Inherent Vice

"Doc may not be a do-gooder, but he's done good."

The seventh film from Paul Thomas Anderson is also the first adaptation of a Thomas Pynchon novel and if you have read his books you’ll know that it’s not hard to see why. His strange and drug driven narratives seem near-impossible to be brought to the big screen, but PTA might just be the man who can.

Under the weight of his ex in 1970 Los Angeles, private detective Doc Sportello goes looking for her new lover who has recently disappeared into sea of crazy conspiracies, drug smugglers, informants, corrupt cops, dentists and a mysterious organisation called The Golden Fang.

A philosophy of Pynchon is that the less the reader understands the better. PTA has done this in some of his films as well such as Magnolia (do we really try to work out why the frogs fall from the sky) and he instantly recognises that Inherent Vice works because of that and there’s no need to change that atmosphere. He jumps at the opportunity to send the audience on their own trip and only needs them to be vaguely conscious to enjoy it and love it.

PTA obviously loves the 70s and just as he did with Boogie Nights, relishes in the chance to visit it. You get the sense of every spectrum changing for these characters, capitalism is coming and for some this is the start of the world and for others the end. The atmosphere and the general vibe of the film were wonderfully absurd throughout.

The plot, now this is something that really can’t be addressed in writing. If you try to get to grips with the structure and story of this film then you will be waving goodbye to your sanity. The story is smothered by hallucinogenic smoke and gravity defying hairstyles that create one of the most unconventional styles of storytelling I’ve seen in a long time. This is the kind of film you inject rather than merely watch and examine, you need to immerse yourself within the visuals, and style and humour and let it wash over you as quickly as you like.

If you really want to grasp and understand this plot then I can say straight away that you should not watch this film. Now I enjoy well written stories with a structure you can grasp and sink your teeth into and then analyse it to my heart’s content. But sometimes a film can make me forget about that. Sometimes I’m happy to be swept along on a wild ride as long as the characters alone are gripping and interesting and the atmosphere of the film is one that I want to exist in. Too many films separate the substance from the plot, for Inherent Vice the plot is the substance in the sense that its complexity and absurdity is almost a giant joke in itself, and I mean that in a nice way.

Doc is a wonderful creation and brought to life in such a maddeningly freaky yet watchable way by Joaquin Phoenix. He becomes this great mixture of cunning and confusion that you’re never really sure if he has the faintest idea of what he’s doing. The surreal aspects of the film don’t stop him from showing off his remarkable passion and humour, but at the same time there’s a darker interior on show with an air of tragic bitterness about him.

Phoenix ties the film together (if you can argue that the film is tied together at all) as he has a series of increasingly bizarre encounters that include Owen Wilson, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro and Reese Witherspoon, all of which work very well but each in a different manner. The soulful and laid back attitude contrasts wonderfully with the different characters in different ways, from total agreement with some to complete opposition from others.

This is a playful kind of film noir, harking back to the earlier days of the Coen brothers and the more recent outings of Shane Black. It treads a nice line between bright comedy and slapstick as well as some moments of violence. Long takes and intimate close ups are rife and they are flushed up in the look of the 70s, either neon colours or brilliant beige.

The language of the film is lifted from the book and incorporates all of the existentialism, pointless but hilarious banter that PTA is known for. His conversations almost form their own plot and the nimble blend of so many emotions drew me in expertly. I admit it is impossible to watch a film for the first time and not try to understand the plot, if so and you leave the film feeling unsure of whether you like it or not, watch it again. You may like it more.

Ignorance is the key here, if you have to grapple with the plot then you’re doomed. Trust me and just let it go I know that sounds pretentious but if you do your reward is a hilarious, haunting, anarchic, tragic, profound, beautiful and unique experience.

Result: 10/10   

Mortdecai

"I am Lord Charlie Mortdecai, respected by all who know me, slightly."

Johnny Depp seems to be past the point of whether he can be taken seriously as a dramatic actor any more. Though he may make a comeback it will take a fearsomely good performance to do that. In the meantime can we at least give him credit as a comedic actor? Based on the strength of this film, no.

Eccentric art dealer and entrepreneur Charlie Mortdecai is trying to stay out of the way of some angry Russians, MI5 and some international terrorists as well as his demanding wife and rival art dealers. But now he embarks on a recovery mission to find a stolen painting that could lead to lost Nazi gold.

