The Big Short. A Review.

Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt are all set to take on a vast criminal conspiracy.

This is no mob movie however, at least not in the traditional sense. Our heroes, who go to some pains to tell us they are not actual heroes, are from Wall Street. Writer-Director Adam McKay’s The Big Short follows four men who saw the writing on the wall prior to the collapse of the US housing market in 2008, and made moves to win big. 

The cast of The Big Short features some instantly recognisable names, however they make themselves unrecognisable in service of the film. Christian Bale disappears behind a vale of verbal and physical neurosis, transforming into genius financial investor Dr Michael Burry, a mess of complete self-confidence and crippling social awkwardness. Ryan Gosling plays the polar opposite of Burry, slick as a snake-oil salesman who wields charm like a man taking what he wants at knife-point. Relative newcomers Finn Wittrock and John Magaro play relative newcomers Charlie and Jamie, two bright kids who buy into Burry’s thesis but lack the reputation to do anything about it - unless they can gain the help of ex-Wall street player Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), a man who had seen the industry’s ugly face and wants nothing to do with it. The quartet is rounded out by McKay regular Steve Carrell, with a brilliant turn as tortured money manager Mark Baum. 

There are times when The Big Short feels like a documentary on speed. The editing and sound design create a collage of imagery that bubbles under the main drama. As Michael Burry analyses the sub-prime mortgages on which the house of cards is built, images flash of ordinary people; moving into their houses, washing their cars, celebrating - all to remind us that these are not just numbers and acronyms, they are people. McKay employs all the tricks of the trade to explain some very complicated concepts. The most obvious of theses are the celebrity cameos, which I won’t spoil here but suffice it to say if economics had been taught this way at my school I might have been more interested. McKay’s great achievement is that he never is never condescending with his audience, he is putting complicated ideas and complex emotions on the screen, and he directs the audience’s attention where it needs to be. Perhaps the moment that will stay with me the most is the point at which the young Charlie and Jamie are celebrating their success at beating the system, only to be reminded by a sombre Rickard that the system preys on real people. The scene showcases how McKay has made us root for these outsiders, how he has made us familiar with the complex world of the film, but also forces us to think about the consequences outside of the film’s narrative - a spectacular achievement in direction.

Many interviews and reviews have made reference to Director Adam McKay’s background in comedies like Anchorman, and while some have pointed out that there has always been a vein of social and political commentary running through his work, the implication is generally that an Oscar nominated Drama was something of a left-turn for the director. It brings to mind what Neil Gaiman had to say of the late Terry Pratchett; that his reputation as a jolly and affable fellow obscured the fact that what made his writing so essential was the inner-fury driving his sometimes savage satire of the world. If The Big Short succeeds in eliciting one emotion it is anger. Anger at the collapse, anger at the system for collapsing, anger at the people who allowed such a system to exist. What is even more striking is that The Big Short is not a satire at all. 

The main thesis of The Big Short is that the entire financial sector was ‘asleep at the wheel’. The 2008 financial crisis should have been a rude wakeup call, if only people had understood just what the hell was going on. The Big Short uses some very smart tactics to unravel a complicated mess so that the average audience can understand, and goes farther to explain why they should be outraged. While fulfilling the remit of a mainstream film to entertain, The Big Short manages to educate, and at times it even enrages. In the 1980s Wall St taught us that ‘Greed is Good’, The Wolf of Wall Street seemed to suggest that excess is somehow supposed to be entertaining, The Big Short tells us that this is all bullshit, I know which film I believe. 

WHO: Adam McKay - the director infuses his film with character

WHAT: What the hell is a Collateralised Debt Obligation? You’ll find out…

WHY: This film is more entertaining than half of the comedies I've seen this year.

WHEN: Before it doesn’t win Best Picture. So you can tell people why it should have.

(Art by: https://fanart.tv/members/davidtwells/)

Sicario. A Review.

