Collateral Beauty

Collateral Beauty is the sort of film that requires a more in depth review to explain just how appalling it really is. This review contains spoilers.

Are you one of the poor souls that went to see the infamous Movie 43? A film with an incredible array of stars, magnificently poor writing and a horrendous sense of direction that left everybody wondering how it was ever funded. Collateral Beauty has been similarly shot down by reviewers, and whilst the obvious comparisons to the aforementioned disaster might be unfitting, the minor glimpses of potential are far overshadowed by the fact that Collateral Beauty gets worse and worse at every turn.

Howard Inlet (Will Smith) is a successful advertising executive who falls apart after the harrowing death of his six-year-old daughter. Depressed, contemplating death, and worst of all, under performing at work, Howard’s concerned “friends” (Edward Norton, Kate Winslet, Michael Peña) worry in supposed equal measure for Howard’s mental state, and the state of their own professional futures. The trio hire an investigator, Sally Price (Ann Dowd) to acquire evidence that would allow them to take control of the company from Howard (with his best interests in mind of course), and they soon find out that he is writing letters to Love, Death and Time – three constructs that he once used in his advertising work and is now blaming for the death of his daughter. With all obvious options ignored, Howard’s “friends” hire three actors (Helen Mirren, Keira Knightley and Jacob Latimore) to each approach him pretending to be one of the constructs, hoping that he will have a public outburst whilst their PI is filming so that they can then - after digitally removing the actors - show it to the board to prove that Howard is unfit to run the company.

*Oh the humanity*

Written by Allan Loeb (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, 21) and directed by David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada, Marley & Me), Collateral Beauty had enough capability behind it to produce at least a half-decent film, but somewhere between the ethically-barren plotline and the kindergarten dialogue, the film collapses into a hilarious smoldering pile of Hollywood farce. The story in full is as unbelievable as it is in summary - a gently sickening ride through saccharine and syrupy messages, superficial plot twists and an array of A-listers trying to act their way out of one of the worst dramatic scripts in recent memory. One horrendous issue is the dialogue, which is more literary abomination than uplifting quotage - when you have Dame Helen Mirren spitting out lines like “Nothing is ever really dead if you look at it right” surely it must be obvious that you’ve created a steaming pile of script.

Putting aside the fact that none of the characters other than Howard are even remotely able to draw empathy from the audience because of their involvement in the repulsive scheme, we also have to sit through the hilariously-poor establishing of these token issues that each of them are struggling with. Norton’s Whit is drifting further apart from his daughter, Winslet’s Claire is running out of time to have a child, and Peña’s Simon is dying - we’re all dying Simon, but you decided to die an arsehole, so I don’t care. The acting is mediocre across the board, particularly when you consider the talent on screen, but the material is so atrociously bad that there’s hardly room for improvement. Will Smith’s is the only half-decent performance, but that’s mainly because he doesn’t have to talk.

There’s a swath of other annoying issues throughout like the fact that the investigator is “secretly” filming in the background with her phone in portrait mode, but when they show the footage to the board it’s in landscape and clearly shot with a cinema camera, or the hilariously stupid idea that they could simply digitally remove the actors without an expensive composite artist. Then when they show it to the board they acknowledge the fact that they’ve hired the actors anyway. What was the actual point of it then? I could go on, if not for the inevitable brain hemorrhage that analysing this excrement would give me.

Somewhere deep in the heart of this film there was a tinge of potential, completely lost in the overblown lunacy of this attempted storytelling. In the end though, watching Collateral Beauty is a bit like pondering how quickly your life is flying by, your crippling debt, the irreparable damage we’ve done to the environment, total nuclear annihilation, the futility of existence, the end of time, a Trump presidency; the more you think about it, the worse it gets.

Eye in the Sky

“You tell us when to go to war, we conduct the war, and then you deal with the consequences”

In 2014, Andrew Niccol’s Good Kill opened up a contemporary subgenre for war films, which is now being build upon with Gavin Hood’s drone thriller Eye in the Sky, starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman and Barkhad Abdi.

