Category: movie-reviews

My first review starring Amy Adams of the week. For some reason, I don’t think it’s going to be my last.

Nocturnal Animals is a drama written for the screen and directed by Tom Ford, which like I said stars Amy Adams as Susan, a New York socialite and artist who is unhappy with her life as she decides to read the latest work of her ex-husband Edward, played by Jake Gyllenhaal.

That, “in the real world of the story”, is the plot synopsis. Amy Adams reads a book and reacts to it. Yet through an extremely well put together cinema narrative, we see this intercut with the story of the book itself along with flashbacks of Adams’ character’s shared past with the author.

It’s evidence of one of the most miraculous properties of cinema. Separately, these stories range from boring to pretty good, but somehow through their merging, Ford creates a fascinating movie.

This all works because we see the world through the eyes of Susan. We read the book and we almost hear her thoughts as we the words interact with her. That is something I find rarely works in a story. When they have a character read the “fictional” side of a story, they often have to shoehorn reality into it to cram in drama. Or, if you’re David Lynch we make neither the dream nor the waking world distinguishable.

A conversation we hear early in the “real” narrative at one of Susan’s parties stuck with me throughout. One of her friends tells her that it’s alright to feel sad despite all of the good things in her life, since “it’s all relative”. Of course the film is all about the relative nature of emotion. The story within the story is considerably darker and more harrowing, but the emotions felt by Susan are as real as if she was there, because we as an audience go there. Amy Adams, by the way, nails this performance.

Speaking of that inner story, Jake Gyllenhaal is very much the star in his character’s own novel. As Tony, his family is completely torn apart as a group of red-necks kidnap his wife and daughter and he must try to enact justice.

We are constantly reminded that this story is not real, like the dream in The Wizard of Oz or the entire plot of Our Town. We don’t care though. Because of Jake’s once again terrific work as the regular Joe who got into the wrong situation and a beautiful turn from Michael Shannon, we connect to these characters as much as we connect to the real ones.

If you think about No Country for Old Men, you’ll probably think of the chase throughout the story between Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. It’s an extremely well done chase and keeps us thrilled throughout. But what elevates it to something more is the almost disconnected story of Tommy Lee Jones as the Sheriff. It is through the juxtaposition of elements, that we get something greater than the sum of already brilliant parts.

Here, through a similar act of juxtaposition, we get a great film out of three parts carefully connected.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a wonderful drama that rips into the mind of its central character like so many pieces of paper.

Fun fact, did you know that Good Will Hunting was originally going to be a film about a genius who the FBI is after. Another fun fact, I can’t get through a review without being late and referencing Good Will Hunting!

The Accountant is a thriller starring Good Will Hunting co-writer Ben Affleck as a man with autism who plays an accountant for some very dangerous people. Good thing he is also… a badass!

Using autism in this movie could have gone SO wrong. A movie in which a condition like that is seen as a positive has the potential to be life-affirmingly awesome or very awkward. What’s cool here is that Affleck’s character isn’t a Superman BECAUSE of his autism, but because of special circumstances involving his military upbringing, coupled with his intense drive for things to make sense, a symptom of his high-functioning autism.

The way the condition is written here is kind of sweet and charming. While some might find the jokes that come from his awkwardness in social situations, it actually served to alleviate the tension of certain scenes like good comic moments should.

On top of that, Ben Affleck has proven once again that not only can he direct and write, but he can also act subtly and with grace. He makes it totally believable for there to be a guy who does all this cool stuff while also being autistic.

He also has Anna Kendrick as an accountant who ends up having to tag along with him. She, like almost every other damsel in a thriller, is completely forgotten in the third act till the final five minutes, but hey, ho!

What lets the film down is the story. Any scene that doesn’t have Affleck in it just feels boring. Whole subplots and back stories seem entirely stupid.

If they were going for a theme of “everybody has a past”, okay, but they added a scene explaining that one of the Treasury agents after Affleck was an offender when she was young, and yet it’s barely brought up again. That’s just bad writing.

There is some stuff that kind of works story-wise. JK Simmons plays the main government guy after Affleck, and he still delivers a knock-out performance.