I type this review with bitten fingernails, so tense throughout was Sicario. Idealistic FBI Agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) finds herself on the frontline of the war on drugs - a spiralling vortex of violence claiming casualties on both sides of the US-Mexico border. Macer struggles to hold onto her moral compass as she is drafted into a new government task force, while her new colleagues seem to operate with a rule book of their own. 

Emily Blunt is an actress who elevates any film she appears in, and so is the case with Sicario. Her role is to guide the audience as we learn along with her about the shadowy world into which she has descended. Often the task of holding the audience’s hand is a thankless one, simply reacting to events, telling us how to feel, and pointing out any important information we might have missed if we weren’t paying attention. In Sicario, Kate Macer is a believable character who never feels as though she is just along for the ride. Blunt excellently plays to both Macer’s strength and vulnerability, she is capable enough that she must be taken seriously, but she never seems invincible. 

Alongside Blunt are the excellent Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro. As the enigmatic head of the task force which Macer joins, Brolin gives an almost effortless performance. Brolin’s character Matt seem impossibly cool under the pressure of tackling the hydra that is the Mexican-US drug trade, however under the surface of his laid back personality is the suggestion of malice - he is not a man you would dare cross. Del Toro is on top form as Alejandro, Matt’s right hand man. Alejandro is one of the central mysteries of the film and it is never clear whether he is friend or foe to Kate. Del Toro is brilliantly watchable, and in one scene even makes taking off his coat seem threatening. The whole cast sink into their roles and never seem to be doing anything just in the service of plot, instead they feel like real people caught up in a tense and dangerous situation. We are told at the beginning of the film that Sicario means Hitman, and every cast member puts in such a nuanced performance that they could be the hitman of the title. 

While the main story has intrigue to spare, and the cast are superb, what really makes Sicario one of the best films of the year is the cinematography of Roger Deakins -frequent collaborator of the Cohen brothers and BAFTA-winning director of photography on Skyfall. Deakins is a master of the technical side of the craft but has said in interviews it is not his intention to create amazing images - but to tell a story. Perhaps Deakins is being modest, for Sicario is full of amazing images, from the a claustrophobic traffic jam to landscape shots so wide you can almost see the curvature of the Earth. However beautiful the imagery on screen, it is always in service of getting the story across to the viewer; for example a gorgeous nighttime sequence is shot from character point of view, and to make this less confusing Deakins alternated between one character seeing in night-vision and the other in thermal infrared so we can always tell who we’re watching. 

Full credit should go to director Denis Villeneuve for managing to craft a film which satisfies on so many levels; as a thriller and a mystery it keeps you guessing, as a character piece it is filled with believable and compelling performances that keep the audience invested, as a piece of cinema it is a sublime marriage of image and story. Sicario never talks down to its audience nor is it inaccessible, it is that rare beast that manages to be art and entertainment, and is absolutely worth your time. 

WHO: Emily Blunt, one of the best working actors today.

WHAT: The night-vision raid sequence - pure cinema.

WHY: Watching Sicario is an experience, there is action, tension, emotion, and even laughs. 

WHEN: After you’ve been to the bathroom, you don’t want to miss a second. 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. A Review.

                                                     (Art From: http://www.harrymovieart.com/)

The term franchise is thrown around a lot in the film industry, it comes from a business term where a familiar formula is expanded upon by adding new managers in new locations. Mission impossible is perhaps the franchise-iest franchise of them all, with each film in the series retaining the same formula (stunts, masks, and Tom Cruise) but having a different flavour thanks to a different director. Christopher McQuarrie takes the reigns for the 5th installment, with the IMF shut down and Ethan Hunt on the..errr..hunt for a shadowy organisation called “the Syndicate”.

Cruise is on top action hero form as Hunt, a man driven to incredible lengths to get the job done, the ‘manifestation of destiny’ as Alec Baldwin’s CIA chief dubs him. Hunt has never been a particularly well defined hero, that is in part due to different directors interpreting him in different ways, and so Cruise’s performance is defined not so much by character but by action. Action he certainly delivers on, the much publicised plane stunt is breathtaking, and the film has a few more surprises up it’s sleeve. There is an old-fashioned thrill to action set pieces that were done in-camera, which are even more impressive when one of the world’s biggest movie stars was doing as much as possible himself.

