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.