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. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron. A Review.

   First, a counter-factual review of a film which never happened.  Avengers: Attack of Ultron, as directed by Justin Lin (Fast and Furious) is solid blockbuster action flick. The action sequences shine as the Avengers take on Ultron (Jean Claude Van Damme), and while it is a shame there were quite so many shots of Scarlett Johansen’s cleavage, and it seemed out of character for Bruce Banner to drink so much Corona, on the whole it will appeal to the main audience.  This film never came to be, but it isn’t all that hard to imagine. The fact is, we are a spoilt cinema-going audience. Age of Ultron was made with huge amounts of heart and soul, and deserves to be recognised as more than just a cash-in designed to sell action figures.  

    Age of Ultron, as you’d expect, focuses on the rise of Ultron, an artificial intelligence gone wrong and hell-bent on destroying the Avengers. There is great deal of plot going on in AOU, however it all boils down to the Avengers deciding what their place is in the world. If Avengers Assemble brought the team together, AOU begs the question - was that really such a good idea? The great thing about Joss Whedon’s script is that you will root for the heroes all the way, while still questioning whether they are doing the right thing. AOU is no simple tale of good versus bad, instead it is a film where there really aren’t any easy answers, and our heroes have to go through a great deal of pain to find any resolution. 

   AOU is a ridiculous ensemble cast. Perhaps we have come to expect A list stars in our A list movies, but to see Robert Downey Jr and co all on screen at one is a real treat, and one that the film doesn’t take for granted. Rather than relying on star power to sell the story, instead the story gives its stars a chance to show depth and growth. Obviously there just isn’t room to give every character a fully fleshed arc, instead the film treats the team as its central character, a character going through some severe growing pains. Marvel’s smart casting is a great strength; Johansen is tormented as the Black Widow, Chris Hemsworth is hilarious as Thor, and Chris Evans makes the most of the straight man role. James Spader is on maniacal form as Ultron, rather than the antagonistic A.I. being a cold and distant, he is charismatic and compelling. Ultron has a few fantastic monologues, during which his grudge against the Avengers seems almost relatable. Just as with Avengers Assemble, AOU uses Tony Stark sparingly, and while Stark’s hubris is essential to the plot, that doesn’t mean AOU becomes the Robert Downey Jr show. The interplay between these characters is what really makes the film work, and it doesn’t need pointing our every 10 minutes that they are a family (looking at you Fast and Furious), instead  Whedon’s trademark witty dialogue is allowed to come to the fore - to the point that their disagreements feel real rather than machinations of plot. 

   From the very first frames, AOU is a great looking film. With so many characters on screen at once, the camera is forced to swoop and swing through the action, at times it is almost like watching Cirque du Soleil with so much acrobatic mayhem happening that you want to pause the film so you can take it in. As the end credits roll, there is a legion of effects people and prop makers, all of whom deserve credit for making the world of AOU beautifully realised. All the filmmaking elements come together to create a visual feast, and while this is by no means the film’s only selling point, you feel as though you are getting your money’s worth as an audience member. The production design of AOU sets it apart from the competition, the pseudo-science cooked up by Marvel is fantastic and futuristic, however it all looks like it could work. Furthermore, the colour palette of the film is wonderfully bright and vivid, you definitely don’t feel as though you need night-vision goggles just to see what’s going on. 

                  

   AOU is by no means a perfect film. Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson suffer from the many cooks syndrome, they are short-served on character development, for which shaky Eastern European accents does not quite compensate. AOU is also not a standalone film, it carries with it the weight of the whole Marvel Universe to this point, and there are brief moments where it seems as though the film may buckle under that weight. Thor is given a mysterious sub-plot, Loki’s sceptre from the first film becomes an important maguffin, Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury appears but doesn’t quite account for the fallout from Captain America: The Winter Solder. Interestingly, these issues stem from one of AOU’s greatest strengths. It is more than a film, it is part of something greater, an important gear in the vast Marvel machine that is giving us some of the best fantasy in cinematic history. AOU works as a standalone film, its villain and plot are some of Marvel’s best, however the smaller subplots and setups may leave the casual viewer non-plussed. A Marvel acolyte however, will enjoy these when subplots pay off a thread from a previous film, and take on faith that questions will be answered eventually. Marvel have so far managed to walk the tight-rope, their films work as compelling action-fantasy for the average cinema goer, yet offer unique rewards to fans who have been paying attention.