While Hunt remains something of an enigma, his colleagues bring character to the film. Rebecca Ferguson, a relative newcomer to mainstream cinema, is a revaluation as Ilsa Faust - a mysterious agent with an unclear agenda. She seems to have gone to the Black Widow school of ass-kicking, proving more than a match for Cruise on multiple occasions, and if Tom ever retires from the franchise, it could be in far worse hands than Ferguson. Jeremy Renner, whose character William Brandt was seemingly set up as a Cruise replacement in MI:4, is entertaining here as Mcquarie’s script plays him as a by-the-book jobsworth uncomfortable with Hunt’s reckless methods, and he is most effective when paired with Ving Rhames’ Luther - a character more than comfortable with the legal grey area. While Alec Baldwin chews scenery, Sean Harris’ villain fails to make much of an impression, which is a shame because he was incredibly threatening in the excellent ’71 (check out my review here). While Ferguson steals the film, credit must be given to Simon Pegg, who has turned a comic relief role into the beating heart of the franchise. The cast all have good chemistry with one another without having to use the F word every 2 minutes (looking at you Family Fast and Furious),  though it would be nice to see the core team carry over into the next instalment. 

Christopher McQuarrie, a regular Cruise collaborator, took on both writing and directing roles for Rogue Nation. He shows a sure hand with the action sequences, which rank up there with the series’ best, and also manages to ratchet up the tension during key sequences including a wonderfully orchestrated night at the opera. McQuarrie’s script is less effective than his direction, either it was developed to link together a series of setpieces, or a series of set pieces were inserted and distorted the narrative, either way the plot ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous. The script, while never dull or offensive, doesn’t fully explore potentially interesting themes such as the motivation behind the Syndicate, or the fallout of Hunt being declared a rogue agent by his government for perhaps the third time in the series.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation might be little more than an excuse for some super-spy thrills, which is exactly how it was marketed and exactly what audience want. It is a film that is meant to be enjoyed throughout, a film which knows the appropriate moments for tension, comic relief, and even the odd wink at the camera. It is a film that has an old-fashioned charm, but is also a testament to modern film-making - with the released date being moved forward by nearly 5 months before shooting had even finished!  Ultimately a worthy addition to a film franchise that has already run for longer than the television series which spawned it, and should continue to entertain us with impossible missions for years to come.

WHO: Rebecca Ferguson is captivating, a more likely replacement for Cruise than Renner. 

WHAT: The plane sequence. Bringing a new meaning to the mile high club!

WHY: For some pure popcorn entertainment. 

WHEN: After a Mission Impossible Marathon, complete the set!

'71. A Review.

’71 blisters and burns on the screen, lit by molotov cocktail and set to a soundtrack of dustbin lids and broken glass, it is a film that feels vital, angry, and dangerous. 

It is 1971, young British Soldier Gary Hook is deployed in Belfast at the height of the violent period known as the troubles. Separated from his squad, Gary is forced to run for his life through a rabbit-warren of terraced streets and try to make it back to his barracks. 

Gary Hook knows very little about the conflict he is dropped into, he is simply a toy soldier who becomes more of a rabbit trapped in headlights. He is an ideal character to centre on, for he discovers information at the same time as the audience, however he is saved from being simply the audience’s surrogate by the brilliant casting of Jack O’Connell. Director Yann Demange has said that O’Connell simply understood the character, he even changed the script so that Gary was from Jack’s hometown of Derby because he felt O’Connell so embodied the character he wanted on screen. O’Connell suffered for his art, filming took place in a rare March heatwave while he was wearing layers, apparently it ‘friggin hurt’, however on screen it seems as though he worked this into his performance. While Gary’s motivations are simple and relatable, O’Connell gives a complex performance, conveying a great range of emotions often with a single look.

