Bright

"All of the races are different, but just cos they're different doesn't mean anybody's better or worse than anyone."

Like any major studio, Netflix have done a good deal this year to branch out. They spent a lot of 2017 trying to weigh in as an artistically droven studio that helped distribute the films of gifted auteur directors like Bong Joon Ho and Noah Baumbach, as well as signing up to release the upcoming projects of Martin Scorsese and Alex Garland. But also like any major studio, there’s a cruel irony in that their most popular movie is likely to be their worst, a point proven by ‘Bright’.

In an alternate present where humans and fantasy creatures have co-existed since the beginning of time, human LAPD officer Daryl Ward (Will Smith) and Orc rookie officer Nick Jakoby (Joel Edgerton) embark on a routine neighbourhood night patrol and discover a powerful ancient artefact that was thought to be destroyed. They soon encounter a darkness that will ultimately alter the future and their world as they know it.

The general premise of ‘Bright’ might make it sound like a distant relation to ‘Men in Black’ (and not just for Will Smith), a police force existing in the realm of the supernatural, pairing two contrasting characters together, even with the same ancient artefact McGuffin. Like any bad movie that’s similar to another one you love, the most you can give to the bad film is that it makes you appreciate the similar movie that you love even more for all that it does right. The world of ‘Men in Black’ may be comedic, but it also felt real and tactile, with rules that were stressed for their importance just as much for their comedic value. It was also all explained to the audience in a way that felt natural to the plot, none of which applies to ‘Bright’.

As a screenwriter, I often find that Max Landis puts more weight into ideas than characters. I don’t doubt that he gives some of the best pitches for a movie in Hollywood, but therein is part of the reason. They are movies that are easy to sell on concept alone, so as a result never seem to develop beyond that initial concept. There’s nothing within the narrative or characters of ‘Bright’ that justifies its central concept. In other words, you could copy and paste the overall plot of this onto any buddy cop movie with some minor tweaks, and you’d have the same movie save for the small surface details. The only benefit of this fantasy world are some painfully obvious social metaphors that quite frankly were better explored earlier this year in the ‘Tales From the Citadel’ episode of ‘Rick and Morty’.

But as well as never applying its central premise to any unique degree, ‘Bright’ also fails in being a socially relevant film as it’s social concept holds a higher status within the movie than anything else. It seems so concerned with projecting this idea of it being a nuanced social commentary that it forgets to work as a compelling film in of itself. That’s an issue that also falls to director David Ayer, whose direction never alludes to a world larger than what we’re being presented with, even though the entire narrative hinges on the idea that we do. At no point does this feel like a world in which we become used to, or spend adequate time in to care about.

The only thing that’s flatter than the world in which ‘Bright’ takes place are the characters that inhabit it. The McGuffin driven narrative leaves little room to explore these characters, creating a buddy cop formula that ultimately fails to even establish or distinguish its main characters. It’s a shame given that both Will Smith and Joel Edgerton seem more than capable of bringing two likable characters to life, ones that would have a good dynamic at that. But much like the movie around them, the script is more concerned with having the characters represent a social metaphor or just spout exposition.

I never thought I would have to call a movie like ‘Bright’ pretentious, but that is exactly the word I’d use to describe it. The movie wants to endow itself with social relevance before it’s even earned the right to be considered as such. It makes not only for a movie that feels tired and predictable, but one that is so tonally confused and I have to say, pretty boring. When it’s not hiding behind it’s obvious metaphors it’s bogging the audience down by explaining its convoluted and nonsensical mythology. Rather than disperse this information throughout the movie, it’s all pushed towards the first act, a time when we should be connecting with the characters so that we’re invested in their actions later on.

It really is a shame because when ‘Bright’ gets to it’s bigger set pieces it’s not half bad. Though it is still over the top farce trying to masquerade as self serious drama, it’s still engaging and decently directed. But at the end of the day I simply don’t care, not about the world, nor the characters, or anything really.

‘Bright’ is a convoluted and self-important bore, a movie that tries to accomplish step 476 before getting past step 1.

Result: 2/10

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

"This is not going to go the way you think."