An open letter to Joss Whedon....

          Dear Mr Whedon. I am writing to express my sincere thanks for all the effort you have put into Avengers: Age of Ultron. I know it cannot have been easy, juggling an enormous cast, complicated script, and the obligations of working towards to larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. There must have been the temptation to phone it in, string together a couple of set pieces and call it a day. We are a spoilt audience to expect so much of a director and film crew, and should consider ourselves fortunate that such an epic blockbuster film was made with such care and attention to detail. You have more than earned a rest. 

WHO - James Spader, evil and loving it. 

WHAT - The still glorious sight of our avengers on screen together. 

WHY - Because in the cinematic Age of Comic Book Movies, Age of Ultron stands head and shoulders above the rest, thanks to smart writing, stellar action, and pitch-perfect performances. 

WHEN - Today. And then again next week, after it’s had a chance to sink in. 

                                            

(Art from: http://geektyrant.com/news/avengers-age-of-ultron-teaser-poster-by-matt-ferguson)

Furious 7. A Review.

   How did we get here? Fourteen years ago the original Fast and Furious was unleashed upon an unsuspecting audience, an unashamed action flick about an undercover cop in the underground street racing scene. A couple of lacklustre sequels later and most thought Fast had run out of fuel, until Justin Lin took the franchise a gave it a remodel. Furious 7 is a behemoth blockbuster, and while purists might point out it bears little resemblance to the original, it delivers what a big chunk of the cinema-going audience craves on a Friday night: action, fun, and not a whole lot of thinking. 

   Let’s get this out of the way first: this film makes no sense. At all. If you’re looking for a film with an airtight plot, realistic physics, or realistic anything for that matter, watch something else. The plot, such as there is one, has the Fast gang under threat from the big bad brother of a previous villain, and so they have to travel across the globe hunting a computer chip, for reasons.

   As you might expect, the performances in the film are larger than life - especially from Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson who appear to have taken the whole larger-than-life idea quite literally. The script is pretty dreadful, so none of the stars have much of an opportunity to shine - even two time Oscar nominee Djimon Hounsou is essentially reduced to yelling commands from a helicopter. On the positive side, the main cast have been together so long that they have a genuine and infectious chemistry, you would believe them as a family even without Diesels several monologues to that effect. Michelle Rodriguez is compelling as an amnesiac, actually an interesting sub-plot which deserved much more attention than it receives - though Rodriguez makes the most of what she is given. Kurt Russell is fun in a cameo role, Ludacris delivers on most of the film’s laughs, and Jason Statham is a believable threat, however none of them are fully fleshed-out characters and serve mostly to move the plot forwards. Overall the cast do everything that is asked of them, its just that they aren’t asked to do very much.

   I saw the film in a packed auditorium, and I’m pretty sure they were all there for the same reason, to see the action and the stunts - you know, the ones that were in the trailer? Director James Wan and his stunt coordinators have put together several stunning action set-pieces, they are all brilliantly executed and even have some surprises in store. Action is not always given its due credit, often it is taken for granted in this kind of film, however an awful lot of imagination and hard work has gone into creating sequences that are entertaining. The fight scenes are especially well filmed, they suffer the same affliction as many western action films where fast cuts are used to hide blows not connecting, however the stunt team and actors give bruising and energetic performances, and the camerawork highlights the action in a satisfying way - sometimes spinning upside down to follow the movement of the fight. The car stunts are both sublime and ridiculous, as well as highly entertaining. James Wan has managed to make them feel really dangerous, as one faceless henchman meets a sticky end there was an appreciative “ooooooooh” from the audience, it is no small feat to still bring fresh ideas to motor stunts 7 films into a franchise. When it comes down to it, Furious 7 sells itself as an action blockbuster, and thankfully delivers on this front. 