Unfortunately, the twists in the main mystery are either predictable or so stupid and contrived that you’d half expect them to appear in a soap opera.

This film is fascinating in context. It’s like a mixture of all the generic stupid run away from baddies and hit them thrillers from the past 20 years with all of the stupidity of the whole thing and the disappointment of the third act kept, but somehow managing to cram in genuinely interesting and likeable main characters and comedy.

I’ll give this film a pass. It’s not a great movie, it’s not even all that good, but it does get some stuff right.

Recommended Scenario: If you’d like a dumb thriller with some lovely little touches to put it just above some of the rest.

While Phase One of Marvel’s MCU is still for some reason something I haven’t watched (I’ve been working my way through my “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” book, so you’ll forgive me). However, thanks to the internet being pretty much a spoiler-filled Pandora’s Box, I give myself licence to watch one of the latest ones.

Doctor Strange stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, a Brain Surgeon whose career is brought to a screeching halt when he crashes his car and loses the use of his hands. He goes to India, and there learns the mystic arts and discovers his ability to kick major butt.

Marvel’s track record has been pretty solid so far, or at least since they started making their own movies. The only complaint thus far has been the relative sameness of some of their stuff.

O in this we see a slight deviation from the tried and true “Sci-Fi” of most of their roster and decided to go to science-fantasy.

They try to pull this off by having the characters explain it all through vague conversations about dimensions.

The fact is, however, as they say in the film, “it doesn’t have to make sense”. What matters is how well it makes sense cinematically and boy does it work.

When a character moves their hands for an incantation in a certain way, the spell feels like its something that came out of that action. Everything follows the rules of the film. That’s good sci-fantasy filmmaking.

In fact, I’d say you could probably make a course on good fantasy filmmaking through this film. Everything this movie does is a reason why it’s better than The Matrix, another film with a similar plot dynamic.

Are the characters likeable? Does the humour land? Does it make sense? Are the stakes noticeable? Is there some damn humanity? All yes for Dr Strange. For The Matrix, not so much.

An ideas film like The Matrix is only as good as its ideas and the story it uses to convey them, otherwise, nothing gets done. Sorry, just got distracted. I genuinely don’t like The Matrix.

Another thing Dr Strange nails is the conflict. The brilliant Mads Mikkelsen is the main baddy (technically the main henchman of the main baddy, but doing most of the evil).

For once a supervillain’s plan isn’t “Kill a bunch of people to save the planet”, an idea I’ve heard so many times in films that the next time I hear it in a theatre, they’ll have to put a straight-jacket on me to stop me from hurting someone. Mads’ character’s plan actually makes sense and when he explains it, for once you believe he has a point. Plus Mikkelsen makes every film better or his presence.

The way ol’ Cumberbatch tries to fight him is also excellently done. He uses his wits alongside his brawn so we always know where we are in the battles unlike in some films I can name where the order is fight, fight, fight.

Benedict is in full Sherlock mode here, although he’s somehow more vulnerable in this and is a lot less rude. He does an American accent which threw me for a bit, but over time I got used to it.

With all that analytical stuff, how did the whole experience work with me?

Well. Really, really well. Doctor Strange is probably the most visually spectacular CGI-Based blockbuster I’ve seen since District 9. Some of the stuff here is so cool that I can barely describe it. And unlike Miss Peregrine, it’s not a surface cool. Maybe that’s the biggest lesson for this year in movies.

It’s taken them decades to get a Dr Strange film made. They finally did it, and it’s brilliantly cool. So very cool.

Recommended Scenario: If you’d like a big-screen, action version of Doctor Who.

Let’s put this review this review into Cruise Control as Tom Cruise is back as Jack Reacher in this latest Lee Child adaptation thriller.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back has Reacher try to defend a Mayor in the army who has been accused of having ordered two of her men dead and has many people after her.

The previous Jack Reacher flick was relatively interesting. It came out not long before Tom Cruise’s failed sci-fi dystopian film Oblivion which also had him play a guy called Jack, and it tried to be something of a grounded thriller. Grounded being a relative term when it comes to Tom’s movies. It had some cool fight scenes, but it was pretty much a TV mystery movie with a bit more of a budget and with Werner Herzog as the villain for some reason (though I’m not complaining, I could listen to him for hours).