Mortdecai is a baffling example of wasted comedic. It appears to adopt the formula of eccentricity solves everything and rather than actually writing a good, subtle joke and leaving it there, the good subtle joke is amplified, projected and applied to a screen that is about ten times larger than what it should be put on. The writing is decent but the massively over-the-top visuals and extravagant set pieces make the jokes look too small in comparison to even be noticed.

The sense of humour in this film is just bizarre on so many levels, but not bizarre in a beautiful way like Terry Gilliam (director of possibly Depp’s greatest role in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). It appears to try and make a cartoon style of humour acceptable for live action, and it does not work at all. Instead you just have a sense of humour that is simultaneously impossible to swallow and at the same time, far too stupid to make anything seem remotely credible. The live action limits the humour that might be appealing in a cartoon and instead just makes it seem like a pointless exercise.

Not only is the humour out of proportion, it is immensely repetitive. Even if something makes you chuckle at some point (which it sometimes does) it appears so many times again in some shape or form by the end of the movie you’ve grown to hate the original joke anyway.

Mortdecai fails to find a footing for itself as well. Is it a crime comedy, is it a caper, fish-out-of-water story, ensemble piece, quirky comedy or another pay-check for Johnny Depp. It merges all of them but ends up as a bit of a mess and overall it just tiptoes between its genres, never settles but at the same time never flows like a good story should. You’re not on a ride with these characters, you’re seeing poorly timed snippets of the events around their tiresome escapades.

I don’t understand why David Keopp took up this project because with ever film he adds a new directorial technique that allows him to make an impressive feature. Take his last film,  Premium Rush, on that I enjoyed a lot, there were some good uses of sound and visuals to create some thrilling chase sequences. But here there is nothing enticing or interesting behind the camera as well as in front of it.

To the film’s credit it manages to get better in its third act in which Depp must travel to LA and merge with the American culture. Here Depp’s eccentricity really shines and it produces quite an amusing fish-out-of-water scenario that works rather well. But it’s too little too late and even this segment is dragged down by repetitive jokes and stale storytelling.

It also seems amazing that a film with such a dismal plot can be so confusing. The constant barrage of useless and unfunny characters builds up to such a point that it acts as a wall to try and distract you from what is really happening, which is nothing. In the end it’s a waste of talent and writing that doesn’t let any aspect of the film earn respect of its own accord.

Like the career of its main star lately, Mortdecai is overly eccentric, repetitive and needs to be altered as soon as possible before the public catches on and stops paying attention.

Result: 2/10

Ex Machina

"One day the AI's will look back on us the same way we look at fossils."

Yesterday I reviewed A Most Violent Year, a terrific film starring Oscar Isaac. This Science Fiction thriller from the writer of Sunshine and 28 Days Later is naturally very different from the 1980s crime epic, apart from two things, can you guess what?

IT drone Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins a prize to spend a week with his genius and isolated boss Nathan (Isaac) in his technology filled mountain retreat. But upon he arrival Nathan wants Caleb to study and assess a form of artificial intelligence. But as time passes Natahn begins to wonder if his AI can truly be alive.

It has never been beyond the science fiction genre to address to issue of AI, Kubrick did it back in the 60s with HAL and ever since we’ve been a bit spoilt for that area. But I don’t think it’s ever looked quite as good as this. Swedish actor Alicia Vikander brings a frighteningly human and eerily distant element to the AI concept not seen since Spielberg’s child perception of it in 2001, or going back even further the Scott’s Blade Runner. The machine’s writing and portrayal gives us a character that’s human enough to draw our emotions, but mechanical enough to make us question it.

Though the writer of 28 Days Later might make a good, all action film, here we see Alex Garland’s ability to craft engrossing conversations, as Caleb and Ava (the AI) start their introduction playfully, but soon delve into more philosophical subjects. Similarly Nathan’s input is also exceptional as the riveting dialogue kept me hooked throughout.

This dialogue, and the film in general, is really given the best attention by Gleeson and soon to be Star Wars co-star Isaac. While Isaac’s character gives us a sharp, sociopathic and creationist feel to it there’s still a scrap of humanity left there because of course, that is the main difference between him and his creation. There’s an aggressive side to this character and the desperate need for assurance and approval, either from himself or others, in this case Caleb.

Domnhall Gleeson has been in two recent films in which he plays the supporter in one sense (for Frank he was the follower of a masked musician played by Michael Fassbender) in this case he’s second to a marvellous machine. But In another sense he is absolutely to lead of both films. He is the emotional connection for me and never loses his own character against larger personalities that may appear to be funnier and more interesting initially, but each time Gleeson makes you care for his character more. That takes talent.

