Best and Worst of September 2015

September has been a unique month. Now that the summer is officially over you start to get that odd mix of films that aren’t quite blockbusters but at the same time aren’t quite Oscar contenders. It’s sad to say that some of it has been disappointing, particularly ‘Legend’. Though Tom Hardy was fantastic he was let down by a fairly standard and uninventive script that was also worryingly one sided. At the same time another big studio film with a massive cast proved to be not quite the spectacular epic I thought it would be, it seems that the best efforts of this month came from smaller movies. Here are the best three.

 3: Everest

Though it may have let itself down in terms of getting into the psychology of its subjects and fidning any major protagonist for its audience to support, there was still a lot to like about ‘Everest’. It’s stunning and awe inspiring visuals left me with a real sense of enormity as the mountain loomed over those who wished to conquer it, every cast member was on top form (they just weren’t given enough to do) and the cinematic format only made it even grander in scale and scope. Think of it more as a study of the mountain itself rather than the humans on its slopes.

2: Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

This year’s Sundance Winner did not disappoint. It speaks to movie lovers and life lovers, says a lot about the value of time and even more about the value of friendship. Few films this year have made me laugh as much as this, but at the same time few have moved me as deeply. The characters are likable and sympathetic, they deserve our respect and our admiration. IT’s topped off by terrific performances all round that know how to get the best out of this sharp script and this is an undoubtedly entertaining movie experience, it has everything you want a coming of age comedy to have.

1: 99 Homes
Every film from Ramin Bahrani has been an underseen masterpiece and ’99 Homes’ is no exception. Though I probably won’t watch it as many times as I will ‘Me and Earl and the Dying Girl’ I know that its searing criticism of the current financial situation, highlighting the desperation of those on the edge and how much they will sacrifice to earn their own piece of America, it is brutal, thrilling and honest. The moral questions it raises are one thing, the compelling nature of it is another, and Garfield and Shannon just sell it completely.

And the worst…

The Maze Runner: Scorch Trials

‘Mockingjay Part 2’ may be very good but franchises like this are making me sort of glad that its coming to an end, and it will have to be very good to make me forget the recent case of teen dystopian fatigue that’s been brought on by this film. Not only is it a complete re-tread of the first, it makes the same mistake of being, like its characters, completely lost in a vast wasteland. Nothing is particularly compelling or intriguing and there is even less to make me excited for the next instalment.
So what were your favourite movies this month, leave a comment below to let me know. Please don’t forget to recommend this blog on google with the icon at the top of the page, thanks and bye.

99 Homes

"America doesn't bail out losers. America was built by bailing out winners."

I often find that one of the most fascinating subjects throughout film history is the way that writers and directors choose to portray and tackle the American Dream. Today few are doing this better than Ramin Bahrani, crafting such intricate modern masterworks such as 2005’s ‘Man Push Cart’ and ‘Chop Shop’ in 2007. So naturally I was intrigued and left in deep anticipation when I heard his next project involved Andrew Garfield and Michael Shannon, with yet another spin on modern society’s financial goals and dreams.
In this thriller, a single father (Garfield) is evicted from his home and his only chance to recover it is to work for the charismatic and ruthless businessman (Shannon) who evicted him in the first place. At first he believes that this deal with the devil is a necessary cost to provide for his family but as he falls deeper into the businessman’s web, he finds his situation grows more brutal, dangerous and morally challenging than he ever imagined.
The previous work from Bahrani has mostly consisted of a more intricate and intimate scope in the past, taking quite a philosophical pace. But ’99 Homes’ definitely has the feel of a non-stop suspense movie. Our first scene involves what appears to be a happy and coping family being suddenly and uncomfortably uprooted from their home and left standing outside it, surrounded by the entirety of their possessions. It’s an alarming and uncomfortable way to open a movie, forcing the audience to confront the reality of such a situation and leaving them dumbfounded when they are faced with the difficult question of how to carry on. None of it is made easier by the coldness and confrontational attitude of their evictor Michael Shannon, as Garfield begs him to allow one more day to prepare, he gives them two minutes.
Through Shannon’s performance ’99 Homes’ allows itself to act as a savage critique of the American feudal system of only adapting and making exceptions for winners, taking a thorough examination of the current financial state of the average person and an unflinching view of the grim conditions this has left many people in. It does this so effectively partly due to its impeccably sharp script but also, as I said before, Shannon’s cut-throat nature (as an actor at least, I assume he’s not like that in real life, but then again I’ve never met him so… anyway). Shannon manages to strike a bizarre balance between merciless and considerate. It’s a complex performance that initially seems ruthless but similarly to Gordon Gekko from ‘Wall Street’ he gradually explains that this is how the world works, and you almost, but not quite, fall onto his side of the argument.
Andrew Garfield may not be Spider-Man anymore but his work as a dramatic actor here does not worry me at all as, rest assured, he will not be short of work. He goes from being a fighter to a reluctant participant in the grand scheme of those he despises and it is all excellently portrayed. He seems to be in a continuous anxiety for nearly the entirety of the film but manages to convey the fact that he is anxious for different reasons at different points in the story, from failing as a protector of his family to grudgingly siding with the enemy to get back on top. The raw and honest reactions of those he ends up evicting only make his struggle all the more tragic.
The only criticism I can really find is that after the brutality of the first half ’99 Homes’ never really surprised me after that, I could see where its plot was heading and anticipated certain beats of it. It was still executed flawlessly though and brought the ordeal in and out of perspective throughout to highlight both the importance and futility of it.
Not only does the fast pace keep you enthralled throughout, it makes you look at the situation with a sense of earnestness. Yet again Bahrani uses an individual character to analyse American society better than anyone else can today.
Result: 9/10