This film goes for that “realism” once again. And once again it’s Tom’s realism.

I still have no idea why Jack is pretty much a homeless man despite the fact that, at least at the start of this film, he doesn’t have anyone after him. If he acted like a homeless man who kicked ass, it would be kind of interesting instead of annoying. Of course, when people come after him, it’s a Private Military Company so no real government institutions get offended in real life.

The movie does have some cool, surprisingly violent fights (which makes me think some stuff was cut to get a 12A) and multiple moments of Tom Cruise running. The latter thing made me laugh on a couple of occasions as it looked like Tom wanted to run in a scene whether he needed to or not. Running = EXCITEMENT!

Thrown into the mix is Reacher’s maybe-maybe-not daughter. It’s the main crutch on which this injured soldier of a story rests and its made of easily broken glass. I hate the kid, I hate her relationship with Reacher, I hate the “drama” and it makes me really not like Reacher himself, just for how boring it gets.

The only truly redeeming feature is Cobie Smulders as the badass soldier Reacher tries to protect/try to date. She’s just pretty cool. Although, looking at her Wikipedia, she’s 20 years younger than ol’ Tom. Hmm…

These films are the Takens of Tom Cruise’s filmography. People raised their eyebrows out of vague interest at the first instalment. Now we wish our brows had remained securely fixed.

Recommended Scenario: Really? Well, maybe if you’ll see ANYTHING Tom Cruise is in.

To borrow an expression I’ve heard from a few people, this IS Tim Burton’s X-Men.

Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is a family film directed by Mr Burton. It follows Jake as a boy who is taken to a magical place, a time loop of one day in 1942, where there is a children’s home for children with supernatural abilities run by a shape-shifting woman played by Eva Green.

This movie gives me not much to work with due to its lack of originality in the broad strokes. That premise I just gave, with a couple of words changed could summarise a thousand Y.A movies. I will give credit to the whole time loop thing being pretty cool, but Doctor Who did it first and better.

That’s just the start of this film’s problems. Asa Butterfield, that kid who I think was the other boy in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, plays Jake. I generally try to give credit to young actors. Acting is not easy, particularly at that age. However, Asa is just bad here. Whether it’s his fault or a script or directing issue, I have no idea, but he is so boring to look at and listen to.

Samuel L. Jackson plays the main bad guy here as an evil scientist who wanted to become immortal yet inadvertently turned his masters into things that look like Slenderman (don’t ask, I don’t get it either). He and his evil brethren have a dastardly yet confusing and boring plan to gain immortality by consuming the eyes of children or something. It’s stupid and I hate it, plus it leads to some of the most gratuitously gory imagery I have ever seen in a movie and that is no exaggeration. This is the level of “surface cool” Tim Burton provides here.

Now don’t get mad, but I don’t think Tim Burton is the genius everyone thinks he is. I hate being the guy who says this kind of stuff. I don’t like being negative about the work of one guy. Yet in spite of all the praise that gets thrown his way for how “original” and “dark” his films are, I can only think of 3 or 4 good ones, the last one being Sweeney Todd and that was just less than 10 years ago.

I put Burton in the same category of director as Zack Snyder and Michael Bay. They have one cool thing that they do and they put it on loop. Cool being the operative word as there is no warmeth or depth to it, it’s just “hey ain’t this neat”.

I appear to be trashing this film, and I am, but I will give it credit that some of these cool things I mentioned are indeed cool. It’s just a shame that there are just so many layers and layers of nonsense.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re a Tim Burton completionist.

DC has had a pretty rough few years, what with their Extended Universe being a dumpster fire of epic proportions and even their adaptation of Alan Moore’s immortal The Killing Joke containing gratuitous Batman/Batgirl sex, this throwback to the 60s is their last chance to save their 2010s.

Return of the Caped Crusaders marks the animated return of 60s camp style Batman with voice work from Adam West as Batman, Burt Ward as Robin and Julie Newmar as Catwoman.

When I say camp, I mean camp and purely hilarious. I watched with a bunch of friends, some of whom were fans of this period of Bat-history already. This is the best scenario for watching this, sorry to spoil it so soon. We were often in tears of laughter.