A friend once told me every time he watches Black Hawk Down he spots another star before they were famous, the cast of ’71 give a similar vibe.The young IRA members are frighteningly unpredictable, Killian Scott gives an excellent turn as Quinn, an ambitious and bitter young man who escalates events beyond his control. Sean Harris’ shady Captian Browning dominates the screen in every scene he’s in, dangerous, calculating, and utterly terrifying. It is unfortunate that there are so few roles for women in the film, however this is more a consequence of the setting and the tightly focused plot rather than any prejudice. The women in the film are as caught in the middle as Gary, they represent conscience as a counterpart to the violence, as shown in an early scene where a distraught Denise Gough tries to calm the escalating violence. In years to come, when the cast move on to more prominent roles, they can be proud of their performances in ‘71.

One of the most prominently displayed reviews on the promotional material for ’71 declares that the film holds you in a ‘vice-like grip’, it certainly seems that Director Yann Demange had a vice-like grip on the story and tone of this, his first feature. He never allows the film to become bogged down in politics or sentiment, instead he focuses on human drama and tragedy. He has cited films like the Warriors, Escape From New York, and the work of Bourne director Paul Greengrass as touchstones for the film, this is evident in the breathless pace of the action sequences. ’71 also brings to mind the aforementioned Black Hawk Down, as it seems to be a commentary on the futility of war - as Richard Dormer’s world-weary medic states, it’s just ‘posh cunts telling thick cunts to kill poor cunts’. Words like raw and visceral are used far too often in reviews, and many a time are simply euphemisms for bloody and violent, however in the context of ’71 they are entirely appropriate. It is a film which shocks, but does not revel in or draw out the shocking sequences. Demange has said that in riot sequences it is the extras that he watches, and he let his riot sequence play out in full for every take. While it must have been hard on the crew, this tactic pays huge dividends - as the riot sequence feels real, as though we are seeing it through Gary’s eyes rather than some director who has a shakey-camera. 

’71 is very much a war film, however Demange wanted the film to transcend reality, and this effect is achieved in part through cinematography, editing, and sound. Director of Photography Tat Radcliffe often keeps Hook in the centre of the frame while violence seems to be happening in the darkness all around him. Chris Wyatt’s editing, particularly in the running sequences, creates a feeling of claustrophobia, making the streets of Belfast feel more like the maze of theseus - dizzying and endless. David Holmes is a veteran film composer, his work on ’71 is enchanting with lone strings echoing in haunting fashion almost reminiscent of the opening of Apocalypse Now featuring the iconic ‘The End’ by the Doors. All these elements pull together to create a film with a creeping sense of tragedy and inevitability, making it at times a hard watch but also impossible to turn away from. 

Yann Demange has said that when making ’71 he was aware it may be the only film he ever gets chance to make. While ‘71 is an excellent film which surely has earned him another gig, it was a fitting comment to have made about a film which feels at all times as if everyone involved was giving their all, a film in which first chances must be grasped because its characters may not survive to get a second one. 

WHO: Jack O’Connell is brilliant, there is barely a trace of performance, he is Gary Hook

WHAT: There are several moment which will shock you. I’m still recovering. 

WHY: An essential and unforgettable film, it will have you glued to the screen.

WHEN: Clear 99 mins on your calendar and see this film as soon as you can. 

Inside Out. A Review.

Have you ever wondered why you get songs stuck in your head, where invisible friends go, or why you sometimes say the things you really shouldn’t? Inside Out, the latest from the animation powerhouse Disney Pixar, has answers to those and many other questions - it’s all in your head. 

Inside Out tells the tale of 11 year old Riley as she struggles to cope with her family moving to a new city, starting a new school, and generally growing up. Inside Out also tells the tale of the five emotions who are in Riley’s head, and the journey they go on when the move throws everything off balance. 