It’s difficult to review a new ‘Star Wars’ movie. A large part of me wants to skip past all the formalities and just go over my own personal take on each plot intricacy to a point where the 3 people who haven’t seen the movie yet will have had everything spoiled. In regards to why this review is a few days late, I’ve had to take a while to mull over Rian Johnson’s ‘The Last Jedi’ and dissect it for a while in order to come up with a verdict on it. It’s that kind of movie, for better or worse.

Picking up after the events of ‘The Force Awakens’….that’s it, that’s all I’m saying.

‘Star Wars’ fans tend to enjoy deciding what they think ‘Star Wars’ is. Among other things, one of the criticisms levelled at the prequel trilogy is that they don’t resemble classic ‘Star Wars’. I say among other things because although those movies are bad because they fail to comply to the basic rules of good filmmaking, the fact that they’re different from ‘Star Wars’ isn’t a criticism I buy into that much. As fans we shouldn’t get to dictate what a movie should be, especially in the case of ‘Star Wars’ as their personal version of ‘Star Wars’ is a transcendent feat of pure perfection that’s simultaneously free of any derivative call backs to the original whilst also being utterly compliant with every previously established rule and regulation of the previous movies, establishing a whole new mythology whilst never stepping outside of the specific perimeters of what they personally value in ‘Star Wars’.

None of this is to say that any criticism of ‘The Last Jedi’ comes purely from disgruntled fanboys, because there are flaws with this movie. But it’s different and bold in a way that we haven’t seen from ‘Star Wars’ in a long time. It’s the first time I’ve found myself watching a ‘Star Wars’ movie with absolutely no idea what was going to happen, with a plot that continued to surprise me as well as intrigue me. It’s plot is character driven in the best possible way, making sure the evolution and emotional state of its characters are what influences the story above everything else.

It’s for this reason that the character work in ‘The Last Jedi’ is so valuable. With the plot so heavily tied to the decisions its characters make, the fact that the movie excellently conveys the inner thoughts and progression of its inhabitants makes the narrative feel all the more involving. It understands that the characters relationships to one another and their own personal journey are what matters, so it puts them front and centre for all to see. So much of the plot relies on the characters deciding where they fit into this grand intergalactic conflict that a mere conversation become just as enthralling as any lightsabre duel.

With so many character driven moments, it helps that the movie has a terrific cast to bring those characters to life. Picking up where she left off, Daisy Ridley sets herself apart as one of the best protagonists of any major blockbuster today. She portrays Rey as a determined individual who is unsure of her own fate, but never doubting of her own importance. There’s a vulnerability to Ridley’s performance that makes her empathetic, but also an inner strength that feels inspirational. It’s counteracted by Adam Driver’s fantastically complex portrayal of the film’s antagonist Kylo Ren. Almost every scene with Ren rests on the idea of his own inner conflict, and Driver never fails to make that conflict feel prevalent and palpable.

That being said, I think the best performance of the whole movie might just be Mark Hamill reprising his role as Luke Skywalker. It’s hard to describe his performance without giving away plot details, but I will say that his entire presence defies what anyone would expect. It’s a performance that anyone with a long time connection to the character of Luke is likely to find affecting for how it puts aside wish fulfilment in favour of a grim reality. The same goes for Carrie Fisher, whose appearance in ‘The Last Jedi’ was always going to be a tear jerker, but for the way her role plays out and develops over the course of the movie, it becomes even more resonant.    

But for all the depressing emotional stuff there’s plenty of pure entertainment to be had. John Boyega is just as charismatic as he was in ‘The Force Awakens’ and there’s an increase of involvement from Oscar Isaac as well, which can only be a good thing. Finn and Poe both provide a good helping of charisma but also each have a brilliant arc that is as unexpected as it is engaging. Newcomers like Kelly Marie Tran also do a fine job and while Benicio Del Toro’s character is a little lacking, the way the actor distinguishes himself and crafts a memorable performance is to be commended.

Someone who is just as, if not more so, valuable than the cast though is director Rian Johnson. Under Johnson’s direction ‘The Last Jedi’ is probably the most visually dynamic movie in the ‘Star Wars’ franchise so far, while still keeping itself rooted within the look and feel of the universe. There are many visually interesting set pieces, particularly the third act finale, that are as breath taking on a visual level as they are on a narrative one. When Johnson handles the highly anticipated lightsabre duels he does so with long, sweeping takes that show the fighters in full force. But it’s not just empty spectacle, with each action sequence being handled with a sense of tension and tactile feel to accompany it.