Adam West is in full Mayor West from Family Guy mode here. Not necessarily in his delivery which is closer to Batman, but in his timing. Burt Ward plays to the questionable sexuality of his character in sublime fashion.

That’s’ before we get to all of the Deadpool-level fourth-wall-breaking. This really is the year of self-reflection being the best policy in movies and out.

This is the kind of saving grace I want Warner Bros to learn from. I have no idea how they can save their DCEU, but maybe if they go out on this high and focus on that Fantastic Beasts thing, or better yet Warner Bros does something NEW, they can salvage their souls.

The OTT humour is not the only thing taken from 60s Batman. They also borrowed some its awkwardness.

This works wonders for a lot of it. When it cuts to the villains their so bad they’re good puns don’t quite land. I’m somehow OK with this.

What surprised me was how the meta nature wove into the plot so fascinatingly. The strangely dark places the story went were reflective of the dark places that the character of Batman has gone in his near 80-year history.

This is exactly what I wanted from this film.

Recommended Scenario: It’s already out on DVD/Blu-Ray. It’s a great stocking filler.

British director Andrea Arnold has given me one of the most complex movies to write about this year. It’s not a confusing film, but it is a deep, deep film.

She has directed a film called American Honey starring a psychology student called Sasha Lane, an art piece called Shia Labeouf and a country called the U.S.A. Lane plays a teenager who is picked up by a group of down and out magazine selling youths and gradually falls under the spell of one of them, played by Labeouf.

The casting process, having, looking it up online, was very much a case of life imitating art. Arnold walked up and down a beach looking out for drunken youths and asked the most adventurous ones if they’d be in her movie. Out of this came a brilliant first performance from 20-year-old Sasha Lane in this film.

Opposite her, LaBeouf does a lot more acting stuff, his performance involving more energy and is practically gift-wrapped for the man. Overall, though, to compare these two is like asking who does a better performance between Brando and Pacino in The Godfather. Pointless.

The whole film is in a wonderful mix of neo-realism and hard diajesis. All the music and life of the story feels like it’s happening within the movie’s 1:1.33 aspect ratio. A documentary would feel less real.

On top of that, this might be the best looking and sounding movie of the year. We follow these kids as they discover themselves and the world. This journey works its way with one helluva soundtrack, moving from Bruce Springsteen to something more modern and cool, seamlessly. This might be the only time I’ve heard Rhianna’s ubiquitous Hopeless Place and liked it as it fits so darn well, helping me prove my point that if there’s a piece of music, there’s a film that needs it and vice-versa.

While we take this ride, we are appalled and enamored by these kids. They infuriate us through their decisions, but we love them as we as the audience are their parents, despite them mostly being older than me.

Like in Hunt for the Wilderpeople the film asks us to come out of our comfortable existences and watch an 18-year-old drop into a skip to find food. That’s our opening scene and the film continues with this image burned into our minds throughout. This is Oliver asking for some more, which is fitting since this would be the Oliver Twist of this generation, if Oliver Twist wasn’t already the Oliver Twist for every generation.

I reserve the right to not call American Honey an outright masterpiece as there is something wrong with this very moving road movie. There is no reason for it to be 160 minutes. I can’t say exactly where a cut should have been made, but 2 hours and 40 minutes feels a little indulgent.

Then again, I love P.T.A’s over-indulgent masterwork Magnolia, so what do I know?

Recommended Scenario: If you wanna sit down with a near 3-hour road movie with the feel of a documentary and the emotional power of a V8.

Trust Emma Malins to recommend we watch one of the best films of the year!

The Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a comedy set in New Zealand starring Julian Dennison as a troubled youth called Ricky who is adopted by two farmers played by Rima Te Wiata and Sam Neil. Due to bizarre yet oddly moving circumstances, Ricky and Uncle Hec must go on the run from the New Zealand police in the Bush!

I don’t know if this is the funniest new movie I’ve seen this year, but its pretty close. Newcomer Julian Dennison is a diamond of comic timing and his chemistry with a curmudgeonly Sam Neil is electrifying.