   It would be remiss not to mention, and pay tribute to the late Paul Walker. The tragedy of his death was widely reported, as was its impact on a film still in production. Judging by the heartfelt words of cast and crew, Walker’s death clearly had a huge impact on his colleagues also. The technology used to finish the film, as well as stand-in performances by Walker’s brothers, blend almost seamlessly into the finished product - a truly remarkable achievement. The film works a tribute for Walker into its final scenes which, while they do not tonally fit with the rest of the film, work beautifully by themselves. Walker’s legacy needed to be handled with delicacy and respect, not exactly the hallmarks of the series, however it is something the filmmakers managed to get right. 

   Something the filmmakers absolutely did not get right is the gender politics. Simply, the treatment of female characters is not good enough. Leering low-angle shots of women in bikinis are peppered throughout the film, seemingly whenever the producers are worried people might be struggling to pay attention. Who makes the decision to film these shots? Is some poor storyboard artist forced to draw these panels? Just, Why? There is nothing wrong with including beautiful people in films, it is a visual medium after all, however including these shots for literally no reason whatsoever is appalling. I am not well versed in feminist arguments, so I’ll approach this from a filmmaking perspective. Nathalie Emmanuel’s character is shown emerging from the ocean scantily clad, as two male characters have a humorous exchange as to who has “dibs”. This doesn’t move the plot forward, has nothing to do with Emmanuel’s character, the two males are not brought into some kind of conflict over their feelings. Furthermore, nothing about this scene is original, not a thing. The worst thing is that the filmmakers have tried. There are some strong female roles, and the aforementioned scene of the two men staking their claim ends with Michelle Rodriguez making fun of their chauvinism. The film is trying to have its sexist cake and eat it too, which kind of makes it worse. There is simply no need for this sort of thing in films, surely nobody in the auditorium is so desperate to see bikini models that they paid the ticket price solely for that reason? This kind of lazy filmmaking, no doubt perpetuated by insecure producers who think their audiences are stupid, needs to stop. I hate writing this kind of thing, it’s surely not fun to read, but it has to be said. Furious 7 is a worse film because of its treatment of women, I know people who will not watch it for this reason, Hollywood needs to wake up. Rant over. 

   Overall Furious 7 is an enjoyable film. The action sequences, which are the film’s big draw, are executed brilliantly and are worth the price of admission to see on a big screen. The plot is non-existent, however provides moments of fan-service for long-time devotees of the series. While having a few decent roles for women, this is not nearly enough and in no way outweighs the outdated sexist streak running through the film. There is plenty to like about Furious 7, hopefully Fast and Furious V8 will take go the ezra mile terms of story and gender politics, add a little substance to the style and take the next leap this franchise needs. Cinema would be better for it. 

WHO: Michelle Rodriguez, if there is a spin-off it should be hers.

WHAT: The Abu Dhabi stunt, silly silly brilliant stuff.

WHY: This film was made to entertain, and is a lot of fun.

WHEN: I think the correct order in which to watch these films is 1,2,4,5,6,3,7. Maybe. It doesn’t matter.

Cinderella. A Review.

As Disney shows us gods and monsters with Marvel, and prepares to take us to a galaxy far, far away with Lucasfilm, quaint things like glass slippers and fairy godmothers might seem terribly old hat. Cinderella is proof that some stories truly are timeless, and when treated with equal measures of wit and respect, can still find ways to surprise and delight. 

The plot requires little recapping, Cinderella follows the plot of the 1950 animated version fairly closely, making a few small, smart alterations. This isn’t some post-modern reimagining in the vein of Enchanted, or a complete ret-con like Maleficent, instead Director Kenneth Branagh focuses on taking a well known tale and telling it really well. 

The major success of the film is its cast, Casting director Lucy Bevan has put together a fine ensemble where the main roles are given gravitas by fantastic performances, and minor roles are elevated into real characters, additions such as Hayley Attwell and Stellan Skarsgard (interestingly both Marvel alumni) make the film a rich tapestry. Obviously the key to the film was finding the right Cinderella, a role which Lily James completely inhabits. Sweet and innocent might be the hardest sell in all of acting, play it too straight and it can be sickening, playing it with a wink at the camera would have undermined the whole film. James manages to find the middle ground, a Cinderella who embodies the film’s message of being kind and having courage, while being fun and likeable - a lead we can root for. 