It is always refreshing to see a Science Fiction story done seriously and for grown-ups. I love family favourites like ET but there’s such a great gritty galore to films like this. The more serious age range allows Garland to craft a real psychological thriller worthy of Fincher of even Hitchcock, It does feel like the kind of science fiction film either of them would be intrigued to make. But here Garland has stuck to his own project and has not only made an exceptional directing debut, but probably his best work of writing as well.

The small scale of the film doesn’t hold it back either. The attention to detail and stylish set pieces only assist the futuristic mood to the plot and as it delves deeper into the thriller zone the claustrophobic nature of the backdrop really starts to act as an advantage. The technology on display here, particularly the look of Ava, is understated yet beautiful in its own way. The sleek look of it plus the symphony of mechanical noises that all work to make it strikingly natural in one light, and completely unnatural for another.

Harking back to the days of Blade Runner but minimalizing and modernising the classic tales of robot romance and adding in a touch of psyche thrills, Ex Machina is an immensely interesting example of AI for the 21^st century.

Result: 8/10

Fantastic Four Trailer Review

"How did we get this far? Human beings have an immeasurable desire to discover, to invent, to build."

 Now that I have some spare time I might as well talk about it now. For months everyone has been expecting the worse from this film, plot details, director and the lack of official images are all being used against it. But now we have a trailer, so is there any rekindled hope now?

I can immediately say that the trailer didn’t blow me away. There was no wow moment, not real effect of an amazing film being imminent and approaching, but what I can say is that as least we don’t already know the plot and synopsis after the first trailer. Whether they decide to keep that up is unknown but for now we know about as much as we should really.

The shooting techniques is quite striking. It does suggest a much more serious tone than the last F4 films. Back then comic book movies were not serious business, they were considered to be gambles as cash grabbing and a very hit and miss critical project as well. But by now half of the film world is lining up to be a part of either DC’s or Marvel’s contributions to this genre and thanks to the boost Days of Future Past gave the studio they may be pouring even more resources into this film than we have been led to believe.

Though it is nice to see a serious undertone there is a danger of it disappearing into blandness. There still has to be some action and fun, again though not overboard. It’s a fine line and difficult medium, superhero films are not as easy as the average person might think.

Of course, this is not a found footage film. How that rumour started circulating is a mystery, because the Josh Trank, director of Chronicle, does not have to make every film that way. If he does one thing well then he will not immediately make everything else that way.

This is of course drawn from the Marvel Ultimate Universe which suggests a complete franchise reboot and that is definitely a good thing because the other two films made the F4 more of a comedy. This means a different origin story, a new age for the team and new storylines that could go in any direction.

There are a few Easter Eggs in the trailer. My favourite would have to be the shot in which Susan Storm is staring at a digital map of Europe with a small dot in the central continent. There is also an IP address hidden in the shot that if you search will take you to the Wikipedia page of Latveria. Interesting, how does it tie in to the rumour that Dr Doom was now a disgruntles blogger (I feel like I’d get along with him for some strange reason).

So it’s fairly conventional as a trailer. But at least this stops people hating this film for not releasing anything and it gives us some cool looking shots and suggests some serious story telling here. I’m not getting my hopes up, but I promise to stop hating this film just on principle from now on.

A Most violent Year

"When it feels scary to jump, that is exactly when you jump. Otherwise you end up staying in the same place your whole life.And that, I can't do."

J.C Chandor has certainly built up a very credible career as a writer and director. His latest project, a gritty and stylish crime drama also features some new editions to the Star wars universe. One would think that Scorsese, Leone and Coppola had picked the crime epic genre clean, but one would be wrong.

In the winter of 1981, statistically one of the most crime-ridden years in New York city’s history, ambitious Latin-American immigrant and self-made business man Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) and his cold and steely wife Anna (Jessica Chastain) have risked everything on a deal that will either make them or break them. But now thieves, corruption and mobsters begin to drag their hopes down into a dark and dangerous world.