Pixar chief John Lassiter was apparently greatly excited by the pitch for this film, specifically with what fun they could have with voice casting. Pixar have typically been spot-on with voice casting, however, casting the voices of anthropomorphic emotions surely posed something of a unique challenge as the voice cast had to convey the emotion they were meant to be and avoid becoming caricatures. Amy Poehler steps up as Joy, a character of relentless enthusiasm, however she infuses Joy with enough self-doubt that she is inspiring rather than irritating. Phyllis Smith (best known as Phyllis from the American version of the Office) is Sadness, Joy’s unlikely partner in a quest that forces them to work together. The evolution of Sadness is one of the scripts greatest feats, taking her from being something of a nuissance, to something else entirely, Smith manages to capture the feelings of hopelessness that we all sometimes feel - making her a relatable character rather than a burden on the story. The other three chief emotions get less screen time, however rack up the laughs thanks to the delivery of Mindy Kaling (Disgust), Bill Hader (Fear), and Lewis Black (Anger) - as these three extremes try to run Riley’s head while Joy and Sadness are on their own quest. 

Pixar have always made beautiful films, going back to the original Toy Story for which John Lassiter claimed the goal was to make the technology invisible, a tool in service of the story. The outside world occupied by Riley and her parents is classic Pixar, San Francisco realised with impressive attention to detail, though coloured in drab tones to depict the absence of Joy in Riley’s life. It is inside Riley’s head that the production design really gets interesting; the animators and designers were essentially given free reign to create a world where anything is possible, but think less Inception and more…well there really isn’t a visual frame of reference for Inside Out, it is unique. What is surprising and commendable is that Pixar have been remarkably disciplined with this free reign to create, Production Designer Ralph Eggleston (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) has said in interviews that such creative freedom made Inside Out perhaps the most difficult production he has ever worked on. Riley’s mind is a visually stunning environment, however it follow’s an internal logic where by the whole place is connected via a network of memories. Perhaps some of this design will go over the heads of younger viewers, however they will no doubt be delighted with lurid landscape and potential for adventure contained in every frame. Older viewers will marvel at the extent to which Pixar have created a world which looks as though it actually could work, as well as the clever observational gags such as the ‘train of thought’ or the room of ‘abstract thought’. My personal favourite was the Dream Studios, in which Riley’s dreams and nightmares are conducted in a TV studio with actors following a script - it is ingenious. 

Co-Writers/Directors Pete Doctor and Ronaldo Del Carmen have made a film which sticks to the family friendly territory familiar to the Pixar audience, however this does not mean they have avoided some very grown-up emotions. Inside Out is at its best when the narrative switches between Inside and Out to give us a full picture of what is driving Riley’s actions, for example a video chat with a friend shows Riley lashing out almost aggressively, however the audience is allowed to peek inside her head to see the frustration and insecurity driving this action. These moments work brilliantly because they are executed in the simplest way, however they force the audience to think more deeply about the characters and their choices. This is perhaps Pixar’s greatest skill, with disarming simplicity and clarity they tell stories driven by emotion - quite literally in this case - and so they appeal to all ages. Pixar seems to be leading the charge for family-friendly films in which no character is ever just sad, or happy, or good, or evil; they have grasped the notion that children (and children-at-heart) are not stupid and will not be satisfied with lazy storytelling, and it has been the secret to their success. 

Normally when I write a review I follow a formula (a secret recipe which I’ll never reveal mwhahaha), however I found myself unable to do that with Inside Out. Instead I just began typing and realised just how much I loved this film, and can’t wait to see it again. Inside Out is a fantastical and inventive take on what rules the mind, however, ultimately it is the heart that rules this witty and charming film.

WHO: Amy Poehler’s boundless enthusiasm is completely infectious. 

WHAT: The Dream Studios section creatively poking fun at the film industry. 

WHY: The script is packed with wicked-smart observational comedy.

WHEN: If you can’t see it early like I did at Glastonbury (hooray humblebrag) then catch as soon as you can. 

Jurassic World. A Review.

