Live By Night

Okay. I know that Ben Affleck is incredibly famous and therefore can pretty much do whatever he wants now. But I went to see this film with a good friend of mine and we both left more than a little baffled at how this film was bungled so badly, so apologies if this review seems a little lost in translation. I’ll do what I can to try and make sense of this Batfleck rollercoaster and maybe it’ll help me understand it better? Here goes nothing.

Set in the 1920’s, Live By Night follows the life of ‘good man’ Joe Coughlin, who becomes disillusioned with the life of rules and laws after his time serving the war in France. Upon his return home he turns to petty crime and robberies, which he executes with his trusted partner Dion (Chris Messina). Although content in this life, Joe’s father and Chief of Police Thomas (Brendan Gleeson) warns him that his bad deeds will come back around. In particular, Thomas is concerned about Joe’s fraternising with Irish mob boss Albert White’s (Robert Glenister) mistress, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). When their affair is discovered Joe is beaten almost to death, and after serving time seeks out revenge on White by joining his rival, Italian mob boss Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). From here, Joe and Dion set up shop in Florida and attempt to make a living illegally transporting rum to Pescatore’s speakeasies, however seem to run into trouble at every turn. Conquering the coast while prohibition is still in full swing, the pair must make decisions about what is more important to them: money or morals. The film also attempts to discuss issues of love, loss and family, while being surprisingly funny in moments.

The positives: The amount of historical references this film has is actually pretty cool. Its clear that Affleck was trying to be as accurate as possible, and although he fell a little short of the mark at times, it still made for a lot of interesting plot twists in the film. The acting from Messina, as well as Elle Fanning’s role as Loretta Figgis (the daughter of Florida Chief of Police) really stood out as both comic relief and symbols of purity in the world of skewed morals respectively. As well as this, the acting from both of the major mob bosses (Girone and Glenister) was also gritty and at times genuinely frightening. However, of all the scary things about this picture, the worst is that its still surprisingly relevant to the world of today. With issues of race relations, dirty cops and even the Ku Klux Klan making an appearance, this film feels as though it speaks to a lot societal issues, even though its set back in the 20’s and 30’s. Its actually a little depressing to think about, but its true.

The negatives: How do I even begin to talk about the plot of this film? Although the subject matter and characters were interesting (partly because I’m a sucker for 1920’s history), after about 40 minutes in the entire setting changes and it feels as though you’re watching an entirely different film. There were parts of the dialogue that felt unnecessarily convoluted, and plot points that came out of left field and left me struggling to keep up. In short, some of the most interesting parts of the movie didn’t revolve around Affleck’s character, most of the female characters were simply used as pawns for the males, and there were other bits that just felt slow and ruined a lot of the fun of the action, like the chase scenes and shootouts. All in all, the film felt like it was edited poorly and the scriptwriters hadn’t been given enough time to work out the kinks, which is a shame because this could’ve been a really great film had it been thought through more.

If you’re like me and you love the 1920’s era, or maybe you’re just an Affleck fan, you might enjoy this film. But its definitely not worth a watch in the cinema and its messy setup really let it down. Hopefully we’ll see better from Affleck in the future.

Assassin's Creed

Video game movies get a bit of bad wrap. It is incredibly hard to capture the essence of what makes the medium great (the active participation) and transfer that to cinema (a passive experience). When I first heard about this movie based on a semi-historical game series, and how it would take place in the world of the games, not just follow the story, I was hopeful. But once again, there is a failure to realise what makes this particular game series so popular.

Callum Lynch (Michael Fassbender) is a troubled man. He saw his mother be murdered by his father in Mexico and, after a life of crime, finds himself being executed for murder. After 'dying', he is subsequently revived by a shadowy organisation called Abstergo, who are doing experiments with genetic memories (the idea that the memories of our ancestors are locked in our very DNA). Abstergo has tracked Callum's DNA back to the Spanish Inquisition, where his ancestor Aguilar (also Fassbender) was a member of an ancient order called the Assassins. Sophia Rikkin (Marion Cotillard) is in charge of the experiments and puts Callum inside an 'Animus', a device that allows users to relive the memories mentioned before as though they were really there. It turns out though, Abstergo is really a front for a group called the Templars, the historic enemy of the Assassins.