My main issue with ‘The Last Jedi’ can be summed up with one word, consistency. The narrative and tone of the movie make a few missteps in terms of what to show the audience as well as when they show it. The pacing sometimes suffers from a side story that despite being integral to the plot is weighed down by slow storytelling that detracts from the main narrative. There’s also a lot of humour that feels out of place, sometimes spoiling the mood of a scene that was already doing very well without a needless joke. Moments of tension are diffused, moments of pathos are undercut and overall the moments of humour come across as obligatory.

That being said, I think Johnson has crafted a bold and brilliant instalment of the ‘Star Wars’ franchise. It’s a movie that has grown in stature for me since I first saw it and is one that I definitely look forward to revisiting. While many ‘Star Wars’ movies are at their most affecting when viewed for the first time, ‘The Last Jedi’ is one I look forward to dwelling on more as time goes by.

Entertaining as well as exhilarating, ‘The Last Jedi’ is a bold and provocative edition to the ‘Star Wars’ saga that pushes the franchise towards undiscovered countries.

Result: 8/10

Molly's Game

"I'm Molly Bloom. Do you know about me?"

A new Aaron Sorkin script is always going to be an event. To bask in the richness of his dialogue, the efficiency of his construction and the outright mastery of his storytelling is always a treat. But there is a certain curiosity towards ‘Molly’s Game’ over why Sorkin chose this to be his directorial debut. Was there something extra special in this script that his other masterpieces like ‘The Social Network’ and ‘Steve Jobs’ lacked? It’s an intriguing thought to say the least.

Having run some of the most high stakes poker games for the rich and famous for over a decade, Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain) suddenly finds herself the target of an FBI investigation as they demand to know the details of her underground empire. With her lawyer Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) as her only ally, Molly must fight to maintain her principles and go up against the forces trying to wean information from her.

It should come as no surprise that an Sorkin script doesn’t feel its length at all. Despite being nearly two and a half hours long, ‘Molly’s Game’ seems to go flying by due to Sorkin’s brilliant command of pace and structure. It has any number of impressive scenes that allow it’s talent to (for lack of a better word) show off with eloquent speeches or snappy dialogue. But despite this Sorkin injects a sense of flow to the script that allows the movie to progress naturally. It never sags or feels padded, but rather moves forward with great pace that indulges the audience while efficiently taking them through this story.

I also understand why Sorkin chose this script to make his directorial debut. Though as a director Sorkin lacks the tightness of David Fincher or the style of Danny Boyle, he seems to understand that unlike the scripts helmed by those directors, the script for ‘Molly’s Game’ didn’t require those elements. This script simply needed a director who completely understands its function and who better than the person who wrote it? Each dramatic moment hits with full force because Sorkin knows when to emphasise them, and though you’re hanging on to every word of dialogue the movie is free flowing enough that it never feels exhausting. He also has a consistently good editing pattern and shot ratio to keep these fast conversations clear and concise.

That being said, I think the film could have benefited from adding a few stylistic touches here and there. There are a few scenes that I could point do as being, not necessarily bad, but lacking a certain visual flair that would have made them more engaging. As I said earlier, for the most part ‘Molly’s Game’ is plenty engaging enough, but every now and then I found myself noticing a scene that leaned more heavily towards function than form rather than striking a perfect balance of the two.

But, astonishingly in this Aaron Sorkin movie, the person I find myself raving about the most isn’t Sorkin. It’s actually Jessica Chastain. In what could be the best performance of an already illustrious career, Chastain perfectly embodies a quality that Sorkin particularly loves in his writing. Whether it be Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, Sorkin likes writing protagonists who keep their motives a secret and hide their inner emotions. One could say he likes characters who keep their cards close to their chest, and would you look at that, here is a characters who literally keeps her cards close to her chest.

Chastain strikes a perfect balance of allowing us to see into Molly’s psyche enough so that we can empathise with her but also making us doubt the validity of everything she says. She embodies strength and principle but also shows enough vulnerability for there to be suspense over whether she can hold her own against her prosecutors. It’s a difficult balancing  act at the best of times, but to do it when the dialogue is as sharp and as quick witted as it is here is another thing entirely. Most actors would be tempted to just revel in the fluidity of Sorkin’s dialogue and make their character seem impervious as a result. It takes a special kind of talent to find both the strength and weaknesses of a character in this kind of dialogue, and bring that to the forefront in every scene.