When the BBQ is covered in cobwebs and the river is much too cold to swim in, nothing else gives you that summer feeling quite like a big summer blockbuster. With 6 other friends I went to the beautiful Plaza Cinema, we got real ticket stubs, the air smelt like popcorn, and I was beyond giddy with excitement - Jurassic World was about to remind me why I’m terrible at football and beaches make me cringe, because for me the magic of summer is in the cinema. 

   Jurassic World is open, and operations manager Claire juggles vicious attractions and the potentially more vicious shareholders. As her two nephews take a self-guided tour, animal-trainer Owen Grady battles to prevent sinister forces abusing his research. Then a genetically modified monster gets loose and the dino-dung really hits the fan. 

   Bryce Dallas Howard is superb in the beginning of the film as Claire, operations manager at the park who itemises and organises every aspect of her life and career. Her arc is predictable, however, and I can only hope in the sequel that she is given more to do - I’d love to see more of the spark she shows when given the chance. The two young leads are impressive; Ty Simpkins was entertaining in Iron Man 3 and similarly manages to toe the difficult line between sweet and irritating again here. Nick Robinson (who is excellent in Kings of Summer, check my review here: Kings of Summer. A Review.) is unfortunately short-served on character development, he gives a solid performance as a sullen teenager, but is capable of much more. More often than not, the disgruntled older sibling is a female role, so while this is a male-heavy cast it was nice to see the reversal. Chris Pratt will have won over more fans who missed his excellent coming out party in Guardians of the Galaxy, shining in his comedy sequences and suitably daring in action (though it would have been nice to see him given a little more emotional material to work with). Ultimately the cast are all support acts for the main attractions, and so it is to their credit that they all leave a lasting impression unlike the central couple in the recent Godzilla. Films like Jurassic World sell tickets often because audiences think they want to see 2 hours of cgi monsters, however this is not really the case and for a monster movie to work there has to be a human cast that the audience care about. Jurassic World’s cast were certainly entertaining, with high quality even in some of the smaller supporting roles, creating a world in which dino-destruction actually matters. 

   Colin Trevorrow was best known for the popular time-travel indie Safety Not Guaranteed, then he inherited a behemoth of a film nearly ten years in production with a legion of fans and a mountain of expectation. Trevorrow has made the jump to blockbuster entertainment admirably, the film never feels out of his control. In contrast to the original, the setup is handled at a brisk pace, however Trevorrow still finds time for small moments of character that keep the audience invested - such as the billionaire CEO who insists on flying his own helicopter. Jurassic World could have relied simply on the branding and soundtrack, however it comes with a handful of its own tricks; the GM Indominus Rex is a horrifying thing, the park itself is well realised and peppered with satire, while the glass safari-spheres are fun on screen and provide some clever shots - one of which sold the film for me. Cinema has yet to produce cgi that will age anything like as well as the animatronics in Spielberg’s original, however the computer generated horrors in Jurassic World are plenty life-like enough to have you watching through your fingers. Jurassic World is a good looking film, which holds up when things begin to get truly frantic on-screen. 

   The original Jurassic Park is an amazing movie; it takes its time setting up, and was groundbreaking in its execution of cinematic action-horror. Jurassic World was never going to do that, and nor should it have been expected to - the cinematic landscape has moved on. Jurassic World deliberately comments on modern consumption of entertainment, we demand bigger and faster, however if Jurassic World’s makers had sought only to take the concept of the original and add a few bigger monsters it would have been a soulless husk of a film. Instead the filmmakers have made a modern film, one which comments on entertainment culture, militarisation, family ties, and more. It is the burden of the 21st century blockbuster filmmaker that the audience is as razor sharp and unforgiving as a hungry velociraptor; we want a film that is smart and iconic like the original, we want to be wowed by special effects, we want characters to cheer and jeer and care for. Colin Trevorrow’s solution was to use the aesthetic and brand awareness of the original, and put a modern spin on the classic theme of the dangers of playing God. It is not a perfect solution, some will argue he has leant to heavily on referencing the original, some will argue he does not imitate his predecessor  closely enough - evolution it seems is not an exact science. Jurassic World is a smarter film than many of its rivals, modern filmmaking technology makes it well worth seeing on a big screen, but most importantly it feels like a Jurassic movie should - equal parts wonder, humour, and terror adding up to a lot of fun. 