Our Prince Charming (or Kit) is ably played Richard Madden, best known as Rob Stark from Game of Thrones. He proves a worthy love interest for James, and crucially the two are given a chance to build some chemistry before they are supposed to fall in love, seeming more like genuine lovestruck youths than cardboard airheads. Madden makes the best of a supporting role, thankfully the script gives him personality and motivation, and so he manages to make an impression on screen. It’s also nice to see Rob get to sit on the throne. 

Cate Blanchett is have a ball as the wicked stepmother, carefully nibbling at the scenery in a way which fits the character rather than steals the scene. Similarly the ugly sisters (Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger) romp around in the most fantastic pantomime outfits, mining comedic gold out of mean spirits. Helena Bonham Carter’s Fairy Godmother may potentially split audiences, she seems to be channeling Joanna Lumley in Absolutely Fabulous, personally I found her funny and felt she added a twist to a familiar scene.

Director Kenneth Branagh has been described as a safe pair of hands, but he is so much more than that. It takes a director of Branagh’s confidence to trust in the appeal of fairy tales, to believe that audiences will be invested in ball gowns and pumpkin carriages. Branagh has a great understanding of slapstick, and the film is patient in the way it earns such satisfying moments as an entire ballroom falling silent as Cinderella arrives at the top of the stairs. 

There are some things that didn’t quite work for me. The world of Cinderella, while visually stunning, would not hold up to scrutiny. It is an age old Disney trick of cobbling together aspects from different areas to create a fairytale world, however unlike the world of Tangled or Frozen which feel as though you could step right into, the patchwork of Cinderella doesn’t quite fit. Also, and I realise this is an odd thing to pick up on, the mice characters seem undeveloped. Perhaps it is a hangover from the original, which is unfair to bring to the new version, yet they seemed to be there for fan service and as a plot device and not much more. However, while these elements stuck out to me, they are still well made, and the fact I mention them at all speaks to the excellence of the rest of the film. 

There was a point in Cinderella that I realised I had a huge grin on my face, it is a film that hits all the right notes, with a few interesting new melodies thrown in. Branagh and co have delivered more than could be expected, a real family film with a kind and courageous heart. 

WHO: Lily James never gives anything less than a performance worthy of a princess.

WHAT: The dance. And I never thought I’d say that.

WHY: To see Rob Stark on the throne! 

WHEN: A timeless story, it will delight whenever.

Tunnel Burner. A Review.

Watch the film here: https://vimeo.com/121138972

   Making your first film is a bit like your first kiss. You spend a lot of time thinking about what it’s going to be like, it’s exciting and daunting, it’s over all too quickly, and it happens in a bus shelter. Okay that last part might just be me. Anyway, making your first film is a fantastic experience where you get to try out new things and experiment, Jose Sherwood-Gonzales managed to do this as well as make a personal film with heaps of character - not bad for a first timer!

   Tunnel Burner follows its central protagonist as he drifts through life, with the power to create portals he exists in a kind of limbo world where he doesn’t belong in the present yet isn’t ready to move on to his future. As the Tunnel Burner watches the word from the safety of his room, numbing his senses with drugs, he is about to get a rude awakening from a mysterious figure.

   Jose put an awful lot of planning into his first film, with both extensive location scouting and storyboarding. This is evident in the style of the film, he has managed to find unique and interesting shots all across one main location. Jose and his cinematography team have gone out of their way to make each shot as cinematic as possible, highlighting the already stunning art deco Brotherton Library. Of course on a student film there are times when aesthetic must be sacrificed in the name of a convenient location or time constraints, and so Tunnel Burner has a few shots that seem a little rough around the edges, however in general the film achieves a production value far beyond its meagre means. 

   Craig Arthur’s central performance is commendable, he manages to build his character just through physicality and facial expressions. Asked to carry much of the film by himself, and without dialogue, Craig rises to the challenge; panicked glances over the shoulder give a sense of paranoia, while looks of longing into the camera suggest deeper feelings. While Craig does his best, he is a little short served by the script. Of course for a first film, adding dialogue is just an extra complication - especially when filming in a library! With that said, if Jose ever decides to expand upon this character, it would be nice to see Craig be given more to do. 