The rest of the cast also do a fantastic job. Much like the audience they have to piece together who Molly Bloom is. But unlike the audience they have to find a sense of development to that investigation and stand next to the towering performance of Chastain, which they all manage brilliantly. They all do an excellent job in portraying their characters flaws and weaknesses whilst showing their strength and resolve throughout. Whether it’s Idris Elba, Chris O’Dowd, Kevin Costner or Michael Cera, none of them get lost in the crowd.

Though the movie occasionally suffers from feeling a little distant, as if every now and then it strays into talking about the ideas each character represents rather than the character themselves, there’s still a strong emotional through line to underpin it all. ‘Molly’s Game’ may be sprawling in runtime and epic in ideas, but its scope and focus is actually very intimate, which is an unusual contrast for this kind of drama. There are few screenwriters who could pull off such a feat, other than, well I think you know by now.

Boasting a number of terrific performances including a masterclass from Jessica Chastain, ‘Molly’s Game’ is an engaging and epic drama that ranks alongside Sorkin’s best work.

Result: 8/10

The Disaster Artist

"So there's this guy Johnny, a true American hero, to be played by me. He has it all, good looks, friends and also maybe Johnny is vampire."

I imagine there were a lot of varying options when deciding what direction to take with a movie about the making of ‘The Room’. On the one hand there is the obvious hilarity in presenting the worst film ever made to an audience, but then again there’s also a certain affection for the passion that went into making said movie. There’s a need to explain events as they happened but also a need to preserve the mystery of the enigma that is Tommy Wiseau. It’s quite a juggling act but luckily, ‘The Disaster Artist’ manages brilliantly.

Aspiring actor Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) is taught to open up and embrace the uniqueness of his craft by a mysterious fellow actor called Tommy Wiseau (James Franco). The two travel to LA together but soon become frustrated with the difficulties of landing a part, leading Tommy to write, produce and direct a movie that he and Greg will star in together.

Another issue when deciding what tone to take ‘The Disaster Artist’ in would be to what degree should it cater to fans of ‘The Room’? Would the film stand on its own or descend into a self-indulgent parade of inside jokes? While ‘The Disaster Artist’ is certainly funnier and more enjoyable if you have seen ‘The Room’, it’s just as relatable and empathetic regardless. If you’ve ever had an ambition to do anything, you’ll sympathise with Tommy and Greg’s story because at its core ‘The Disaster Artist’ is about two people who had this dream and, for better or worse, saw it through to the end.

It’s a testament to the movie as a whole that they manage to make Tommy such an endearing character without revealing any information regarding who he is or where he comes from? None of his motivations are explained or deconstructed but we grasp onto this basic core belief he has that he can make it if he tries hard enough. He remains an enigma of a person but the script demonstrates time and time again that he has a deep passion for what he does. But at the same time it’s also not afraid to show the darker aspects of his time making ‘The Room’ and the abuse he inflicted on his actors and crew.

But since I’ve mentioned Tommy I can avoid it no longer. Let’s talk about James Franco. While Franco has been consistently good for the last 7 years this is the first time I’ve seen him completely transform himself since ‘127 Hours’. It’s truly staggering to see Franco completely immerse himself in this role to a point where I forgot I was even watching an actor. He embodies Wiseau not just through prosthetics and an uncannily good impression of his accent, but conveying this oddball sense of passion that Wiseau always carries with him. I felt truly connected to Wiseau’s struggle thanks to Franco’s performance and it never failed to keep me invested in the movie. It’s endlessly charismatic and often played for laughs but it’s also intimate and poignant when it need to be as well.

The rest of the cast are also on top form. Though his role is less showy than his brothers, Dave Franco also does a great job portraying a fellow wide eyed dreamer. Unlike Tommy we get to explore a bit about what motivates Greg and his own history, which Dave uses very well to create a fully fleshed out character. His arc and evolution through the movie is a joy to watch. Seth Rogen and Alison Brie may not be playing against type but they’re talents are used well within the plot. Though there are dozens of cameos I didn’t find any of them distracting or obnoxious, they felt well integrated into the story even when the celebrities were playing themselves.

