Gold

This review is going to venture into spoiler territory. I really tried not to, but a lot of Matthew McConaughey's good acting comes into play about ten minutes from the end of the film.

Matthew McConaughey has had a good run over the last five years. He has successfully rebranded himself as a serious actor who is able to handle fare that is outside the surf-rom-com flicks that made him famous. Because of this turnaround, I think that there is a lot of unwarranted pressure for every performance he gives to be bigger and better than the last. While the performance in Gold isn't his best, the character he plays is very captivating and surprisingly original (only partly original, but I'll get to that).

Kenny Wells (McConaughey) is an unlucky businessman whose family has been in the prospecting business for four generations. After his family business fails, he finds himself working out of a small bar in Reno, Nevada, trying to get backers on potential mining claims with little to no assurance that the sites he has chosen have any real mineral deposits. One night, he has a drunken dream about a geologist he once met and a potential claim in Indonesia. Pawning all the gold he has, Wells hopes on a plane to Indonesia to hunt down Michael Acosta (Édgar Ramírez), the geologist from his dream. Together they journey into the jungles of Borneo and and stumble across the biggest gold find of the decade.

It really made me happy that Gold was pretty original. While it is based on an actual tale that happened in Indonesia in the early 90s, only key elements are really taken from that and even then things have been changed. The first half of the movie is definitely the strongest part. It is a fun jungle adventure with hints of Apocalypse Now, Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park. It is as if director plucked the essence of the jungle scenes that appear in those movies and used it to lay a familiar setting that we can feel comfortable with. The other good part comes at the end of the film, where it turns out that there was no gold claim at all and Acosta just faked the fact that there was a deposit where he said there was. He did this through a con called salting (it's pretty cool). Not only is this twist and the end of the film pretty awesome (the whole time we're assured that there is gold), but McConaughey is amazing as a man who has just been betrayed by someone who he thought was his best friend. The movie starts out with what we think is narration by Wells, but we learn at the end is actually an FBI interview to see if he is guilty of fraud.

Gold really struggles during the middle and lead up to the twist reveal. It switches from not quite adventure movie to slow business drama. There's a lot of talking about who to sell the gold to and people taking advantage of Wells. It becomes really quite boring. There is an imitation of The Wolf of Wall Street as we see Wells claw his way back to the top, but we've seen that in countless movies before and since then and this doesn't add anything new. There are countless supporting characters who get lost in the mix and it's quite disappointing considering the fact that they are played by well known actors like Stacy Keach and Corey Stoll. These actors are wasted talents in this movie, especially Bruce Greenwood, who at least tries to stick out with a decent South African accent, but is hampered by having only three scenes in the movie. I will praise Toby Kebbell however, for his tiny role as the sympathetic FBI agent.

While Gold has some good elements, it focuses on all the boring parts of the story. The relationship between Wells and Acosta gets buried by focusing too much on the business side of things, which while helpful in setting up the twist, is a tiring time to get through. Stellar performances from the three leads (McConaughey, Howard, Ramírez) are cancelled out by the many mediocre ones.

The Girl on the Train

Tate Taylor’s The Girl on the Train, based on Paula Hawkin’s best selling novel of the same name, has been one of the most talked about and hyped releases of the year. With an all-star cast lead by Emily Blunt, it certainly has a lot to live up to.

Divorcee Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) is an alcoholic, she has been for a long time, with alcohol-induced blackouts littering memories of her marriage. It all fell apart for Rachel when she caught her husband Tom (Justin Theroux) cheating on her with their estate agent Anna Boyd (Rebecca Ferguson). Every day, Rachel catches the train past her old neighbourhood, glancing into her old house and the surroundings. She becomes fixated on Tom’s neighbours, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan Hipwell (Hayley Bennett), the archetypal relationship that Rachel desires. After a series of far from lucid moments, Rachel wakes up injured in her apartment. She can’t remember anything from the night before and finds out that Megan is missing.

It’s taken me nearly a week to get my notes together after watching this mess of a film. There was a tremendous amount of hype for The Girl on the Train leading up to release, with many heralding it as another potential Gone Girl, and the comparisons to that are important because technically and thematically it’s obvious that Taylor draws inspiration from Fincher’s film (or rips it off as some may view it). Full disclosure, I wasn’t as enamoured with Gone Girl as many others were, but to compare these two is just insulting.