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is leading a secret drone reconnaissance mission against a known terrorist group and in particular, a rogue British citizen turned terrorist. On the ground, she’s in communication with local Kenyan undercover agent Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi) and with her superior in Whitehall Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman). Over in the U.S, drone pilot 2nd Lieutenant Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) has just taken control of the aircraft and is in communication with the Colonel. The situation quickly disintegrates as the terrorists move location and the orders change to kill. But when a local Kenyan girl suddenly enters the equation, the question of collateral damage comes into play.

Gavin Hood’s last two films; X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Ender’s Game were monsters, with budgets well over $100 million. Eye in the Sky is a much smaller, taughter and more intelligent thriller that could have so easily fallen into tedious territory. Instead, it embraces its subject matter and - thanks to writer Guy Hibbert - presents a much more morally ambiguous take on drone warfare than you would at first think. Where Good Kill hid the ethical dilemma of drone warfare behind a pilot’s souring relationship with his family, this film puts it right at the forefront, with the military legalities and political disputes all focusing on the potential collateral damage of the situation when a young girl selling bread enters the kill zone. But Hood makes a concerted effort to justify, or at the very least explain the reasoning for both firing the deadly missile or for not. What we get is a denouement similar to Gus Van Sant’s Elephant, unsure what to make of the final outcome it forces us to consider the impact long after the credits roll.

Eye in the Sky is a masterclass in taking a simple story with simple production values and using those elements to build tension from the get go. You will never be more stressed out watching a girl selling bread than you are here. Certainly its ability to hold your attention through what is essentially an hour and a half of phone conversations is down to the abilities of its four key leads. Helen Mirren brings a fiery rage to the film, with her Colonel acting in a front-lines mindset despite being in a small English bunker. Her much more reserved superior brings poise to the situation thanks to a balanced, memorable performance from the late great Alan Rickman. Aaron Paul’s all-too brief scenes mark certainly his best dramatic appearance since hanging up the gas-mask, and Barkhad Abdi is slowly making clear that he won’t be typecast from his Captain Phillips role.

There are certain elements of the film that are less believable, the Kenyan intel use insect and wildlife drones to capture information discreetly and whilst I understand this technology is in development, I doubt even the U.S military have it engineered to the level that is portrayed. Iain Glen makes an appearance, dealing with various foreign ministers whilst tackling a bout of food poisoning, which feels like it’s supposed to be some kind of weird, unnecessary comic relief. Some of the political figures also seem to be blown out of proportion, getting hysterical at every opportunity. I can understand the emotional contour they’re trying to create with this but it can come off as overly-dramatic. However none of these small issues were really enough to harm what is ultimately a very strong piece of filmmaking.

Eye in the Sky is the sort of film you wish for as a reviewer, one that pops up with little anticipation and takes you by surprise. It’s a well-developed, well-acted, insightful and utterly tense example of how small-budget films can be extremely effective, and a great contemporary addition to the war genre. Do yourself a favour, go see this over Batman v Superman.

Trumbo

Since the end of Breaking Bad in 2013, audiences have been quietly anticipating a performance from Bryan Cranston that lives up to his role of Walter White. Now with his turn as Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, that wait is over. But the film is not just an impressive performance from Cranston, it also touches on a period of film history that is often forgotten in the larger context.

Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) is a successful screenwriter who is among the elite of Hollywood. He is also a member of the Communist Party, something that makes him and fellow writers somewhat of a target in post-war America, especially for staunch anti-Communists like former actress Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren). Because of his involvement, Trumbo soon has to testify before a hearing by the House Commitee on Un-American Activities. Because he refuses to answer any of the questions, he is charged with contempt of Congress and is sent to prison with ten other writers, including Arlen Hird (Louis C.K.). On the outside world, Trumbo's family are struggling with not having him around and his friend Eddie Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg) leaves him high and dry when he names Trumbo as a communist. When Trumbo is released from prison, he and his fellow writers decide to sell scripts written under pseudonyms.

