment it becomes apparent that flight AA11 may have been hijacked, the film becomes something else entirely. All routine starts to evaporate as confusion creeps in; what happens here? Who is in charge? Who needs to know what's going on? Then, flight UA175 stops responding. What the hell is going on? At Air Traffic Control, organised chaos starts to take over. Many of those onscreen are actual ATC staff (who were there, in real life, on the day) playing themselves and this masterstroke piece of casting is key to how real the scenes feel. At no point do you feel like you're watching actors act. The dialogue is technical, ordinary and devoid of the flourishes of a scriptwriter. The restrained panic is keenly felt and is then intensified when it becomes apparent that all is not right with flights AA77 and UA93. "What is going on?", people ask in the same way we all did. Then, flight AA11 strikes the North Tower of The World Trade Centre and the film switches up again.
Okay, so I could dissect the whole film but it's best just to watch it. Director Paul Greengrass has produced a masterpiece of film-making here; I cannot remember the last time I was so tense whilst watching a movie. At times, it was unbearable despite the fact that you and I know what happened. Flight 93 was intended for the White House but it never got there because the passengers and crew fought back.
In this regard, Greengrass is using his imagination to depict what happened on that flight because, of course, nobody knows. We only have the mobile phone calls made by passengers to loved ones in their last moments to inform us that plans were being made to fight the hijackers. We don't have detailed accounts of what the passengers did but I didn't doubt even one thing that the film depicted. Ordinary men and women, sensing that they HAD to fight back to have any chance at all of survival? That's completely believable and the way the film had them go about it rang completely true. They did what you, I and anyone else would do when desperate times call for desperate measures.
For a film to convey such tension and drama when the audience already knows the outcome is a testament to the filmmakers. 9/11 outstripped anything Hollywood could have written but this film is very un-Hollywood. There are no rousing calls to arms, no overblown depictions of fantastical heroism, no cheesy soundbites. The music is used very sparingly but when it is, it is incredibly effective. We don't get to know the back stories of the passengers and crew. Referring again to the fly-on-the-wall feel, it is as if we are a fellow passenger (or ATC member of staff) and all we know of those around us is what we learn in the moment. Like so many who watched this film, I asked myself again and again what I would have done. Would I have got up there and fought? Would I have hidden away? Would I have suddenly felt the need to pray? I don't know. Who really does? You and I have never (and almost certainly will never) be in such a situation but United 93 gets us as close as is humanly possible to being right there.
At the end of the film, I exhaled out of sheer mental exhaustion at what I'd just seen. This film is extraordinary and not an easy watch but it's one I feel that you must see. You may well have done (seeing as it was released in 2006), in which case, watch it again. As a piece of cinema and for sheer emotional clout, it's the best film I've watched in a long time.
9.5/10
Weiner (2016)
The more you have to gain, the more you have to lose.
I was engrossed by this, a warts 'n' all fly-on-the-wall documentary following former Democratic senator Anthony Weiner's very public fall(s) from grace as he seeks to run for the office of New York mayor. It's a remarkable look at the machinations of the American political system, trial by media, human failings and the trappings of power as well as darker issues such as mental and spousal abuse, infidelity and the seedier side of the lives of those who are driven to hold public office.
At times, one is moved to wonder how anyone can cope with the searing, magnified pressure Anthony is under but that is swiftly tempered by the reality that he brought every aspect of it on himself. The glossy image, well chosen words and attempts to portray a wholesome family man fighting for the people are constantly undermined by his actions, his words and the fact that, ultimately, he is solely responsible for every one of the scandals he became embroiled in. His combative nature could, and should, have been a potent tool to fight for the rights of the ordinary voter but time and again, when faced with cold truths and allegations, that same fight only dropped him further into the mire.