Not only does this film pay homage to crime classics like the Godfather, Scarface and Dog Day Afternoon, A Most Violent Year is a refreshingly new yet nostalgic spin on this tale. It certainly lives up to its namesake but includes the human drama, the emotional impact and the terror that comes with it. Though Morales is not a very… well, moral person, you feel foe him because he’s a dreamer, an aspirer, someone who looked at the American dream and wanted it. Here I saw him go through so many stages of rise and decline that you want to ask him how he continues to compromise to get what he wants. He doesn’t jump in to the idea of being a criminal, its forced upon him, and you sympathise with him, he’s honourable and driven by pride and ambition. It’s hard not to respect a character like that.

This is helped by Oscar Isaac and his very impressive lead performance. He is unrecognisable as the deteriorating businessman turned lowlife who always maintains a sophisticated and intelligent persona while successfully generating sympathy repeatedly. It’s hard not to be reminded of a young Al Pacino as he waves his arms, stresses and generally creeps us all out a bit.

Jessica Chastain gives plenty of talent for us to think about as she pairs up with Isaac to make a quarrelling and reactant pair that encapsulates this suburban background, with a hint of darkness to foreshadow what is to come. Their relationship can be compared to that of a Shakespearean tragedy and never fails to hit home and remind the audience of what is at stake or how much damage has already been done. Chastain acts as a cold, seductive and highly influential figure, with crime heritage from her father that shows up frequently and she is not afraid to show us this character at her best and worst.

Perhaps A Most Violent Year’s pace seems a little slow by modern standards and the story telling technique used has more of an episodic feel to it rather than a fully fleshed out, beginning-middle-end structure. And rather than pick the pace up as the film goes along it seems to get even slower and I can’t really decide whether that is a good thing. I suppose the best answer I can give is that the bad times of his life are emphasised due to the speed of his downfall compared to the speed of his uprising and it makes a break from the norm as most gangster films escalate their scope and pace throughout, this one knows exactly where to start and how to end.

The score reflects all the angst and style of the era, as well as representing the dirtiest and most glamourous of deals. The tension is built up and occasionally erupts in violence, but ironically the main violence in this film is expressed verbally. It comes through in the form of conversation, and I never felt the need to see what the characters were talking about because the performance, writing and execution of all these elements make it an astonishingly gripping sequence of events.

Thanks to some incredible performances and highly stylised camera techniques Chandor is able to craft an epic from a story where not a lot is actually happening. Brutal, impeccably executed and enthralling, as well as emotionally impactful throughout.

Result: 9/10 

Big Hero 6

"We're under attack from a supervillain people, how cool."

Disney animation making a film based on a Marvel comic book series, wow. This is a good time to be a fan of movies isn’t it. It seems as if Disney are now going for girl audiences one year and boys the next. Tangled, a princess story, Wreck-It Ralph, video games, Frozen, a princess story, now Big Hero 6, a superhero story, do you see my point? Not that either film is incapable of attracting different audiences, it’s just it seems to be going in that direction.

Robotics prodigy Hiro Hamada starts to develop his skills with the encouragement of his older brother Tadashi. But when tragedy strikes that reveals a dark conspiracy Hiro and his friends transform themselves into high tech heroes to solve the mystery.

Though it is based on a comic the ideas have been drastically altered but in many ways this is still a Marvel film, if you want proof, there are superheroes and Stan Lee has a cameo. It does effectively leave Disney with a blank slate to craft a take on the Iron Man era of superheroes, just as The Indredibles was a take on the classic, Superman era.  

Big Hero 6 does a fantastic job of balancing its Marvel origins with that fundamental Disney originality. While this is named and sold as more of a team superhero film the supporting characters of the group aren’t fully developed beyond a few fun lines of dialogue. They do add to the humour greatly but they don’t seemed fleshed out enough to immediately inspire a sequel. But their contribution is still noticeable and it would be hard to imagine Big Hero 6 without its supporting members, one of which provides a wonderful little link with our favourite comic creator (wink, wink).

The supporting characters can be forgiven because at the end of the day this film tells the story about Hiro struggling with grief and ultimately finding solace in his brother’s remaining legacy, a personal healthcare robot named Baymax. Disney have created a brilliantly unique cinematic robot and inspired sidekick. Baymax is good at what he (it?) does but has a narrow vision of the world around him, he is programmed to understand human pain and how to fix it and nothing else. This creates a charming blend of naivety and protective caring that forms the basis of his character. Like other sidekicks such as Groot or Chewbacca, it’s impossible not to love him.