Their journey through New Zealand’s gorgeous landscapes is so funny, so magical and just so lovely that if I wasn’t laughing, I was beaming with sheer delight.

I didn’t get a chance to see What We Do In The Shadows, but I now know why everyone was going crazy for Taika Waititi’s direction and writing. I hate hearing this expression, plus it’s probably too early for this anyway, but this guy might just be the next Edgar Wright in terms of comic skill behind the camera. Maybe this guy’s Marvel dreams won’t fall through.

What elevates this film is, of course, the main characters. Not only are they funny as hell, but the film’s intrinsic theme of the abandonment by society and judgment of kids is executed to a T in such a way you’d think Paul Thomas Anderson had a hand in it.

Jeez, I’ve mentioned 3 great modern directors in this review so far. It’s almost as if we are in a golden age of cinema or something!

I’m genuinely finding it hard work to find something wrong with this film. This really is one of the most perfectly done films I’ve seen this year.

Recommended Scenario: Please watch this Indie darling of a mini-masterpiece.

 

This is a movie based on the life of one of my grandfather’s heroes. It better be at least okay.

The man who knew Infinity tells the true story of Srinivasa Ramanujan and Indian clerk who early 20th century was invited to Cambridge University where he proved himself to be one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

 

 

Jeremy Irons please the man who practically discovers the Indian genius and takes under is wing. Quite frankly Irons could have been our maths professor and previous life so he does well. Toby Jones is calling in both banter and charming way.

Ramamounjin himself couldn’t be played by anyone other than Dev Patel. Young actors practically the face of his country to the west, in all its wistful romance and all the wistful romance Bollywood season itself. His addition here is perfect for the Spielbergian whimsy of this picture.

One critic described this film as “Good Will Hunting for the 21st century”. In terms of it being a story about undervalued genius from a poor background trying to prove himself amongst intellectuals can fault the logic. In terms of Srinivasa’s character? Will Hunting is quite different is considerably more complex. It’s no coincidence though that this comparison is made since in good will hunting, Stellan Skarsgard’s character compares Will to Ramanujan.

The feel-good charm of this film is undeniable. I love some sugar filled sentimental stuff from time to time. My only issue being that this film is not terribly well structured exacerbated by weird editing.

All the although this is pretty much direct to DVD sports movie involving numbers. I think the film knows this.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re in the mood for a pretty decent British Bollywood film.

At the time of this review, it has been just over 3 weeks since I saw the girl on the train. Third-year and YouTube videos do not a productive blogger make.

The Girl on the Train is a thriller based on the bestselling novel I confess I have not read and stars Emily Blunt whose character watches a perfect couple through a train window every day. That is until she sees something that changes everything.

 

 

That’s the vaguest synopsis, I’ve written for a while and for good reason. This is, in all intents and purposes, a mystery. And much like in my review for Gone Girl, spoilers would be poison.

Gone Girl is probably the best comparison I can think of for this movie. Both fall very neatly into this form of 21st-century, cynical neo-noir and of course both of extremely clichéd words with it within the title. (Seriously, how many thrillers have “girl” or “gone” or “train” in their name.)

Both relied on the surprise factor for the best Internet connections, different levels of success. Executed their different thing well, but you could see it from a mile away while GOTT it extremely well particularly in its advertising but was hampered by a lack of skill in the execution of the big picture.

GOTT’s marketing was quite clever. We know that Emily Blunt’s character looked out the window and that would start. The thing she sees, however, is not what you’d expect and’s character is not someone you’d expect her to play.

Subverting expectations becomes a major part of the form and function of the entire film. Props to the story for using its main theme in as many ways as possible. The drawback lies in the predictability of the final twist is a bad twist, but one that doesn’t challenge or move me like gone girl dead.

That film me with Fincher’s unrelenting nihilistic tendencies this one kind of felt like a TV show. It’s best comparison would probably be that show The Tunnel which had a completely ridiculous twist which didn’t quite match up with what I was wanting.

I’m not here to knock TV, but long-form is generally the best route for this kind of thriller.

I do not heed this film. I like it. It’s well paced, the acting (particularly from Blunt) is great, the direction is good.

I just can see it move me.

Recommended Scenario: TV night in with your significant other.