Ultimately though, Weiner isn't the victim here. Huma, his wife, is the victim; publicly used (whether consciously or otherwise) to try and portray the happy family image that politicians (especially in the US) simply cannot do without if they are to take office. She is the sole recipient of any sympathy in this film, dragged along for the whole sorry ride by a man whose political ambitions and personal yields to temptation constantly take precedence over his marriage and the vows he made. "Can I bounce back again?", "how can I win the trust of the voters?" "what more do I need to say?" and "how do I smooth this over?" Tellingly, these questions are asked by Anthony time and again while Huma's most telling statement (and the most personal of the whole film), when asked in a reflective moment how she's feeling, is "like I'm living a nightmare".
Judge not lest ye be judged; Anthony frequently asks of his detractors, "I'm not perfect, are you perfect?" No-one is perfect but this film again asks the age old questions: why do those with such a personal profile, with so much at stake and so much to lose both personally and professionally, hit the self-destruct button so frequently and so disastrously? Anthony is judged because he put himself up there to be and the judgement is damning from all corners.
Another excellent documentary on Netflix. 7.5/10
First Man (2018)
An extraordinary, ordinary man.
Trotted off to the pictures tonight to see this, the new biopic of Neil Armstrong, and came away very impressed.
First Man documents Neil's life and career, starting with his role as a test pilot in 1961 and culminating on July 20th 1969 when he and Buzz Aldrin became the first and second men to take that small step (and giant leap) onto the Moon.
Potential spoilers ahead (but you surely know the story):
It's a story we all know so well but while First Man spares no expense or detail in documenting the missions undertaken by Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, its primary goal is to show the character of Armstrong the human being, the everyday pressures felt by him, his wife and his family and the place of Space exploration in a society that was undergoing seismic changes.
Armstrong was, by all accounts, a very straight-laced, emotionally muted and methodical person. It is these characteristics that got him to where he did and Ryan Gosling, an actor who often plays characters that live within themselves (Drive springs to mind), is perfect here. Opposite him, Claire Foy continues to bolster her impressive CV, laying bare for all to see the pressures of being an astronaut's wife. Dealing with personal turmoil, she can't escape in the way that her husband can, isolated and trapped as she is while he uses his work as an escape.
The film is slow-paced because it's not primarily an action film, it is an account of ordinary, real life people who happen to be doing extraordinary things, bankrolled by the richest government on Earth, in pursuit of a slain President's vision. When First Man does pursue the actual test flights and missions, however, it truly shines.
The sense of claustrophobia, peril and stress is palpable for the viewer as we remain in the cockpit/capsule for the duration. When it hits the fan, there is no music, no outside shots of the craft; it all takes place inside the module in order to convey just how dangerous a situation the astronauts placed themselves in time and again. This wasn't Hollywood; this was real and the film is excellent at conveying that and if you needed any more convincing of the costs involved, there are plenty of funerals to hammer the point home.
All of which culminates in the Moon landing, the reason Armstrong is one of the most famous and revered men in history, and the highlight of the film. After a typically tense and challenging descent (Foy's observation that NASA are "boys building things from Balsa wood" rings true throughout), Houston hears that "the Eagle has landed" and Armstrong and Aldrin set foot on the Moon.
Here, Damien Chazelle does everything right; as the door opens, there are no great swells of triumphant music, no whoops and cheers. There's nothing but silence. Intense, complete silence like one would indeed experience in a world with no atmosphere. It's very powerful to hear nothing as you gaze out onto a cold, grey, untouched alien world and the entire Moon scene had me utterly transfixed.
I've gone on long enough now but I would highly recommend First Man. I've read reviews slating it for being slow paced (it's a biopic of an extraordinary and yet ordinary man) and also for being nauseating to watch in the truest sense (you will feel like you've been through a washing machine spin cycle at times but that is what it was like onboard when stuff went wrong). It won't be for everyone but I loved it and I left the cinema feeling like I better knew one of history's great heroes and the team behind him.
If nothing else, the scene on the Moon is cinema at its absolute best.
8/10.
Whiplash (2014)
Drum roll please.....
