The Master

Paul Anderson's unequivocal account of a controlled demise into insanity is played through with a brilliantly delirious soundtrack that leaves you stunned and in awe at its grandeur.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is introduced almost like dishevelled shipwreck, hacking at coconuts, letting out his frustrations on a female sand sculpture with his fellow soldiers before hunching over and masturbating in public in what you come to realise is a man broken by war. His obsession with sex is rife from the start as the Rorschach test proves with every picture jokingly described in a crude way before he is let loose on society as a man trying to find a path in a new America.

Not being able to settle himself in any place for too long in what appears to be the effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome, Freddie stumbles upon a helping hand in the form of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). He quickly makes Freddie his new project, putting him through something called “processing” as he tries to tame the animal.

The Scientology parallel of the film is there, but it isn’t the central focusing point, rather it is looking at the human relationships formed around Dodd and the manipulations that occur through a beautifully shot 65mm film. Malaimare’s cinematography is one to remember here and the first film to be shot in this format in 16 years catches every glance, reaction and detail in a slightly gritty fashion. The horror edge is delivered through Johnny Greenwood’s beautiful soundtrack which reminded me strongly of the work Alberto Iglesias has done for Pedro Almodóvar. It’s refreshing to hear percussion being used effectively in a film as too often it is simply a forgettable backbeat or emphasis on a crescendo; sometimes sliding in and out of synch in a disorientating manor fitting perfectly into the surroundings and this is before even mentioning the dreamscapes which I’ll allow you to discover for yourself.

For anyone interested, there is one copy of the 70mm print circulating UK cinemas in December. Personally I’m interested to see the difference in this traditional picture size. After a year of failing 3D sales and with The Artist cleaning out most of the awards last year, could this be the start of cinema looking for its roots instead of worrying about how many fps you can squeeze out? Probably not but it’s nice to see some directors still experimenting with the old.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/

SKYFALL

I have finally joined the human race and watched Skyfall. And I loved it.

I should point at this stage that I am not a fan of Roger Moore’s Bond or the invisible car era buffoonery of Die Another Day, I like my Bond films to not just be Bond films, but good films.

Let’s be honest, Bond films have never been the most serious of films, always self aware and tongue in cheek. For me, Bond films have all too often stepped well over that line and into parody and farce.

Skyfall does not do this.

The opening scene has to be one of the best I have ever seen, not just the obligatory pre-credits action sequence (which is breathtaking, thrilling and well, Bond) but the opening twenty seconds or so.

I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it but let’s just say Sam Mendes’s perfectly pitched opening shot lets us know exactly what kind of a Bond film this is; seriously good and very cool.

Much has been made in the press of how good Dame Judi Dench is in this, I can’t add much more other than to say she carries the film as much as Daniel Craig does. It’s fantastic to see a Bond film with such incredible acting in it.

Speaking of which, Ralph Fiennes also crops up in the cast list as an ambiguous government minister. For a man with so few scenes and not all that much dialogue, Ralph manages to achieve an extraordinary amount. Creepy, mysterious and yet assertive, it really is exemplary stuff.

PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE

This is meat to be on of the worst films of all time and so I decided to see what all the fuss was about. It turns out it is. Everything in this film is woefully bad, disorienting in how poor it is and to be honest, really dull. Very little happens for large sections of the film, its amazing how they managed to make 79 minutes seem like purgatory. To see what I mean you really have to watch it; for proof here’s the intro:

 

This got me thinking, Plan 9… is often regarded as a cult classic, but what really is cult? The way I understand it is that they are niche films, often flawed, but loved by a devoted fan base. I heard Pulp Fiction described as a cult classic, but I don’t buy that, everybody loves Pulp Fiction and it was a widespread critical success when released whereas most cult films are not that way. I see The Rocky Horror Picture Show as being a cult film, maybe even Blade Runner but it’s not an easy thing to define. Easier to figure out is the whole ‘so bad they’re good’ type films; The Warriors, Batman (the 60’s incarnation) and probably Plan 9… as well.

Basically I’m stumped any help would be greatly appreciated!

LAWLESS

I went to see this at the UK premiere as a part of the Film4 Summer Screen season; my (needless to say outstanding) girlfriend bought us tickets as a surprise present. Obviously this reduced me to a child like frenzy of excitement, being as manic a Nick Cave fan as I am. Despite how overexcited I was during the film I will try and review it in as sober a fashion as I can manage.

The first thing that struck me was that the script felt more mature to me than Nick Cave’s previous cinematic outing (The Proposition), maybe this was because it was based on a historical novel, but how it went about its business to me felt different. For example there is a lot of mention of legend in the film, not unusual considering Nick Cave loves the mythology of American folk and blues. Throughout there is a lot of talk about how invincible Tom Hardy’s character seems, which is deconstructed in a single sentence by Jessica Chastain. For all the gruff and lyrical brilliance of Tom Hardy in this film, this small piece of dialogue exposed the humanity beneath legend, which for me improved the film and separated it from the Proposition in terms of scope.