Bryan Cranston really steals every scene he's in and understandably too. With this performance he delves completely into the character, more so than any character he's ever done before (in real life I imagine him to be a mix of Tim Whatley from Seinfeld and Hal from Malcolm in the Middle). There was even a part where I had to force myself to see Bryan Cranston in the character. Not only is this a testament to the committed performance by him, but it is also glorious praise of Dalton Trumbo. The real man had an intoxicating and humourous quality to him and all the existing footage we have of him is fantastic to watch because he was such a larger than life figure.

Praise must also be heaped upon director Jay Roach's approach to this film. He comes mainly from a background of making comedy movies, namely the Austin Powers and Meet the Parents series of films. While this film has a large amount of comedy, it is at its heart a serious story about the hysteria that surrounded the spread of communism in 1950s America. It was crazy to watch Hedda Hopper to get up in a stir about reasons that are not at all apparent. The look of this film is also amazing, but primarily because it has the look of being shot on a set. Now normally that would seem quite out of place in any other film, but here it works fantastically, especially since it is about a period in film where sets were used prolifically.

The supporting cast are also wonderful, even though Cranston steals the show. Diane Lane plays Trumbo's strong supportive wife remarkably well and even though I'm not a fan of Elle Fanning, she does a good job in this movie. The same can be said of Helen Mirren. Both Louis C.K. and Michael Stuhlbarg show incredible range and in the case of Louis, he shows some incredible dramatic acting because he does not have a single joke in this movie. Also the makeup was fantastic enough to make Dean O'Gorman look exactly like Kirk Douglas.

Trumbo is one man's tribute to another. Cranston gives a performance so authentic, it's easy to hold up footage of the actual man and see how good it is. The supporting cast are also wildly brilliant.

Woman In Gold

Films about the Holocaust come out every year, so when a film about the modern impact that dark time in history is made, you would get quite excited to see how this event still affects so many people to this day. And while I'm not at all adverse to seeing an intense legal drama (both To Kill a Mockingbird and A Time to Kill are great legal dramas), that backdrop may not work as well here.

Woman In Gold takes place in 1998, when young, struggling lawyer Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds) is introduced to his mother's Austrian friend Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren). Maria's sister has recently died and she has found some letters that her sister sent to the Austrian government asking about the restitution of her family's paintings that were stolen from her family by the Nazis, namely the famous Gustav Klimt portrait of her aunt, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. Maria enlists Randy's help in the legal case and while at first he is reluctant, he soon decides to help. The pair travel to Vienna, where a symbolic conference is being held on the restitution of these types of artworks and they begin their case. Whilst in Austria, they meet investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Daniel Brühl) who helps them with their research.

This movie staggers along at an odd pace. At times you are being swept up in the progress that Randy is making with the case and at other times it slows right down, as Maria and Randy share a tender moment of understanding and while that sounds completely normal of a drama, it happens at odd and inopportune times. Randy's wife Pam also shows up, but only at times when Randy is having a crisis of faith and needs some outside direction. The film makes a big effort to not have to use subtitles the whole time as Maria does not wish to speak German whilst in Austria, but then this extends to the other non-American characters speaking to each other in English, even on Austrian TV. I feel like this was a bit lazy and could have been changed.

The film also features flashbacks to Maria's youth in Vienna, both before and during the Nazi occupation. Here she is played by Canadian actress Tatiana Maslany and her husband Frederick is portrayed by Max Irons. These sequences show how serene her home life was before the Nazis, but are also quite open in showing the brutality of the Nazis. Also when the couple are fleeing Austria, the tension and fear they felt comes through.