I've played guitar for 22 years, bass for about 19 years and drums for less than three. I'm pretty good at guitar and bass and intensely average on drums but this is probably because I have only ever viewed these instruments as fun. I never intended to set out to be the best there is, was or ever will be; I play them because I enjoy it and I can express myself through the strings and sticks. In this respect, I'm in the vast majority of players.
Genius doesn't think like that. Geniuses are born with that certain something and then devote themselves to an eternity of practice, rudiments, blood, sweat and tears to get to where they want to be and then improve on that. Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) is one such prodigy; a gifted young jazz drummer who has won a place at the esteemed Schaffer Music School and it is here that he meets Fletcher.
Imagine if R. Lee Ermey's drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket was taking tips from The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker in the art of personal relations and then give him sheet music and the role of band conductor. That's Fletcher, a truly hateful character but one whom you buy into completely thanks to the performance of the always majestic J.K. Simmons and the fact that despite his monstrousness, one can see what he's doing. His plan is to wring every last drop of sweat and blood out of his musicians so that they may be the next Charlie Parker. He just chooses to do so through intimidation and terrific insults. He's happy to be the bad guy if it makes the good guy great.
This is where the film succeeds so completely, in the at-times unbearably tense relationship between two men who want the same thing: perfection. Whiplash doesn't get everything right. There's a love story that feels as unnecessary as it is light and I do wonder if non musicians will get the same out of this film as players will because if you're a musician (and especially if you're a drummer), this film is practically porn. Teller is clearly a gifted drummer because as far as I could tell, what you see and hear are the same; the people on screen are really playing and it's spellbinding.
That said, I think it's a film that will get past any concerns about it being niche due to the ferocity of the performances. You certainly don't have to like jazz and I hope you don't have to be a musician to appreciate fully this dramatic, tense and utterly terrific film.
9/10
A Ghost Story (2017)
Completely original but NOT for everyone.
Was delighted to find this on Netflix after not making it to the cinema to see it. Last night, I watched it and it was quite unlike any other film I've ever seen. It's not a horror, it's not a drama, a thriller or a comedy. It's a fantasy but it's also completely unlike any film I've ever watched.
The premise is simple. Casey Affleck (C) and Rooney Mara (M) are a couple and the film starts with scenes of their domestic lives. C is then killed (not a spoiler) and M has to identify his body. So far, so familiar. What follows is film-making of a different kind. Yes, the idea of a dead person revisiting their loved one isn't new (Ghost, for example) and neither is the idea of a film from the point of view of a ghost (The Others) but the way it's done here is completely original and brilliantly effective.
It's a brave move to design the ghost as a sheet with eye holes (much like a five year old would draw a ghost) and it shouldn't work but it does. At no point is it comical or absurd; once I'd got my head around it, I accepted it completely. C's ghost returns to the home and then plays silent, invisible witness to M's life as she grieves and moves forward. There is one remarkable scene (lasting a good few minutes) that shows only M eating a pie before being sick. C's ghost doesn't move throughout, watching and observing but unable to connect. It's a scene that drifts towards being too long before becoming more powerful.
The rest of the film then plays with time, perspective and every other dimension going. The idea of existentialism rears its head constantly, particularly in one long speech (especially noteworthy in a film low on dialogue) by a house member who questions just how much we have to do in life (and how we nearly all fail) to ensure that we will be remembered by more than the next generation. All the while, C is there, watching and observing. He learns to affect the material items around him but ultimately, he is trapped. C is trapped in death and can't move on, M is trapped in grief but can move on.
This dreamlike, hypnotic film will be a Marmite experience. For the many who will watch it and think "what the hell was that dull, dreary nonsense all about?", there will be someone who just falls in love with it. There's no storyline to unravel, no dialogue to quote and requote, no action, drama, car chases or raucous laughs, just a series of scenes and images that I couldn't get enough of. It's like watching a beautiful and completely original dream and it's a dream I'll watch again.