   Tunnel Burner is more than just an excuse for a director to jump into filmmaking, it is also a personal film which seeks to examine the anxiety many people feel when the time comes to move one, and they aren’t ready. Jose lets his cinematography speak for itself, the narrow lanes of the library and the dark, brooding tones deliberately create a sense of detachment, supporting the message which the director sought to send. At times the film can be difficult to follow, the introduction of portals adds a surreal element which when added to the lack of dialogue means that the message gets a bit lost amidst the action. The portals themselves, however, are very well pulled off. Jose was determined from the outset that he would use a practical effect rather than cgi, and the end result is impressive. The music and sound editing are also superb, the score written specifically for the film creates a tense atmosphere - giving Tunnel Burner a sense of pace. Where the direction, cinematography, performance, and sounds all combine at their best, Tunnel Burner is remarkably polished for a student filmmaker’s first feature.

   This review has referenced several times that Tunnel Burner is Jose’s first film, and I mean this in no way to be patronising. Genuinely it is an impressive debut, in which the director has made an admirable attempt to realise his vision. Jose made effective use of all the resources at his disposal, including a great deal of planning and preparation on his part, and the end result is a film of which he should be proud. 

WHO: Craig Arthur. He behaves like a pro.

WHAT: The Tunnel Burner smoking shot, really well done.

WHY: A lot of hard work and passion went into this one, it deserves a watch.

WHEN: If you’re in the library working hard and need a 5 minute break.

Chappie. A Review.

   The third major release from director Neil Blomkamp and his co-writer/partner Terri Tatchell, Chappie takes us back to Blomkamp’s native South Africa. In the near future, the crime ridden city of Johannesburg has become slightly less crime-ridden thanks to the robotic police force invented by Dev Patel, and paid for by Sigourney Weaver’s weapons manufacturer. Idealistic Deon (Patel) is desperate to take the next step and created a genuine A.I., which he does in secret - creating the titular robot. No sooner has the childlike Chappie ‘woken up’ than he is kidnapped by a desperate gang - and that’s where things get interesting. 

   From the opening shots of faux documentary interviews with robotics experts, the realistic Blomkamp tone is established. His future Johannesburg is a violent, yet vivid place, expertly brought to life - the world of Chappie is a more believable setting for robotic misadventure than for example Robocop’s Detroit or Dredd’s mega-city one. Adding to the realism, the protagonists are not action caricatures, but seemingly real people. Dev Patel is not the slick computer genius or stereotypical nerd of many sci-fi films, but a lonely man who spends his evenings on red bull fuelled coding sessions. In a departure from his typical heroism, Hugh Jackman has a ball playing rival developer to Patel, sporting his native Australian accent, as well as a mullet and cargo shorts, Jackman is a hugely entertaining foil. The gamble in the casting are Yolandi and Ninja, not actors but musicians from Rap-Rave phenomenon Die Antwoord. While perhaps struggling at times with some of the emotional weight of the film, Die Antwoord are absolutely convincing as violent criminals, and their raw style adds to the realism of the world which Blomkamp has created. 

   The titular robot is wonderfully designed, aesthetically not far removed from the prototypes seen at electronics shows. Rather than the sleekness of I-Robot or the awkwardness of C3PO, the robotic scouts blend into the film, rather than standing out. Sharlto Copley gives a compelling motion capture performance, utilising a natural comic timing in some slapstick sections, but also conveying emotion through hunched shoulders or aggressive stance. Chappie’s childlike demeanour, as necessitated by the plot, may be grating for some, however he is sympathetic enough that for the most part audiences will side with him rather than against. 

   Chappie is a film with a social conscience and message, the latest in a modern vein of films where AI is represented as the hero while humankind is the antagonist. The humans in Blomkamp and Tatchell’s script represent a kind of worst-case scenario reaction to AI; this is most subtly done as Patel’s character vies for influence over his creation against the aggressive gangsters who have taken him in, however the blunt actions of Weaver and Jackman seem a little cartoonish by comparison. At times Chappie is a film torn between its desire to explore what it means to create a consciousness, as well as entertain an audience who have been sold on an action blockbuster. 