Journal of Whills: Part 16 - Revenge of the Sith Review

‘Revenge of the Sith’, the final ‘Star Wars’ prequel (for now) and… well I think there are a number of things in this instalment that sum up the prequel trilogy pretty well, a good concept and some very impressive filming here and there, but mostly executed in completely the wrong way to make it stand on par with the original trilogy. So with that being said it’s time to finish the prequels and move on to the far more interesting content. Here it goes.
I say that but to be fair this one is regarded as the best prequel, in fact it’s mostly watchable. But there are still one or two flaws that hold it back from greatness, but I’ll get to those later. For now I want to talk about the opening, and it’s pretty damn good. I mean it, for me this scene is actually the closest single piece of filmmaking to the original trilogy in all three prequels. It’s action packed, well-paced and even humorous at times. There’s still a bit too much of an overreliance on CGI but for the most part it actually holds up and that’s probably because by now the technology had moved on enough so that not only do these scenes look better they are quicker to make and therefore the creative team could actually start to focus on the real core of the movie.
Now when I describe the opening scene as being humorous I mean flying towards the Separatist Cruiser, not as much on board. The dialogue is still quite wooden and forced and it’s not helped by Hayden Christianson’s less than stellar performance. Again though it’s an improvement over conversations about sand (no one has romantic conversations about sand) but still it can be infuriating. However the next twenty minutes are still better than the entirety of ‘Attack of the Clones’ featuring lightsabre duels, lasers and space battles.
Once again there’s a new villain called General Grievous and once again I have no idea who he is nor do I fear his presence. By swapping out villains for each film we couldn’t build a dread and association with any one character, especially one that by this point we know for definite will not survive the course of this movie. Of course we were hoping that ‘Revenge of the Sith’ would introduce us to the best cinematic villain of all time, Darth Vader. While Anakin’s motivation for searching for paths of power other than the Jedi are inventive, switching sides for conservation of his loved ones rather than destruction of enemies and Palpatines catalysing Anakin’s vulnerabilities to manipulate him , the execution of it is really lacking. The total transformation is not a gradual process but one of torn morals and then child murdering in the space of ten minutes, not to mention the fact that we as an audience are supposed to believe that the name Vader came from mere seconds of contemplation. ‘You will be known as Darth…. Vader.’
Sadly the effects aren’t as impressive for the whole film, at times it is painfully obvious that the sets and designs are fake, green screened, CGI every trick apart from genuine practical sets. The other problem is that without a great performance to draw your attention from it you notice it even more. Speaking of performances you’ve got Natalie Portman being equally as uninterested as in the previous instalments and I already mentioned Christianson. But I do think that there are moments without dialogue, where his facial expression is doing the acting, where he’s pretty impressive. Ewan McGregor gives what has to be the best performance of the movie, a sort of youthful energy that is slowly ripped away by betrayal (albeit not in nearly as much detail as a truly great character development would be) until he becomes more of an aged warrior.
But going back to scenes without dialogue, they are perhaps the most powerful in the entire film. The scene where Anakin and Padme are on different sides of the city staring towards each other is quite a compelling scene, as is the one in which Order 66 is carried out, with the John Williams music (that is as always, spectacular) and Yoda’s expression and the sight of seeing these proud warriors torn down, it’s enthralling. Then there’s the moment that Anakin massacres the Separatist leaders only to look back with his glowing yellow eyes. The birth of Darth Vader being intercut with the birth of Luke Skywalker is also clever.
The final lightsabre duel in ‘Revenge of the Sith’ still looks choreographed, not to the same extent that it does so in ‘The Phantom Menace’, but it lacks the intensity, emotional involvement or dialogue for us to ignore this. Then Padme loses the will to live…. Yeah okay its… its dumb right, we all know it so… let’s just move on okay, we’re nearly finished.
‘Revenge of the Sith’ still has many issues and could have been executed in such a better way, but at the end of the day there’s still a lot to like, especially if you’re willing to overlook other imperfect details.
Result: 6/10   