The first issue comes with the mystery. Judging from the marketing, The Girl on the Train promised to be a dark and gritty mix of procedural crime and psychological thriller. What we get is barely a flash of the crime element until the denouement when all the puzzle pieces are revealed at once, well-and-truly together and not particularly intriguing, engaging or even intelligent. The rest of the film is composed of horrendous editing, a very ugly use of low-framerate photography and a thinly laid psychological pastiche that does very little to enchant the audience.

People are praising Emily Blunt’s performance as the one saving grace this film has, but I can’t even agree with that. She spends most of her time pretending to be intoxicated and stumbling around helplessly in a role that certainly might trump the other performances on-show but is still not worthy of the kudos that it has received. There’s no real downfall for Rachel because she’s already spun-out of control by the time we meet her. The material is just so poor that even such an able cast can’t dredge a solid character out of Erin Cressida Wilson’s script.

Allison Janney's character is probably the only half-enjoyable one, solely because she goes around somehow knowing everything about everyone and being a hilariously smug detective. It’s as annoying as it sounds but hey, at least she’s not sulking around with all the other depressed, dopey characters, whose sole-interactions with the world seem to be abusing each other and engaging in ridiculous love triangles. There’s one particularly absurd scene towards the end that just about sums up The Girl on the Train, with the audience's reaction a mix of 10% genuine shock, 80% belittling laughter, and 10% heading for the exit.

The Girl on the Train is a poorly acted, poorly written, frustrating, tedious, ugly lump of a film, which squanders all its energy on its meandering plot. I couldn’t honestly recommend that anybody spend money on this total misfire, but given the book’s performance, I know that they will.

Point Break

Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 film Point Break is considered a classic by many, and is one of several films that mark the transition in style between 80’s and 90’s action flicks. Now the latest in a string of Hollywood remakes, 2015/16’s Point Break, directed by Ericson Core, promises breathtaking action and a new take on the story. 

Johnny Utah (Luke Bracey) is an extreme-athlete that knows the ins-and-outs of just about every ultimate sport imaginable. After a tragic accident that claimed the life of his friend, Utah retires and trains as an FBI candidate. Utah is brought in to investigate a heist which ended with a parachute escape and soon draws a connection between several of these heists and a man known as Bodhi (Édgar Ramírez). Utah goes undercover and learns that the crime syndicate is composed of thrill-seekers that are attempting the ‘Osaki 8’, a series of ordeals that pit man against nature through extreme situations. 

The very first article I wrote for TOMB was essentially a rant about the ridiculousness of Hollywood remakes, and my opinions are still the same with the new Point Break. Point Break didn’t need a remake, just as much as Memento definitely doesn’t need a remake. This film is undeniably worse than the original – no matter what you may think of it – and this only got made because the various production companies involved understand how to exploit audiences with 3D thrillers and have a thirst for quick cash. Having said that, I have to give them credit for at least bringing in new elements to the story. I actually thought the idea of the Osaki 8 ordeals was quite cool, and visually the film is stunning, with beautiful locations and superbly choreographed stunts. 

The problem with Point Break is that basically every character in the film is an obnoxious wanker; from the FBI chief who always has his “ass on the line” for the mission, to Bodhi who lets the spiritual enlightenment of nature lead him through life, to Johnny Utah who somehow goes from an “extreme athlete” performing motocross stunts – a great opportunity for subliminal advertising from GoPro and Monster Energy drink – to an up and coming FBI agent who is conveniently assigned to a case on a syndicate of extreme athletes. Ray Winstone is totally wasted as Pappas, an agent in the cockney-branch of the FBI who stands around shouting, pumping his shotgun and growing a moustache. Luke Bracey brings little inspiration to Utah – his job is basically to show off his rock-hard abs looking sad – and Teresa Palmer’s Samsara is amazingly bland as Utah’s love interest. Characters died, and I honestly didn’t care. Johnny Utah in particular has severe character development issues. He starts off the film essentially as an extreme sports master and when he unsurprisingly finds himself in the middle of the Osaki trials – feats against nature that would make even Bear Grylls cower in a puddle of his own urine – he is not at all fazed. I mean he literally goes though the trials with a blank, disinterested face. The result is no tension and no risk to the payoff, which defeats the whole purpose of the trials. 