   I left the Plaza Cinema grinning from ear-to-ear, barely managing to contain my T-Rex impression. Jurassic World is already stomping through the box office, and deservedly so - because it did everything a really good summer film should; it was entertaining, it was made with quality, and best of all it has created a real summer memory which I will not soon forget. 

WHO: Chris Pratt, quickly solidifying his place as a genuine action star.

WHAT: Raptors in the dark. 

WHY: To smile, and laugh, to cheer, and to hide behind you hands.

WHEN: If the music in the trailer sends a tingle down your spine, it’s time to go to the cinema!

(Art from: http://sicktriceratops.com/post/108087377661/jurassic-world-fan-art-by-powersimon)

Once. A Review.

2015 is like an all you can eat buffet of blockbuster action, and I must admit I have a complete lack of self-control at buffets. After the brilliant jam-packed action of Avengers and Mad Max, what I needed was a palette cleanser - which is why Once was so refreshing.

Once is about a guy and a girl who meet each other on the streets of Dublin and bond through a mutual love of music. And that’s about it. While sparse plot can be the ruin of a film, it is a great strength for Once, it is a film which does not rely on coincidence or concept to keep you entertained, but rather uses its characters to tell a story - a novel idea. 

One of the most fascinating things about Once is that its two stars Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova were not professional actors, they were musicians. As such, they are in roles that they were born to play, people whose lives have not perhaps gone the way they had anticipated however who still see beauty through music. Hansard and Irglova give tender and raw performances, entirely believable and compelling without being over the top. They have real chemistry, having been friends prior to filming, in fact director John Carney quipped that instead of getting people to act like they knew each other he had to make them act like they had only just met. Carney succeeds in this challenge, as the onscreen relationship grows in a realistic manner, unfolding slowly. The film is cast wonderfully well, with smaller roles adding up to more than the sum of their parts; for example Hansard’s world weary father speaks volumes simply by supporting his son with a cup of tea. 

John Carney was determined to direct on a shoe-string budget, wanting the intimacy of a small crew. This was a brilliant decision which is evident in the organic quality of the final film, dialogue never feels forced, and there are no big stars or set pieces which distract from the message of the film. Carney talked about it not being important to have the best script, because it is a film ‘more about tone’, this meant a lot of improvisation on set which can sometimes ruin the pace of a film, however it adds to the overall feel of Once as a story about real people. There are times when the lack of budget is evident, some shots are frustratingly wobbly, and there is a lack of the more complex camera shots we take for granted in modern film. Ultimately however, the direction and filmmaking is in service of a film with a rugged and raw tone, which is part of what makes Once such a triumph. 

60% of Once is music, with most of the key emotional beats of the film being told through a musical performance. The musical numbers feel organic and integral to the plot, this was not a film with added music nor a musical with added plot, instead both elements work in tandem in an incredibly satisfying way. The music of Once is truly remarkable, it is stripped back and emotional, infused with folk and Irish influences with a modern twist. The signature song for the film, Falling Slowly, earned Hansard and Irglova a well-deserved Oscar and garnered more attention for this hidden gem of a film. Falling Slowly is talismanic of the film, not in a hurry but with an inevitable momentum, two well rounded characters falling slowly, hesitantly, defiantly, and perhaps lovingly together.

Steven Spielberg, master of spectacle and sentiment, said “a little movie called Once gave me enough inspiration to last the rest of the year”. Once is a wonderfully hopeful film, uplifting but never cynically so, it is not pitch perfect, but it is honest and will stick with you long after viewing. 

WHO: Marketa Irglova steals the film, incredibly watchable. 

WHAT: The music - sublime. 

WHY: It is a brilliantly charming film, and will leave you smiling. 

WHEN: When you need a break from visual effects and superstars.