Ryan Reynolds carries most of the acting in this film and has really been showing his dramatic range in the past few years (presumably to drop the stigma attached with The Green Lantern). Even in shots that aren't particularly focused on his character, he shines with his subtle performance. Helen Mirren on the other hand, plays the character similarly to the ones she has over the last couple of years, especially her role in The Hundred Foot Journey. Tatiana Maslany does a much better job playing the younger version of Maria and is full of emotion. Daniel Brühl brings incredible emotion to the role of Hubertus and Katie Holmes supports the main cast well.

Woman In Gold offers enjoyable viewing, but doesn't try too hard to make a splash. There are some emotional scenes, but not enough to make the entire film one that you will cry the whole way through. Just like in Dumb and Dumber there is a joke about the confusion between Austria and Australia.

The Hundred-Foot Journey

Many people classify Jon Favreau's Chef as 'food-porn'. In comparison  Lasse Hallström's The Hundred-Foot Journey, is 'food-porn', that in some parts seems to border on real porn.

After their restaurant in India is destroyed during a riot and his wife is killed, Papa (Om Puri) takes his children to Europe, where they eventually settle in France after finding a derelict restaurant to set up in. Papa's son, Hassan Haji (Manish Dayal) is an incredibly talented young cook who is able to produce food that will draw local attention. The only problem is that there is a prestigious restaurant already open across the road, operated by Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren).

A feud unfolds between Papa and Mallory, whilst Hassan catches the attention of sous-chef Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon). Things are then further complicated when Mallory recognises Hassan's talent and decides to take him under her wings.
 
Helen Mirren always seems to bring so much life to her characters, but here she plays such a completely unlikable, borderline racist woman that even her natural charm can't manage to resuscitate the character. She does pull off a French accent for the most part and by no means gives a poor performance, but at the end of the day, you can't polish a t*rd. Om Puri's character is a lot more enjoyable to watch and is humorous with just the right amount of arrogance. However the rest of the cast were generally quite bland.

I think the real issue here though is the plot. It's fanciful and quite bizarre in it's level of suggestiveness in parts, such as a strangely erotic omelet-making scene between Mallory and Hassan which seems to be channelling this scene from Ghost. There's also the fact that the "war" between the two restaurants is illustrated in what seem to be very hectic training montages of slicing and dicing that are so over the top that you can't help but laugh. Then after all that, there's the excruciating finale that darts around in a series of false endings that go on and on. This script seriously needed some work.

Though it's not all bad. For one thing it's gorgeous to look at, with vivid colours and mouthwatering-food, not surprising considering the stylistic tendencies of cinematographer Linus Sandgren (American Hustle, Promised Land). There's also the humour, which (although a bit hit and miss) really keeps the whole thing afloat. In the end, it's certainly not a terrible movie and I'm sure it would appeal to many people, but it seems too dramatically forced and is lacking in many areas.

Monsters University

I was 10 when Monsters, Inc. came out. Twelve years later, I'm studying at university and this movie comes out. It's great how life comes full circle. I should note that I was the oldest person in the theatre watching this (who didn't get dragged along by a child at least).

The story tells of how James P. Sullivan (John Goodman) and Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) became best friends at university years before they were the best scare team at Monsters, Inc. Their introduction to each wasn't smooth sailing, however. Whilst they are both in a scare class, they get thrown out of the program by Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) for having a fight. Together they figure out that they can back into the course by competing in the Scare Games, a group of challenges for fraternities and sororities.

I feel as though this isn't really a kids movie, as the majority of the jokes are aimed at a mature audience but at the same time aren't crass. Charlie Day's (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) character, Art, is an obvious stoner type and the film also lampoons the hazing process that takes place in fraternities (there's a great documentary by Todd Philips if you want to know more about that, Frat House). At one stage during the film, the kid behind me started crying.

John Goodman and Billy Crystal were okay in their roles, but since this film takes place earlier than the original film, I thought maybe some younger voices wouldn't have hurt, but since it's only voice acting I don't think anyone would really care.