That just leaves Bodhi, who becomes the anti-hero (whatever that really means) of the film. He’s a bit of a Robin Hood type figure, following his own interpretation of Osaki’s teachings, “giving back” by taking from big corporations and distributing to the needy/the Earth, which is where the crime element comes in. Ultimately the real story is whether or not Bodhi will finish the Osaki 8 – which you genuinely hope he does – and whether the spiritual enlightenment gained from this achievement outweighs the crimes he’s committed to get there. I wouldn’t call the character fleshed out exactly, but Bodhi is the best that Point Break offers, and often that’s far from enough. 

Ericson Core also acted as cinematographer on Point Break, and perhaps he focused too much of his attention on camera settings and not enough on direction. The whole purpose of the remake seems like an opportunity to pander to those that live their lives strapping GoPro’s to things and performing sporty selfie-stick moves, a far-cry from the original action piece. However as I said before, they clearly didn’t use GoPro’s here because the film is absolutely stunning. I can’t speak for the 3D and honestly I don’t really care about it, but the 2D experience features jaw-dropping landscapes which once again more than prove the worth of Arri Alexa cameras. Comparisons could be made to last year’s Everest, however where that balanced cinematography with decent character and story, Core has decided that the buck stops with the visuals. 

Point Break is testament to the unimaginative recycle-for-cash nature of the current Studio system. Whilst the new story elements manage to bring something fresh to a fifteen year old film and the visuals are undeniably gorgeous, the shallow, ridiculous and annoying characters more than destroy any hope this film had for success. 

Joy

David O. Russell is an interesting director with on-and-off successes, and has in particular been responsible for a lot of Oscars buzz over the past few years. So it comes as no surprise that his latest film, Joy has already worked its way onto prediction lists. 

Joy Mangano (Jennifer Lawrence) is a divorced mother whose ex-husband, Tony (Édgar Ramírez) lives in the basement, and whose mother, Terry (Virginia Madsen) spends the entirety of her day sitting in bed watching soap operas. Joy’s father, Rudy (Robert De Niro) owns a local mechanic shop, and whilst he’s been key in her inventive fruition over the years, he’s less than helpful when he moves back in with the rest of them. To call this family dysfunctional is an understatement. Despite juggling all these responsibilities, Joy comes up with a self-wringing mop invention and we follow her as she tries to get it funded and sold in a less-than-hospitable marketplace. 

Russell’s past films I Heart Huckabees and Silver Linings Playbook are personal favourites of mine, although I thought that on many levels American Hustle just didn’t work. So I had a decent idea what to hope for with Joy, namely quirkiness and character development before style. Unfortunately Joy still leans a little too heavily on the style for my liking, but more on that later. As the narrator states, this is a story about a ‘strong woman’, although if the aim is to avoid all the patriarchal bullsh*t that plagues so many female characters, perhaps it’s more constructive to consider Joy as an independent woman. Joy supports herself and all those around her, no matter how much they try to undermine her. When she invents the mop and looks for funding, she’s ultimately doing it to support her family. It’s an empowering story that is unfortunately wrapped in an unbelievable world and unlikely background characters. The latter of which is probably the film’s biggest problem. 

Joy is the centre of this film and proves to be another dominating performance from Lawrence; she’s caring and ambitious with enough vulnerability to stay interesting, however the people around her come off as caricatures. It feels like they’re placed in the story solely to pull Joy down and hence provide motivation for her to spring back from. Because of this, they all kinda clump together in an unbearable mass of failed character development. Robert De Niro is good, but Rudy doesn’t really emanate away from what could be considered a stock De Niro performance. Joy’s mother is a loner, hence becomes the butt of many jokes, her sister is just downright annoying and Cooper’s Neil isn’t nearly as fleshed out as he could have been. I also would have liked to see Mimi - probably the next most important character after Joy - become a bit more than just a mentor with a couple cheap lines, and whilst Trudy is a great character, she could have become more worthy of an Isabella Rossellini performance. Tony is one of the few characters you can actually connect with, a sincere support for Joy that doesn’t just turn into a ‘let-the-man-handle-this’ situation, but again he doesn’t really appear often enough to develop as a character. 