This movie is complete chaos. The only reason I was able to write half of that plot outline was because I have played the games. The story is a real confusing mess, as the audience is thrust into the film with a tiny little historical background to the two warring factions and their goals, but none of the technology that dominates the film. And that leads to one of the big problems of the film. The games on which it is based are split between a modern and historical storyline. This is not an even split however, as the majority of the time is spent in that historical setting (be it the Crusades or Colonial America), with the development of the modern storyline and characters taking a back seat (granted these add up over the span of five games and isn't something you do with a movie). But for this, there is an attempt at an even balance, although it tips toward the modern setting, with the only reason I can see being that it would be harder to make a historical action movie. Now I will say one thing I really appreciated about the sequences set during the Spanish Inquisition, is that they went all in and had everyone speaking Spanish. Too often Hollywood movies would just go for the easy English option.

Up top, I should say that the action is very nicely choreographed and the stunt performers worked extremely well. The only problem was that you couldn't see it. Now, the Jason Bourne series is known for very rapid handheld 'shakycam' shots that a lot of people don't like. It's a different stage of the movie making process that's at fault here though. This time it's the editing. Some of the action shots were so quick I couldn't keep up. At one stage a bad guy had a horse on a roof and I didn't even know how he even got there. It's no secret that Michael Fassbender doesn't like doing press interviews or promotional work for his films, but I've never seen him look so bored while in a film. In a lot of the scenes he has a rather pained look on his face as though he has no idea what's going on and I can't really fault him for that. Marion Cotillard looked equally confused, but probably at the fact that her role was so underwritten. The remaining veteran actors in the cast (Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson and Charlotte Rampling) are wasted as background filler and I had no idea what Michael K. Williams was doing in the plot at all.

This movie will turn you off if you're a hardcore fan or someone just wandering in from the street. I know it might be easy to point a finger at me and say that I overanalyse movies, but I truly came at this one wanting it to be good. Sadly, it missed out on being a solid action movie, despite the high amount of action.

In the Heart of the Sea

Herman Merville’s novel Moby Dick has an interesting film history, with the last notable adaptation of the epic being the 1976 John Huston film with Gregory Peck – Unless you count Moby Dick: 2010. Now the disaster-master Ron Howard has had a crack at it with In the Heart of the Sea – which tells the story of the sinking of the whale-ship Essex, which was one of the inspirations for the novel.

In the early 19th century, whale-oil is in hot demand, used to fuel the lights and industry of the era. Nantucket, Massachusetts is one of the centres of whale-oil production and one of its most profitable ships, The Essex has just been restored and ready to go out hunting. Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) is an experienced first mate who is due to be given his first command, but is disheartened to find out that he is only being offered his usual position because a Captain George Pollard, Jr (Benjamin Walker) has been assigned to the Essex. Pollard is part of a long-line of naval royalty and Chase feels that he is not experienced enough to command the vessel. Their relationship is off to a rocky start. 

After a series of unsuccessful months out at sea, the Essex crew is getting weary, but know they can’t return until they’ve “filled their belly” with oil. After a visit to South America, the crew learn of a mythic field of whales as far as the eye can see, so they set sail in the hope that they can finally bring their journey to an end. Although they also hear of a ‘monster’ whale that lurks in those fields, capable of sinking an entire ship. 

This is a fast-paced film overall and is split up into several distinct sections. The close-up action shots and detailed edits build a sense of tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat, however at times this works against the plot and makes it difficult to understand what’s happening. As Nickerson says, the story of the Essex is about two men, Own Chase and Captain George Pollard, Jr. and really the plot focuses on how their relationship evolves over the course of the disaster. Their polarizing backgrounds and lifestyles play out the classic class-war tale but ultimately this is a simple story about men trying to survive at sea whilst a ‘monster’ whale hunts them down. 