The Maze Runner: Scorch Trials

"The maze is one thing, but you kids won't last one day out in the scorch."

I thought that with the end of ‘The Hunger Games’ franchise (one that I’m not completely against like some but certainly not worshiping like others) this year the whole teen-apocalypse genre would be put to rest for a few more years. Wow was I wrong, actually this intro may just be a rehash of the one I did for the first ‘Maze Runner’ film, but frankly I can’t remember properly and I’m sure readers won’t be able to tell either. Oddly it’s this kind of thinking that permeates this franchise.
Having escaped the deadly maze, the group of teenage survivors think they have left the horror behind them. But now they face an even greater danger as they make their way across the scorched earth.
Look as well as the slew of young adult apocalypse movies we’re going to get this year, as well as the rest that are yet to come, all now become irrelevant. Look at what Mad Max: Fury Road’ did to their apocalyptic world and now nothing else looks even remotely close by comparison. Whether it be backed up by real psychological and scientific studies or just George Miller’s mad mind, for some reason I buy that universe, out of all of them I could see the one in ‘Mad Max’ actually happening. Maybe through detail maybe through character, but next to that I don’t buy into an apocalyptic world in which teenagers are put into arenas, or mazes, or sorted into factions where you’re either smart, strong, skilful or something else and if you combine more than one attribute you’re a ‘Divergent’ even though the true definition of that is Convergent, where was I?
In a similar vein to the first ‘Maze Runner’ movie the first half of this film is actually quite impressive. It’s fast paced, well directed, good performances and some genuinely exciting moments. However when it reached the halfway point, like the first one, it just screeched to a sudden and startling halt in favour of setting up yet another sequel. The pace and suspense that populated the first half were gone by vague questions and convoluted plot developments that are clearly there just to deliberately leave the door as widely open as it possibly can. At this rate you’d have a better job pitching this story as a TV miniseries as everything is so episodic and nonsensical in the form of a feature film.
Another reason why the suspense and pace dissipates in the second half was because for me it once again began to dawn on me that these characters simply aren’t going anywhere. Interesting set pieces and scenarios will only keep audiences hooked for so long, after that I was expecting some more personal or emotional dilemmas form these characters, something for me to care about their situation, hope that they make it out of this scenario. But nothing of the sort occurs and I’m left watching people I don’t care about walk across ruins for another hour. Dylan O Brien is commendable with the material, but as far as depth goes his character challenges the status quo and shakes the system, but what else? I don’t know. Say what you will about Katniss, but the writing and Jenifer Lawrence managed to show her inner turmoil amid revolutions and fights to the death, ‘Maze Runner’ doesn’t succeed on that front.
There are also far too many elements borrowed from other films. Not just other YA apocalypse films either but movies of a completely different nature. Take this example, as they’re on the run from hordes of zombie-like creatures, the kids find refuge in an abandoned shopping mall. A random yet still obvious reference to ‘Dawn of the Dead’ or a wild coincidence that was not spotted or acknowledged as no one’s heard of that film on set because they’re all fourteen years old.
We’ve still got to get through another one of these, maybe even two.
Result: 3/10