‘The Disaster Artist’ also has a great balance of tone. It explores some of the more sadistic methods Wiseau used to make his movie, such as mistreating his actors and insulting his crew. But at the same time it acknowledges the absurdist humour in the whole situation. Franco’s direction does rely a little too much on handheld camera use for my liking but it does help add a documentarian kind of feel to the movie as well as a personal, more intimate angle from which to view these characters. It’s as if the viewer is also there on set, experiencing this madness first hand as well.

I think what ultimately makes ‘The Disaster Artist’ so endearing is that it has a deep found love of its own subject. It plays the terribleness of ‘The Room’ for laughs but it’s also well aware of how it represents the fulfilment of someone’s lifelong dream. It takes time to build its characters and establish their relationships with one another to a point where by the time Greg and Tommy conclude to make their own movie, even though we know how it’s going to turn out, we’re well on board with them as they do so.

A hilariously loving tribute to the worst movie of all time, ‘The Disaster Artist’ is an endearing look into one of the most absurd dream fulfilments ever.

Result: 9/10

Stronger

"You show the world that they can't break us no matter what the hell they do."

For a number of years now, Jake Gyllenhaal has been turning in amazing performances that have been overlooked by almost every major awards association. Whether it’s the uncertainty of ‘Prisoners’, the duality of ‘Enemy’, the regret of ‘Nocturnal Animals’ or (most atrociously of all) the truly stunning performance in ‘Nightcrawler’, Gyllenhaal keeps being forgotten. I figured before long he’d turn to a more conventional kind of movie to deliver a good performance and that is what ‘Stronger’ seems to be.

Jeff Bauman (Jake Gyllenhaal) loses both of his legs when two bombs explode during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. After regaining consciousness in the hospital, Jeff is able to help law enforcement identify one of the suspects, but his own battle is just beginning. With unwavering support from his family and girlfriend, Bauman embarks on a long and heroic journey to physical and emotional rehabilitation.

It may surprise you to learn that the director of this true life drama is David Gordon Green, who also helmed comedies such as ‘Pineapple Express’ and the entire second season of ‘Vice Principals’. But he did also start his career with the excellent drama ‘George Washington’ so maybe this isn’t as big of a transition as it would initially seem. For the most part Green handles the drama of the story very well, never hamming up emotionally charged moments but also succeeding at making each emotional beat land as it should. There’s an inspirational undertone to the film that is likely to be affecting to anyone who sees it.

I think ‘Stronger’ benefits from the fact that it sets itself up as a very standard heroic story. Jeff Bauman has every reason within this story to be the unwavering hero, not just after the marathon but before it as well. I won’t spoil anything but let me just say that Jeff’s reason for being at the marathon in the first place only makes his eventual struggle even more empathetic. But then the film subverts our expectations by portraying a much bleaker view of proceedings. As I said before, there’s plenty of inspirational moments, but the movie makes it clear that this story is more about Jeff wrestling with his newfound position more than anything else.

Most of all, ‘Stronger’ simply feels honest. It seems to understand that being hailed by everyone as a hero comes as little solace to Jeff when coping with his injuries, and knows that his real struggle is in regaining the little things in his life. It’s a movie that revels in the small victories and takes a much more nuanced approach to his recovery than most dramas would. It’s not afraid to show his struggle at its bleakest and most difficult moments, even when most people would like to pretend that these kind of stories end with the event itself rather than the aftermath.

A large part of that honesty is to do with Jake Gyllenhaal’s excellent performance at the centre of the movie. There’s a great physicality to Gyllenhaal’s portrayal that acts as a constant reminder to the audience of Jeff’s struggle. There’s an effort to every movement and a consequence to each step forward. But his emotional portrayal is even more affecting. It’s clear from the start that Jeff is wrestling with some demons as he attempts so come to terms with what has happened. Gyllenhaal ensures that these struggles are always in the audience’s mind, but also never lets them overshadow Jeff and is unafraid to play him as a fleshed out character in his own right.

There are also some excellent supporting performances from the likes of Miranda Richardson and especially Tatiana Maslany. Each character relating to Jeff’s life is trying to influence him in some way, but only in a manner that they see as being best for him. His mother wants to surround him with attention from media outlets but doesn’t see how they are ultimately effecting him negatively. Shoe does it out of a need to see her son celebrated for his heroism which is certainly an understandable need.