The other voice cameos are quite a surprise. Apart from the aforementioned Helen Mirren, there is Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation), Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and Dave Foley (The Kids in the Hall). And of course I get excited when Charlie Day is in anything.

The ending of the film was a bit of let down to me as well. Both Mike and Sully's career within the Monsters, Inc. corporation is crammed into two or three minutes at the end of the film. They could have just left that out all together.

It does kind of bug me that Pixar has so much potential from their roots as innovators for originality, but now I feel as though they're doing the same things over and over (the soon to be released Planes is a perfect example).

Verdict: A decently funny prequel that could have been stronger in terms of story, but will suffice for kids and adults alike.

Also, a bonus if you live in either the UK or Australia (these are the only two countries I know of at present). Prior to the movie actually starting, there is a screening of The Blue Umbrella, a charming love story of two umbrellas that will tug at the heartstrings.

Hitchcock

I am convinced that someone has built and is using a time machine. My evidence for this wild allegation is the movie Hitchcock. They must have gone back to 1960 and convinced Alfred Hitchcock to get in some odd shaped car and act in a film about the making of his most famous movie Psycho. It's either that or Anthony Hopkins is the best celebrity impersonator ever (or close enough until you hear the legendary Ralph Garman). Either of these ideas work for me.

The story behind Psycho was an amazing one. His last film North by Northwest was a huge success. But Alfred dreams of his younger days, when he and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) were making experimental movies and pushing the boundaries of can and can't be shown on the silver screen. He is under contract for one more picture with Paramount. So in the search for the inspiration for his next movie, Hitchcock comes across Robert Bloch's novel Psycho. It is about the owner of a mysterious motel who murders most of the young female guests who enters it's doors. Hitch, as he is known in this movie, is smitten with the story, he has found the film that will push the envelope in many ways. However, he cannot get anyone to finance it. So, in a turn that makes me to consider him one of the original indie filmmakers, he mortgages his house and tightens his bootstraps to make one of the most ambitious films of his career. Ambitious only because the head of the US censor board (That 70s Show's Kurtwood Smith) finds the film to be abhorrent. So through the ups and downs of the production he finally is able to make a rough cut that is satisfactory, although it isn't any good.

Meanwhile, Alma finds herself drifting away from Alfred and wishes to pursue her own projects. She starts work on an adaption of her friends new novel. She works on this for a considerable amount of time before realising it is unadaptable. This is just about the time when Hitch finds that he needs to re-edit his rough cut and Alma comes to the rescue. They spend a considerable amount of time in the editing room and end up coming out with a masterpiece. This time round the film is much more to Hitch's expectations, although only two theatres agree to show it, so they must rely on word of mouth. Luckily for them it is a success with the audience.

The cast in this movie is great. Anthony Hopkins, as I said earlier was a dead ringer for the master of suspense, and Helen Mirren were perfect as always. But they real joy of the cast is in the supporting roles. Scarlett Johansson is perfect as Janet Leigh (also known as Jamie Lee Curtis' mum, something I only recently discovered), the leading lady made famous by the iconic shower scene. Another doppelganger in this movie was James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, who plays the eponymous psycho. This guy was so convincing as Perkins, he had all the nervousness of the actor and character down-pat. Also a surprising supporting role came from a highly unrecognisable Toni Collette as Hitch's assistant. Jessica Biel also gets a bit part as Vera Miles, Hitch's former leading lady.

There are some interesting "dream" sequences in which Hitch's experience making this film is likened to that of the story Ed Gein, the serial killer caught two years prior to the making of the film and the model behind the character of Norman Bates. Here his played by Michael Wincott (we all remember him from Alien: Resurrection, surely).

Verdict: I found this movie to wonderfully enjoyable. I love Psycho and I find it to be terrifying (it's 52 years old as well). I also like to see movies about how Hollywood worked in it's golden age and this is no exception. Look out for a great reference to his next film, The Birds.