My other major issue with Joy is the sense that it’s been constructed as style for the sake of style. Through the costuming and set-design, Russell tries to create this pastiche tribute to the late 80s/early 90s, and whilst it’s not nearly as obnoxious as with American Hustle, it still feels little more than a hollow facade. Although I do think they did a great job recreating the boom of television shopping, helped along by a great sense of humour; and I must say Joy is a fantastically funny movie, which does help to alleviate the issues to some degree. I think the comparison to soap operas is an interesting move - although it possibly adds to the character development problems - and the cinematography is, at times quite beautiful. However I just wish they’d kept the camera still a bit more often! This film is full of ridiculous pans, dolly moves and jibs that do nothing other than draw attention to themselves and honestly spoilt some moments for me because they were just so unnecessary. 

Joy is a funny, at times touching, and ultimately very driven movie. Joy Mangano’s story is worth being told and Jennifer Lawrence nails the role. It’s a shame that it falters due to some directorial decisions and poor character considerations because this had the potential to be one of the best films of the year.

Deliver Us From Evil

Director Scott Derrickson seems to be drawn to horror. At least that's the genre that he fits best in. Both Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are the standout films of his directing career. Deliver Us From Evil is probably not his best foray into the genre so far, but has great performances and a well-executed script that he co-wrote with Paul Harris Boardman.

Eric Bana plays Ralph Sarchie, a tough cop working in New York's south Bronx. He gets pulled into a case which leads him to meet Mendoza (Edgar Ramirez), who believes the case is demonically related. This pushes Sarchie's beliefs to the limit.

This is based on the real life Sarchie's non-fiction book 'Beware the Night'. While I like to believe that what I'm watching can happen in the world in which a movie exists, I find it very hard to believe that these things (demonic possessions and the like) actually occur in real life, but I'm not going to get into that.

The scares in this movie are pretty straightforward. Anyone with common sense would know when they are coming and get ready for them. I will, however, award points to this seeming mash up of cop and possession movies. I do applaud the original approach to the exorcism scene, it takes place in a interrogation room.

Most of the performance are really good. Eric Bana is a really subtle actor and felt believable in this role. I really felt as though the relationship between him and his daughter was genuine. Edgar Ramirez could have easily gone over the top playing a priest who performs exorcisms, but he was quite restrained.

Joel McHale is fantastic but slightly too generic as Sarchie's fast talking partner. Sure he has skills with knife, but when you fall into the same sidekick cliche maybe this isn't the role for you. Olivia Munn just floats around in the background looking good, but not really contributing anything.

Verdict: Cool story and idea, but not much too many good scares. A decent cast does lift it up.

The Counselor

The works of Cormac McCarthy have always served as interesting fodder for film adaptations. Indeed both No Country for Old Men and The Road translated his vision perfectly to the screen. However, The Counselor is an entirely original script from him and when you couple that with an immensely visual director, such as Ridley Scott, you get a beautiful film that also has extreme depth and meaning just underneath the surface.

The film is set in the southern United States and it follows The Counselor (Michael Fassbender) as he descends into the drug fuelled world of the Mexican cartels. After a shipment that he had a stake in is stolen, he ends up going on the run, as the cartel behind the other half of the investment believes he is responsible.

The film has many themes and they all seem to be complementary of one another. The largest ones are those of greed and actions and consequences. The Counselor is driven to do many of the things that he wants, primarily by greed. What he wants most is to please his girlfriend Laura (Penelope Cruz) and we can only assume that she is the reason he has driven himself toward this path. That greed also goes hand in hand with the consequences that are a direct result of the actions that he has taken.

All this depth and meaning stems from a superb script from McCarthy. Unlike the other adaptations that I mentioned earlier, whose screenplays had been written by other writers, The Counselor has the unique voice of McCarthy, who has written some wonderfully cryptic dialogue scenes that also appear in his literature.

This film is also spectacular to look at as well and that is largely due to Ridley Scott's amazing vision as a director. The landscapes in the film are amazing, showcasing Mexico and Texas on an intimate scale that I really appreciated.

Finally, the cast of this film is not be forgotten. I know looking at the poster, all you see are the big names and just think it's going to be an empty film. But all the actors are fantastic. I especially want to give praise to Cameron Diaz, as I have not seen her reach a level such as this since Being John Malkovich in 1999. There is also a scene that has cameos from Dean Norris (Hank in Breaking Bad) and John Leguizamo (Luigi in Super Mario Bros., and a ton of other stuff) that I found humourous for some reason.

Verdict: An intense and compelling crime drama that is sure to make you scared of cheetahs and girls on Ferraris.