In one sense Big Hero 6 is quite a conventional film. If it was a standard live action superhero film instead of an animated Disney one you would be more critical of it. The plot is fairly straight forward and while he is aesthetically impressive the villain has little backstory or character development that creates a truly memorable persona. It is uplifting and full of heart, but only very occasionally does the plot surprise the viewer, especially the one that puts real thought into working out what will happen next.

But Disney more than make up for the standard plot with firstly a truly remarkable ability to make action scenes that might otherwise be overwhelming for younger viewers more enjoyable. A lot of the action excited me but it never felt as if it had to cross the Disney boundaries of family entertainment to do it. The thrills and laughs come often and frequent, more than once simultaneously. One scene that really stands out is a car chase through the streets of the city in which the OCD, law abiding team member driving the car is unable to force himself to drive erratically, jump red lights or turn without indicating despite the fact that they are being pursued by a horde of robots controlled by a manic.

The visual elements of Big Hero 6 all please the eye as well as the imagination. In an inspired vision of the future Disney blends wonderfully creative gadgets and applies them to every scene beautifully. Without a doubt Big Hero 6 is the most visually ambitious Disney film of recent memory.

Though it may be quite conventional in terms of writing, the visuals, humour, heart and Baymax more than make up for it. Big Hero 6 is another impressive addition to Disney Animation’s resume, possibly good enough to grab an Oscar? Just Maybe.

Result: 8/10

Taken 3

"If you go down this road the L.A PD, the FBI, the CIA are all gonna come for you. They will find you and they will stop you."

To say that Taken 3 had problems is a sight understatement. To be honest after the third instalment of a very tired franchise it’s difficult to remember a time when this was the hottest new action movie around, one that everyone wanted to imitate, including the Taken franchise. And wow, they have failed this time.

Bryan Mills’ (Liam Neeson) reconciliation with his ex-wife is cut short when she is murdered and he suddenly becomes the prime suspect. Now Mills must go on the run to uncover the truth and stop them before they destroy the only thing he has left.

You might find a few similarities between this and the Fugitive with Harrison Ford and an Oscar winning Tommy Lee Jones. But imagine that every element of the Fugitive is a lot worse and much more predictable and you have Taken 3.

One of the main rpblems with this film is that it’s pandering to a PG-13 audience which really shows. It makes Mills’ skills (ha, I didn’t even mean to do that) look completely unbelievable and almost comical. We get that Mills is supposed to be good at what he does but now he’s obviously more at home in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so there’s no tension because you know that the central character will just find ways to get out of whatever situation he’s in for the sake of the plot and how motivated the writer are to actually create something original on the day of making this.

Half of the time the writers don’t even tell us how he got out of the situation. One moment there’ll be an explosion that is obviously fatal to everyone in the area but then in the next scene we see Neeson alive and well. How did he get there, we have no idea. Does it matter, according to the writers, no.

If you’re going to have cheesy action at least have lots of it. But instead of that I had to wait nearly an hour until Neeson finally began to go all ‘I will find you and I will kill you’ on the bad guys. To be honest I can’t even remember who the villain was. It was completely forgettable and utterly pointless because this film was not made to have an intriguing antagonist, it was made to have lots of them so Neeson could take them down. But it didn’t even have that.

To be fair Forrest Whitaker and Liam Neeson both do a good job with the material they have. The characters are clichéd and ridiculously bulletproof but they still have some interesting conversations together. Not on the level of Jones and Ford in the fugitive, but mildly entertaining nonetheless.

As an action director, and on such a high (maybe) profile title as the Taken franchise, Olivier Megaton gives a truly terrible technique to Taken 3. Megaton uses about five different camera angles to show someone jumping over a fence but at the same time only includes about ten seconds of single shot footage (meaning that only about two seconds of it can be seen) of action sequences. His priorities are seriously mislaid. The constant stream of sound effects doesn’t help either.

It would also be a good drinking game to find as many plot holes as you can in this film. Actually I can’t suggest that because I think I would be endangering anyone who reads this blog to alcohol poisoning. Nothing makes sense, events only occur in this film because they need to for the sake of the plot and it’s painfully obvious that the film was written that way. ‘Fugitive rip off, go out and do it. Don’t worry about making changes to the start of the movie to compensate for this twist we add in later. Take your time to show Liam Neeson reading a text, but not any time to give us a good action sequence!’

Not brutal enough to be a serious action movie nor fun enough to be a guilty pleasure. If you want a film about a man on the run watch the Fugitive, if you want a good Taken film, watch the first one.

Result: 2/10