   In order to craft a story of scope and scale, Blomkamp and Tatchell’s script has characters make some strange and extreme decisions. Furthermore there is some egregious Sony product placement, as well as a final act which stretches the suspension of disbelief. Waiting to watch the film I saw trailers for upcoming action films such as Fast and Furious 7, these movies have ridiculous plot developments which as an audience we do not question because we are all in on the joke that these films are ridiculous. In Chappie, the realistic world and social conscience that are hallmarks of Blomkamp’s direction sit uncomfortably with developments which seem unrealistic and there for the sake of action set pieces. The film is dividing audiences, and this seems to be the line of division; either the realistic tone allows viewers to accept outlandish plot points, or it makes such developments so incongruous that the spell is broken. My personal experience was that the central performances were generally strong enough, and the presentation of the world so thorough, that I simply raised an eyebrow when Chappie downloads the internet to his brain yet still seems not to understand that a blade to chest will do more than send the victim to sleep - then I go back to enjoying Chappie’s development and the way he impacts the world around him. 

   The world of cinema is quick to jump to conclusions, and there are already those branding Blomkamp a one-hit-wonder, however this does a huge disservice to a film which attempts to explore large themes and succeeds to an extent. Blomkamp is a brave director who has managed to make a large scale film without sacrificing his own style, where the film does fall down is the moments in which it commits the sin of forcing character to serve action, rather than the other way around. At worst, Chappie is a film which tries to juggle many themes to satisfy its audiences, at its best Chappie will have you leaving the cinema thinking about the nature of intelligence and consciousness - which probably won’t be the case in Fast and Furious 7. 

WHO: Hugh Jackman, the nicest man in Hollywood being a villain - in cargo shorts.

WHAT: Johannesburg, proving that Manhattan doesn’t own the rights to sci-fi. 

WHY: If you loved District 9 and are craving more Blomkamp.

WHEN: You’ve just seen Terminator 3 and need your faith in robots restored.

(Art from: http://faragonart.tumblr.com/post/107809681008/cinemamind-in-collaboration-with-my-beloved-we)

Boyhood. A Review.

   Boyhood is not my kind of film at all, its not really about anything. Then again, its also kind of about everything. Richard Linklater chronicles the 12 year journey, not just of a boy but of a whole family, giving the film a sense of scope unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.  

   Boyhood was filmed over the course of 12 years, keeping the central cast intact. The result is that the family grows before our eyes, both physically and emotionally. The film centres on Mason, his triumphs and failures, from first days of class and first kisses, to messy breakups and moving on. The title is somewhat misleading, in fact it was originally to be titled ’12 years’, Boyhood not only show’s Mason’s progression but also the lives of the family - the result is a film which will resonate with any audience. 

   The central role was the biggest risk, casting a child actor who would be with the project for 12 years meant gambling that the child would still want to participate and also would continue to develop as an actor. Ellar Coltrane was a very fortunate choice, in the earlier scenes he is an engaging presence on screen and as good as can be expected for a child actor. In later scenes he blossoms into a fine young actor, effortlessly portraying the angst and confusion of teenage year, while all the while hinting at the sweet nature that makes him so beloved of his family. As a character, Mason grows to be a rebellious teen in some respects, precocious bordering on pretentious. It is to Coltrane’s credit that his questioning of “the point of all this” is not so much tiresome as amusing, at least for myself as a former pretentious teen recognising some of myself in his musings. Ultimately, Coltrane gives a real performance, never seeming like the impossibly witty or outrageously awkward protagonists of so many teen films, instead he is a likeable lead to root for.

   Linklater surrounds Mason with actors of the highest caliber, particularly his parents, played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. As Mason Sr, Hawke is charming and easy to love, although certainly not a perfect parent he displays thoroughly convincing warmth toward his two on screen children. Hawke also manages to convey a sense of being lost, a man with almost as much growing up to do as his son. Arquette, who won the Acadamy Award for best supporting Actress, is a more consistent presence in the film, she is a woman with a huge heart and an unfortunate talent for having it broken. Linklater cast his own daughter as Mason’s sister Samantha, the two demonstrate sibling rivalry that will be familiar to anyone with brothers or sisters. Mason’s life is filled with characters just as fleshed out as he, the world of Boyhood feels lived in as a result. 