Heat: 20 Years On

It’s hard to believe that Michael Mann’s crime epic is twenty years old. I say that it’s hard to believe because it still looks and feels so modern, holding up so well with its pace, characters and plot. Maybe it lies it Mann’s searing realism when it comes to the shootouts and heists, maybe it lies in the characters that populate those conflicts and therefore grab our attention and intrigue. Whichever one it is, the effect of what ‘Heat’ represents and stands as today is still astonishing.
For those of you who haven’t seen the film it chronicles the battle of wills and professions of a police officer and a criminal and concentrates on how they need one another. Without a skilled police officer to track down every amateur criminal, professional thieves like Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro) would be irrelevant as everyone would want a piece of the action. But at the same time dedicated enforcers like Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) would be unnecessary without criminals as good as that.
Not only do their professions necessitate one another, they parallel each other. Both men are devoted to their work, their careers are their lives, at the cost of everything else. Hanna’s third marriage is falling apart and McCauley simply cannot commit to anything as a part of his principle despite his own emotions. There is a moment when both are offered the chances to escape, Hanna could spend more time with his family when they need him most and McCauley could run wih the money when he has the chance. But another opportunity comes up in their careers, and neither can walk away.
As well as all the philosophical thoughts behind the film, there’s no denying that this is a great cops and robbers movie from the plot and action alone. I described it as a crime epic earlier and that is most definitely a fitting description. Not only that though, it’s an excellent cat and mouse game as we see McCauley plan his next move and Hanna attempting to guess what it is, luring one another into a trap every now and then as well as dealing with disputes and power struggles within their own teams as well.
Though it may appear to be more of a gimmick to pick DeNiro and Pacino to square off against each other in this ultimate showdown you instantly realise it really isn’t. They are both veterans of so many crime stories (‘Goodfellas’ and ‘Scarface’), both Oscar winners (‘Raging Bull’ and ‘Scent of a Woman’) and have both played that tragic hero (‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘The Godfather’) that are reprised here as war weary specialists, acting as a reflection of one another. Their presence is felt and only matched by the other. In no scene is this better shown than perhaps the best scene of the film, in which they meet each other for the first time (but already know everything about the other) and have a cup of coffee together.
As they sit across from one another, they each state exactly what one represents to the other, life or death. They take this short time to question why the other one does what he does. Not only that, but with McCauley planning a big heist very soon, and Hanna fully prepared to intercept him when it happens, they know that they will soon meet again and everything that they talk about here theoretically will be put into practice. But for the moment they merely sit back and drink.

That leads me on to the reason for my phrase ‘perhaps the best scene of the film’. There’s that gun battle, when McCauley and his team exit the bank they have just robbed, only to be confronted by Hanna and his police force. The resulting showdown is bombastic, intimate and intense all at the same time. It’s also frighteningly realistic, due to the rigorous amount of training that the actors went through such as meeting and interviewing real cops and robbers as well as being put through intensive firearms training and Michael Mann going to the trouble of building a replica of the street on a shooting range for them to practice. Then there’s the sound of it, normally films have gunshots and ricochets added in post production in favour of the set recorded audio. ‘Heat’ did the same until Mann heard it and hated it, so he discarded it and used the sound recorded on the set instead. The result is that deafening, uncomforting, gritty sound that places you right there, in the heat of the battle, right in the firing line.

Though many people try to emulate this cops and robbers story, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing it as well as ‘Heat’ did, mainly because it just feels like the definitive version. It explores both sides of the battle, says everything it needs to about them individually and their relationship. But at the heart of it all are just two people acting as different sides of the same coin.   

Everest

"Human beings simply aren't designed to function at the cruising altitude of a 747".

It’s tricky to know how far to describe the plot of a film like ‘Everest’. It is of course based very much on a true story and that always poses problems as to how much you assume whether or not the person you’re recommending it to knows about the event. If I were to describe ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is it a spoiler that Jordan Belfort goes to prison, or in ‘Rush’ is it a spoiler that Niki Lauda crashes his car and is horribly injured (regardless of the answer to those questions it doesn’t matter now because I’ve spoiled them if you haven’t seen them). The point of all this is that I can’t really think of an intro to this review but at least now I’ve filled the necessary paragraph so we can move on.
Looking back and chronicling a number of simultaneous attempts to reach the summit of Mount Everest in 1996 as rival companies and dangerous weather conditions resulted in the worst disaster ever to occur upon the slopes of the world’s tallest mountain.
A film like ‘Everest’ may also struggle to find numerous ways in which it can separate itself from the standard disaster movie, the other major entry for that genre this year was ‘San Andreas’ but of course they are completely different in terms of their tone and what they’re trying to accomplish as movies. This one is attempting to avoid clichés and rely much more on character driven drama, though of course one has to accept that with history certain elements of the story are naturally clichéd in a certain sense. Nonetheless the writers have done an excellent job in making the plot feel more like a natural progression of people struggling to survive and establishing their characters in such a way that these efforts make sense compared to their actions for the rest of the film. Though sometimes there are elements of added drama that seem to exist for screen time rather than logical character steps.
But the true scale of ‘Everest’s’ accomplishment lies in the way that it is shot and its cinematography. It is a gigantic visual spectacle in capturing the scope and enormity of exactly what these mountaineers are trying to accomplish. After a while the striking visuals go above and beyond making the mountain look terrifying, it appears to be some kind of malevolent overlord that towers above our protagonists and is throwing everything it has at them. ‘Everest’ even manages to use these elements every once in a while to point out the foolhardiness of what these people are trying to achieve by climbing up it, allowing the striking imagery to pose more questions in the viewers mind than any dialogue could.
As we saw with 2007’s ‘Zodiac’ Jake Gyllenhaal fits very well into an ensemble cast and does so again here. Contrary to what many believe he is only one player in this much larger story. If I was to single out one main protagonist I’d say Jason Clarke as Rob Hall a New Zealander expedition group leader who is expected to return home to his wife and unborn child. But then again the sheer size and weight of this cast ironically undermines this central role sometimes, making it harder to focus on his trials and tribulations when there’s so much more going on as well. That being said though there are many players they all bring their best efforts into the game. Sam Worthington (who’s been absent from our screens for a while) is pleasing in what could have been a very irrelevant role, Kiera Knightly and Robin Wright add a touch of normality to the otherwise alien world of the mountain, then there’s John Hawke, Emily Watson and Josh Brolin who also do superb work here.
The true strengths of ‘Everest’ lie in the size of the spectacle and the ensemble cast but its ability to tell this story on an intimate level is drawn into question.