I’d say the only major weakness in ‘Stronger’ is that it doesn’t quite commit to this brutal honesty for its third act. Maybe it’s just the fact that it’s structurally designed to have a more inspirational or uplifting finale and it does feel earned to a certain extent. But it just doesn’t quite mesh with the movie that came before it. The characters become a bit less empathetic and are simplified as the film rushes to its conclusion, and with the late inclusion of a major character the third act starts to feel more and more like an additional part of a different movie. It’s a small slip up but one that unbalances the film as a whole unfortunately.

An uplifting but also brutally honest drama that’s held up by a terrific Gyllenhaal performance. It only stumbled slightly in the third act.

Result: 7/10

Happy End

"Why did you do it?"

I think it’s surprising that Michael Haneke has never gotten the mainstream attention that so many other directors have. Granted, he’s widely acclaimed and then some, having won two coveted Palme d’Or awards. But I just feel like whenever I have a conversation about the best modern auteurs, his name seems to be overlooked a bit, even though he is clearly one of the best filmmakers working today. Haneke is provocative and meticulous in his craft, to an almost banal degree.

Anne Laurnet (Isabelle Huppert), the owner of a large construction firm, meets for dinner with her family who each have a whole host of issues. Her father George (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is suffering from dementia whilst her son has a drinking problem, and as a whole the family are completely oblivious to the world issues occurring just a short distance from where they are sat.

There’s a question of whether a director retuning to specific themes and stylistics that they have upheld throughout their career is a bad thing. On the one hand you could see it as a director evolving their work whilst staying true to their roots as well as creating a consistent kind of filmmaking. Another way of looking at it though is to take it as a sign that the director has stayed within their comfort zone rather than branch out. It’s a question I’m faced with after watching ‘Happy End’ because while I don’t doubt its craftsmanship, I’m not sure where to place it in Haneke’s oeuvre.

‘Happy End’ may not be a new direction for Haneke, but it represents his commitment to exploring that direction and the mastery with which he does so. That being said, he does find new ways to present his distinct style. Despite having a glossier surface than his other movies, Haneke still evokes his usual sense of existential dread and humanistic horror from the movie. In fact there’s almost a farcical quality to certain parts of the movie which serve to make the more disturbing aspects even more unsettling when shown in such stark contrast. The depravity of his characters is chilling to watch, and by framing the story through the lens of modern technology he adds a new element to proceedings again.

It’s actually remarkable to see said technology presented so flawlessly in the movie. One of the reasons why films often feel preachy when tackling the subject of social media is that they get the details wrong and subsequently undercut the message. It’s hard for me to listen to a lecture when the person speaking clearly knows nothing about the subject. But Haneke has obviously done his research into how these mediums work, how they affect human interaction and has rendered them as cinematic entities.

There’s certainly a more clinical approach to presenting the characters in ‘Happy End’ than one may expect. But that form suits the movie very well, reflecting the way its characters view the world around them. But despite this distant view the movie never feels unengaging. Part of this is due to the palpable tension that’s clear right from the start. The whole family feels like a simmering substance ready to explode. Haneke’s perfect framing and flawless compositions also help to give the movie a sense of visual intrigue.

When that tension does finally boil over its surprisingly low key. Though all of his films have been intimate, ‘Happy End’ feels like Haneke well and truly garnering the horror in the kind of depravity you’re likely to witness every day. Whether it’s down to genuine malice or just a lack of empathy, the characters of this film will undoubtedly make your skin crawl with their relatively minor actions. The fact that they are framed against the backdrop of a refugee crisis only makes their plights seem more insignificant and more infuriating as a result.

What makes the desperation of these characters all the more involving is the terrific performances from the cast. I know it’s hardly worth saying but Isabelle Huppert is fantastic. She plays her character with a clear human streak that puts her warped morality into perspective, whilst never letting the audience see her as a pure antagonist. Jean-Louis Trintignant probably has the most empathetic role, but even that is struck by a sense of desperation that almost makes his presence painful to watch. There’s a spent out nature to his movement and speech that constantly affirms his situation to the audience and never gives them a chance to look away.