8.5/10
I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)
Full of dread or dreadful? Both? I don't know.
I've seen many horror films that make me want to turn them off cos they're so crap but it's rare for me to see a horror film where the mood is so ominous and hangs so heavily that it becomes almost unbearable to tolerate and I mean that both as a compliment and as a criticism.
I Am The Pretty Thing... sets out it's stall early. The main protagonist, Lily, announces via narration (like Lester in American Beauty) that she will be dead within a year. Her detached narration throughout reminded me of Linda Manz's in Terrence Malick's 'Days Of Heaven' but where that film shimmers with golden light, the events of this film weigh down on both Lily and the viewer like a dead weight.
Part of the problem for me is the pacing. While investigating the standard creaks and bumps in the house and trying to find out why the lady she is caring for calls her Polly, Lily moves around the house at a snail's pace. At 84 minutes, this isn't a long film but it does feel like they padded a lot to get it to that length. Scenes crop up that could be flashbacks, flash forwards or dreams; it's hard to say. The film asks questions that it has no intention of ever answering and character development is minimal, to say the least.
There are, however, pluses. Ruth Wilson has most of the film's screen time to herself and manages to do a lot without saying much or moving very quickly. Bob Balaban and Paula Prentiss do all they can with their limited time onscreen but the star of this horror film isn't the people, the ghosts or (as is often the case) the house itself (it is sparse but by no means a spooky place). No, the redeeming quality of this film is the sense of dread and foreboding that lasts for the entirety of the film. It never really lets up and despite the lack of a satisfying payoff and a couple of predictable horror tropes, the sense of being unsettled and on edge did stay until the credits rolled.
It's not a film that will stay with me for long but it does have a feel all of its own and if you're a horror addict, it's worth a go. You may be bored to tears or you may sleep with the lamp on.
6/10
My Scientology Movie (2015)
Surreal, sinister, funny and thoroughly Therouxvian
I had waited a very long time to see Louis Theroux's 'My Scientology Movie' but it was well worth the wait. It's a film that doesn't set out to be all "look at these guys, they're insane, let's laugh at them" because Louis is so much better than that but it's simply impossible to view this bizarre, insular, sinister cult as anything else. What this film isn't, and isn't trying to be (as a few negative reviews I've seen have decried), is an exposé or a secrets-revealed piece. A very bright light has been shone on Scientology for a long time now and while there are surely dark secrets aplenty yet to be revealed, Louis knew a decade ago that he was never going to gain access to the 'Church' because it isn't like that. The Church has all the security of an air base so it was never going to be a case of donning a false beard and wandering in with a camera in a home-all. The Westboro Baptist Church welcomed Louis into the fold so that they could spread their poisonous agenda through his films. Scientology neither wants nor seemingly needs his help and they will guard their secrets ferociously. Knowing this, Louis changes tack and tries a different approach and for the most part, succeeds in doing things differently.
With Christianity (and most major faiths), any secrets are very thin on the ground. You're given everything; there's even a book that details absolutely everything you need to know and you're required to read it. With Scientology, you are drip fed what you need/want to know bit by bit and to know more, you need to pay (A LOT) more money at each stage and devote more and more of your life to the cause. Essentially, you're brainwashed and institutionalised to the point whereby if you reach the upper echelons, you can't leave and if you do, they will make your life hell. The film documents this as Louis sees first hand just how secretive, paranoid and threatening this 'Church' (and they do have religious status) is.
All of this is pretty common knowledge of course and while I don't think the film provides any major revelations that weren't already out there to find, the insights from former members go further than perhaps they have before, thanks in no small part to Louis' genius at getting as much out of people as he can. It's a film that's thoroughly absorbing, creepy, surreal and often extremely funny. More so than any other film he's done, Louis is brave, ambitious and ultimately, ballsy in the subject he's chosen. It's out on DVD soon, so buy it.