Lawless treads similar ground to The Proposition; brotherhood, mans relationship to violence and life in a brutal environment. However, I felt that the plot of Lawless allowed for broader themes to be looked at. The film set as it is in 1931, runs its course during the Great Depression, and is backlit by economic issues. As such, without addressing it directly, the film demonstrates the despair that drove all manner of men into desperate measures which we see clearly in the character of Cricket, the brewer of Moonshine for the Bondurant brothers. This broadening of theme means that the film is all the richer for it.

As with The Proposition, Nick Cave and Warren Ellis provide the soundtrack for the film. I had read about the track listing of the film before seeing it and to be honest was worried. The soundtrack includes Captain Beefheart and Velvet Underground covers which sounded awesome, but too much like what I’d like to hear on the next Bad Seeds album. I shouldn’t have worried. The soundtrack was brilliant, deftly switching styles and moods; definitely one of the best bits about the film.

The film has a superb cast, just brilliant. My personal highlight was Tom Hardy who has, let’s face it, had a blinding year. I never thought I’d see a man manage to look menacing in a cardigan, but he manages it in spades. In a recent interview Nick Cave said that Tom Hardy told him he would play the character like an ‘old lesbian’, emphasising the maternal nature of the character. I’m not entirely sure what he meant but it definitely worked; sensational work from Tom. Even Shia LeBeouf was great, impeccably playing the younger brother trying to assert himself in a violent world; I even forgot about Even Stevens when he was on screen. To be honest, there was not a single bad performance and I think Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska also deserve special mention. That brings us to Guy Pearce. Guy plays a cruel and unusual man, a reptilian bellend who’s driven by all sorts of complexes to belittle everyone else and enforce some weird interpretation of justice. I thought of a prototype J Edgar Hoover, with no eyebrows. It must be hard to play such a monumental dickhead but Guy Pearce pulled it off with aplomb.

Gary Oldman is billed highly in all the posters and trailers for Lawless which meant when it came round to watching the film I expected to see a lot of him. Most of his scenes are already in the trailers. Gary plays a big league gangster with a line in moonshine and as I saw it was in the film to demonstrate that there was a criminal world outside of the Bondurant brothers and to provide an outlet for Shia LeBeouf to try and prove himself. However, because of him being Gary Oldman and because he is sold as a large part of the film, this confused the hell out of me. I have read several reviews which were critical of this role but I think this is the fault of the distribution company. This brings me to my major gripe with the film, how it is advertised. The film sold in trailers and posters is nothing like the film proper. Trailers show a generic gangster flick with lots of gunfire and lots of Gary Oldman; they’re wrong. Lawless is much more nuanced than all that and the violence that there is, is brutal, dirty and fast. I think of it as a gruffly stylised historical portrait whereas the trailers seem to think it is, well, shit. I worry that this will damage how the film performs and is seen but there is little that can be done about this now.  

Final thought: go and see it! 

NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA DARK KNIIIIGHT!

First things first, this post is going to be a) INCREDIBLY SPOILERIFIC, and b) PRETTY NERDERIFIC. But mostly the first one, so if you haven't seen the film (shame on you!), then avoid the second half of this review.

I'll start with the non-spoilery bits. As a film, The Dark Knight Rises is, of course, amazing. As amazing as The Dark Knight? No, but then again, that was the pinnacle of what the superhero film can be. As amazing as The Avengers was a couple of months ago? Absolutely, but in a different way. While The Avengers was a masterclass of wry humour and CGI fight scenes with weird alien thingys, The Dark Knight Rises is a Nolan film. Nolan films can be characterised by several things - aerial shots of buildings at twilight, sudden changes between loud doses of Hans Zimmer and silence, and a general lack of humour throughout. TDKR contains all of these things, and in fact might even be the most Nolan-y of the Dark Knight trilogy. It certainly looks beautiful, the director's penchant for IMAX definitely paying off in that respect. The soundtrack (again from Mr Zimmer, who seems to score every other film these days) is slightly more subtle than the one in TDK, though far less memorable. Christian Bale, while not given much to do as Batman, gives his best performance as Bruce Wayne so far, perfectly balancing the tortured recluse and the charming playboy. Tom Hardy (one of the coolest guys ever), as the villainous mercenary Bane, also does a bang-up job, considering that he has a weird sort of gimp mask on for 99% of the film. The eyes are the window to the soul, people! For me, he has been the first antagonist in the series that inspires true fear. Sure, Heath Ledger's Joker was the second best ever (after Mark Hamill, duh!), and kinda scary in a "what is he going to do before Batman inevitably defeats him?" way, but as a physical presence, Bane is pretty darn terrifying. Ann Hathaway's Catwoman/Selina Kyle, however, steals the show (geddit!? Cos she's a burglar). Where Michelle Pfeiffer was vampy and over-the-top, Hathaway is just the right amount of sexy yet ambiguous. You never quite know who's side she's on, yet when she's onscreen, you don't really care.

                                                              For obvious reasons.

Props also to the other players in the film, of whom there are many. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman play the father figures of Alfred the butler and Lucius Fox, with a surprisingly small amount of screen time considering the length of the film. The best of the rest has to be the mini buddy-cop film within a film, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake and Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon.