   Part of the charm of the film is down to Linklater’s script, the dialogue serving to make the world and the characters believable rather than just to explain the plot. In fact, the audience is often left to figure out what has happened in the time not shown on screen, the scenes from Mason’s life that Linklater shows us are never like a montage, instead they are self contained moments that tell you all you need to know in that one scene. A great example is a scene where Mason is wooing a young girl by the pool at a high school party; the girl requires no introduction but is obviously emphatuated with the brooding boy, Mason himself seems almost unaware the effect he is having on her - so engrossed is he in his own musings on the nature of life. When we later see the pair on a road trip, she teases him about his serious nature while he acknowledges himself that he has a tendency to rant. At no point does anyone utter something like “I can’t believe we’ve been together 6 months”, instead we learn about their relationship through dialogue which both makes us laugh and rings true. 

   When writing reviews often I talk about ‘the world’ of the film, with Boyhood the surreal thing is to watch time passing in our own world. Over the course of the film we watch the phones get smaller and sleeker, we watch the haircuts and fashion change, and the soundtrack sticks always to music from the time period. On the surface this results in some knowing laughs at the way we were, however subconsciously the set dressing and soundtrack make the filmmaking invisible, drawing you into the film as if it were a home video. This style complements the direction and dialogue, this is not a film of cleanly drawn lines and archetypal characters, it does not deliver the “filmic moments” that we expect. One example is a scene where an adolescent Mason and friends are playing with a buzz saw blade, my friends and I were cringing in anticipation of some gruesome accident which Hollywood has taught us will surely happen. Instead, the scene plays out as if in real life, with Mason trying his hardest to look cool in front of older kids rather than being the hero in a moment of tragedy. As I said in my introduction, Boyhood is not the kind of film I typically watch, I’m used to 3 act structures and the satisfying way that plot threads pull together. Boyhood satisfies on a much more complex level, as we look at people who seem so real it is as though they walked in front of the cameras by accident. Of course it would not be at all interesting to watch random scenes from a life, Linklater’s script choses what to show the audience with purpose in mind, and developments leave us wanting to see what will happen next. 

   No film is perfect, and Boyhood has its problems. The issues I had with the film are mostly byproducts of its concept, when filming 12 years inevitably there are things that you miss and the film runs long. Nearly 3 hours long. At no point in the film was I ever bored, Linklater can make you more engaged with a game of charades than some directors can with the end of the world, however some more ruthless editing could have brought Boyhood in at just over 2 hours I’m sure. My other main problem is that because the film leaps in years, we miss some moments of development. There are clues sprinkled around for us to pick up on, but in particular the change in Ethan Hawke’s Mason Sr seem to happen over-night in cinematic terms, even though we know it was a long transformation in the story. These problems were probably inherent in the idea of the project, and the benefits of Boyhood’s structure outweigh the issues, however it is a film which you would not watch twice in a day for sure. 

   Boyhood is clearly the work of a director who has been in the game a while, it is filled with a sort of homespun philosophy on life from someone who understands we are all still figuring it out and we all have room to grow. Mason’s life is not idyllic or tragic, it is a life not far removed from many of our own experiences, for this reason the messages peppered throughout the film speak to the audience on a personal level. One moment which stands out for me is when Mason is given a much needed lesson in the virtues of hard work by a photography teacher, rarely in real life does anyone so neatly teach a lesson that needs to be learnt, and certainly not in the cinematic confines of a blackroom. However, it is a lesson that would stick with Mason for the rest of his life, and a scene which has played over in my head in the days since I saw the film. I am already making an appointment to view the film again when I am 30, I can only wonder what I will take away from Boyhood then.

WHO: Richard Linklater, because his hand is almost invisible, making this an exceptional film.

WHAT: The Black Album, the story behind which is in the trivia section of IMDB.

WHY: If this isn’t the kind of film you’d normally watch, you need to see it.

WHEN: Now. And again when you’re 30. And when you’re 50. It is a film which will grow with you.