Michael Haneke always tries to ensure that the conversations surrounding his films continue well after they have ended and that is most definitely true of ‘Happy End’. It’s final narrative beat in particular will leave you with a sense of emptiness that few films can replicate. It may be a little derivative of his previous work but it’s also less flamboyant and almost more disturbing as a result. The premise for any Haneke movie before this would make high drama and heartbreak seem like a given. But in ‘happy End’ he takes the mundanity of modern life and makes it utterly deplorable, as well as unforgettable.

Though it’s not new territory for Haneke, it’s a region he still explores with mastery and complete control of his craft.

Result: 8/10

Wonder

"I've had 27 surgeries to help me breathe, see, hear. But none of them have made me look ordinary."

There’s an unfortunate tendency for films like ‘Wonder’ to be overly sentimental, in fact it’s almost a cliché for a critic to point this out in a movie of this kind. Understand that this story absolutely warrants sentimentality but can still fall into the trap of using overkill on that front if it doesn’t feel earned. When movies try to manipulate the audience into caring rather than putting the effort into actually crafting a compelling story. Once you notice the techniques filmmakers use to do this it’s hard to avoid them.

August "Auggie" Pullman (Jacob Tremblay) is a fifth-grade boy living in North River Heights in upper Manhattan. He has an extremely rare medical facial deformity and due to numerous surgeries, Auggie had been home-schooled by his parents Isabel (Julia Roberts) and Nate (Owen Wilson). But as Auggie is approaching middle school age, Isabel and Nate decide to enrol him in to attend school for the first time.

In Donald Glover’s stand up special ‘Weirdo’ (don’t worry, I promise this is going somewhere) he featured a routine where he talks about kids and bullying. His reasoning was that kids can be the cruellest people of all because unlike adults they have no concept of empathy or consequence. At the end of the day our main motive to not punch a random person in the street is that we know the likelihood is that they will punch us back and that wouldn’t be good. But a child’s brain doesn’t work that way, so they just tend to say whatever they want.

It’s this kind of logic that drives a central theme in ‘Wonder’. It’s a movie that points out how one child being cruel to another is one thing, but the prejudice of an adult against that child is something all the more disturbing. I won’t say anything else in order to avoid plot spoilers, but in these moments ‘Wonder’ is a far more intelligent and thoughtful drama than the usual kind of sappy melodrama you would find on the Lifetime channel. Every emotional beat of the movie feels earned and genuine, never resorting to an overtly manipulative tactics to garner some contrived emotion. Or at least for the most part, but even then it holds off the cheesier aspects until the end so they feel a little more deserved at that point.

It’s surprising because if I was going to assume ‘Wonder’ would fall down anywhere it would be either an overly sappy tone or not being able to sustain itself with its story. But in fact if anything the movie feels too overstuffed. There’s a lot of interesting content here in how it not only explores Auggie’s arc but also the way the lives of those around him develop and are affected by his influence. From his best friends to his bullies and his older sister, there are a lot of varying plot threads and arcs. They all work and feel satisfactory, but the way they are presented makes ‘Wonder’ feel a tad episodic and unfocussed. Instead of fully exploring one topic it seems to just move on to the next plot thread. Though the script manages to tie up enough loose ends so that the progression of these characters feels like a logical leap, it is a little frustrating to see an interesting story cut short.

But the good thing is that each of these stories has a talented cast to bring it to life. I’d be lying if I said all the child actors can hold their own but most of them are serviceable, and Tremblay is exceptional. Auggie feels less like a protagonist and more of an instigative force, but Tremblay still makes the most of the role as it develops. You can sense the palpable nervousness when Auggie first sets foot into his new school and you feel each small victory and defeat largely due to the way Tremblay sells it. His entire physical demeanour changes with the simple act of a fellow student sitting next to him or saying hello.

Owen Wilson and Julia Roberts are also very good. They each show a great level of conflict in their characters that helps make them empathetic. They each want to give their son the fullest range of opportunities but are also highly protective of him. Their concern that others will reject Auggie is not only a valid one, but at times it’s proven true. But due to it being Roberts and Wilson they still carry enough charisma and charm to make them feel like fully realised individuals, likable ones at that. They’re also nuanced though, knowing when to let the quitter moments of a performance speak for themselves.

Though it’s a little cluttered and unfocused, ‘Wonder’ is a sincere, affecting and inspirational drama.

Result: 7/10