SPOILER TIME! DO NOT READ UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM!

Now it's time for some good old-fashioned nerding! This biggest thing, for me, going into this film, was the villain Bane. Any Bat-fan worth their salt will know exactly what happens when Bane and Batman meet. The scene in TDKR where they fight in the sewers and Batman gets the Bat-shit kicked out of him gave me the shivers, but mostly because it reminded me of this from the Knightfall saga:

The point is that most Batman fans would have been well aware of what the story would entail as soon as they heard that Bane was going to be the antagonist. This isn't a criticism, more an unavoidable consequence of adapting from previously existing material. Knightfall isn't the only comic storyline that Nolan and company borrow from. No Man's Land, where Gotham City is cut off from the rest of world by an earthquake, is heavily plundered, as is Hush, where Batman and Catwoman start a tenuous romantic relationship.
Admittedly, there are some problems with the film, the largest and most sickening being the ending. Early in the film, Alfred the butler tells Bruce that during Master Wayne's previous disappearance from Gotham, Alfred's one hope was that he would settle down and find happiness somewhere else. He recounts a story about a cafe in Florence, and hoping to see Bruce there. At the very end of the film, after the day has been saved and Alfred is sitting in the cafe yet again, there is the perfect opportunity to suggest that Bruce Wayne survives, without saying it outright as the film actually does. The 'happy' ending stinks of studio interference, and it feels very unlike Nolan to include something so sappy. An Inception style ending would have been a lot more satisying, suggestive and ambiguous rather than flat out cheesy.
The inclusion of Robin is, in my mind, quite controversial. He's not the Boy Wonder as such, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Blake is intended to fill that niche. The character would have been just as satisfying had he just been a regular policeman. It is also implied that he becomes the next Batman, a suggestion that I rather enjoyed, as it completes the theme of 'anyone can be Batman'.
As for sequels, spin-offs and reboots, the latter is by far the most likely. Chris Nolan and Christian Bale have both said that this will be their last Batman film, and it seems unlikely that either will return. A sequel with Gordon-Levitt as Batman? Unlikely as well, as it would risk the ire of fanboys who would loath the idea of a Batman that isn't Bruce Wayne. Vulture has suggested that Hathaway may star in a Catwoman spinoff, but that doesn't seem realistic either. What's probably going to happen is that Batman will be rebooted in 2015 with a new cast, and just in time for the inevitably rubbish Justice League monster-mash.
Ah well, we'll always have the Dark Knight Trilogy. Viva Nolan! Viva Bale! Viva Batman!

MUSIC TO MY EARS

CONTAINS SPOILERS!

The other night I noticed something in the films of Stanley Kubrick, it was one of those realisations that only ever seem to come during a sleepless night. It seems to me that Kubrick used wildly inappropriate songs to brilliant and often unnerving effect. The most obvious example to come to mind here is in A Clockwork Orange when Alex treats us to a rendition of Singin’ In The Rain during a rape. 

The next one that came to my mind is in Dr. Strangelove... where the nuclear-armed airplane flies toward igniting the Cold War, is accompanied by the ‘animals go in two by two’.

In Full Metal Jacket, after the devastating sniper showdown at the end, the platoon marches off singing the Mickey Mouse March:

Possibly the most strangely human moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey is the death of HAL 9000 at which point he reverts to his childlike early stage of programming and begins to sing ‘Daisy, Daisy...’

To me these are truly great cinematic moments, unachievable in any other media; these moments would not even necessarily work in theory, but do magnificently in practise. Maybe it is just personal taste but I love moments such as these, which has got me thinking about other films that demonstrate them. The only example that currently comes to mind is the torture scene in Reservoir dogs set to Stealers Wheels. Can anyone think of anymore? Is it just me that likes these moments?

p.s. Someone has probably already noticed this and if they have, I am sorry for that, there is no plagiarism intended. 

CON AIR

The most important thing to know about this film is that it stars Nicolas Cage, to the nth degree. Resplendent with an improbable haircut and uniquely bizarre delivery of lines, this is a must see for the legions who follow the rollercoaster-style trajectory of Cage’s career and let’s be honest, a must see full stop. This is not Seven Samurai, it is not an arthouse master class, but what it is, is a flat out ridiculous action film. What sets it out from the inbred pool of over the top action films is that it features great actors having a great time hamming it up; John Malkovich is exceptional as a psychopathic genius, John Cusack is a sandal and sock wielding US Marshall, Nic Cage a maniacally virtuous veteran and Steve Buscemi plays a deranged serial killer.

The plot of this film is not altogether that important, it just provides a narrative for some truly ridiculous dialogue and some brilliantly overblown set pieces. If you want camped up action with some stellar performances then this is definitely the film for you. I don’t want to say too much, not that spoilers would matter too much, but just watch it. What I will say is that standing alone, the elements of this film, such as the ludicrous wailing guitar in the soundtrack, wouldn’t work. In this case works though, and how.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118880/