Result: 7/10

Irrational Man

"There was no question that there was something lighter about Abe. His spirit was up, he seemed more focussed and yet for some reason, it bothered me."

Woody Allen really enjoys his social misfits doesn’t he? He may be perhaps one of the greatest names in cinematic comedy, back in his day and today in fact. ‘Blue Jasmine’ is a more recent example of course, but it ponders into a deeper philosophical drama and in ‘Annie Hall’ he is playing the social misfit. Now he has Joaquin Phoenix to be a social misfit and when you’re talking about philosophical drama it always gives you an early boost if your main character is a professor of philosophy.
A philosophy professor (Phoenix) is in a deep rut, having lost all of his confidence in both the purpose and meaning of his subject. He finds no solution amid drugs and alcohol but amid some interaction with a brilliant young student (Emma Stone) he theorises a plan that may give his life purpose again.
I should say that the advertising campaign behind this movie is simply awful. The plot summary describes it as more of a quirky rom-com, but I’d say that in reality it’s more like a Hitchcockian thriller with some Woody Allen twists in it. There’s a dark comic wit to it that both filmmakers have infused within their work before (‘Manhattan’, ‘Crimes and Misdemeanours’), and there’s a lot of metaphysical scenes to back it up that Woody in particular excels at, usually. It’s hard not to give away why ‘Irrational Man’ is suitable for that description without giving too much of the plot away because if I was to do so then I may risk taking away that surprise of the actual structure of the film as when you realise that it’s going in that particular direction you can’t help but laugh a little.
It does breeze through some very dark material rather lightly, in fact maybe a little too lightly. Though there are some interesting themes and ideas on display here, none of them are explored in detail. It would make sense to gloss over certain elements to maintain a consistent tone but at the same time it doesn’t feel like any aspects are examined in a three dimensional way. As I said before Allen has experience in mixing the thrills and quirkiness and in many ways that acts as yet another problem for ‘Irrational Man’, it’s the same old story. We’ve seen this before and though it’s entertaining, it’s undeniably trivial and overly light.
Of course one can make the argument that Woody Allen’s filmography is so impressive that anything less interesting than the likes of ‘Annie Hall’ or ‘Hannah and her Sisters’ would appear mediocre as opposed to good. That is a fair assumption, am I judging this film based on its own merits or compared to previous Allen pictures? I would say I’m looking at it and coming to a conclusion based on the singular achievements it accomplishes on its own. Honestly it just feels extremely lacklustre, and not just compared to other attempts by… (You know what, I’ve mentioned his name so many times in this review I’m just going to stop now) that director.
What other names are involved? Well Joaquin Phoenix makes for an likeable lead, if anything he just makes me more frustrated as I feel that an actor of his calibre would easily handle a more complex character study. Though he is a social misfit he avoids falling into the usual nervousness tactic of most actors and gives his sociopath some weight. Emma Stone does bring some youthful energy to the mix as well but their chemistry feels a little lacking, repetitive and sadly predictable. This coming from the writer that reinvented romantic-comedy conversations.
Whether it’s entertaining or not will depend on your frame of mind entering it, but even then only the most devout followers of its director will find a huge amount of enjoyment out of ‘Irrational Man’.
Result: 4/10