With the flourish of recent films that see characters surviving at sea (Life of Pi and Unbroken notably), we’ve seen a lot of CGI development put toward the ocean. Considering this is a major Hollywood release and that Howard made significant use of CGI in Apollo 13, it’s surprising that the sea and background landscapes sometimes can’t hold up to the level set by recent films. The scenes set in thriving 19th century Nantucket in particular, struggle to convey the complexity of the surroundings. 

Chris Hemsworth and Ben Whishaw both give admirable performances, although their accents don’t quite hold up throughout. Brendan Gleeson has a similar problem, although in his few short scenes he manages to out-act the rest of the cast. Cillian Murphy is sadly underused and Benjamin Walker’s character development feels slightly forced, although Waller is certainly one of the more interesting characters to see evolve as the situation unfolds. A stand-out for me was Tom Holland as the young Thomas Nickerson, who captures the conflicting fear and excitement with surprising finesse.

In the Heart of the Sea is a solid action film that keeps you interested throughout. Its skillful composition and editing construct a compelling story, however its occasionally confusing direction and questionable acting decisions hold the film back.

Calvary

Making a film that deals with the child abuse scandals surrounding the Catholic church is a great challenge due to the delicate nature of the subject matter. John Michael McDonagh’s film Calvary does just that, by taking an individual’s case and exploring the effect of these events on a small town, shaping the impressions of the town folk and impacting on the honest and compassionate priest.

Calvary begins with Father James Lavelle (Brendan Gleeson) receiving a death threat whilst taking confession. As an innocent, caring priest, he is being punished for the involvement of other priests in child abuse and the church’s failure to respond to these allegations, given until “sunday-week” to tie-up his affairs. The victim hopes that by killing the innocent Lavelle, he will draw attention to the atrocities that have brought him great suffering.

The film follows Lavelle over the week building up to the Sunday, which he mostly spends tending to the parishioners and his troubled daughter (Kelly Reilly), all the while dealing with the insensitive citizens and the threat looming over head. The anticipation he feels is conveyed through many short scenes that are cut early, so that we are left slightly bewildered, and troubled, just as Lavelle is troubled by the towns actions towards him. This proved quite effective throughout but I found that a few of them could have done with a bit more time to flesh out the story and provide the audience with a chance for a better emotional response.

The acting is generally fantastic all round. Brendan Gleeson brings such believability to his character, true to his performances in many of his previous roles, especially as Ken in In Bruges - directed by McDonagh’s brother, Martin McDonagh. Chris O'Dowd too, holds a powerful presence on the screen, drawing on his previous comedic roles to dish out the black humour whilst proving that he can act just as brilliantly in dramatic roles. Other notable performances come from Dylan Moran and Kelly Reilly, but Aidan Gillen wasn't quite as believable I found.

Whilst many of the exterior shots present a bleak look, with muted colours, the interiors are generally warmer which I found was a nice balance. Overall, the camera wasn't too active but I found that this works perfectly for this very dialogue-driven script. The film score is sometimes dormant but slowly creeps in at the right times, with religious choral pieces perfectly setting the tone, especially towards the end.

Overall, I found Calvary to be a very powerful film that deals with the contemporary issues that surround the Catholic church delicately, but without subduing their significance and severity and hence struck a perfect balance in confronting these themes.

Edge of Tomorrow

It seems to me that this is a pretty equal opportunity Tom Cruise movie. By that I mean that rather than having an overabundance of DON'T YOU FORGET THIS IS A TOM CRUISE MOVIE, we get a movie where we get to see some actual acting from good actors and a hint of what Tom Cruise can be capable of when he wants to try.

The sci-fi concepts in the movie aren't shoved down your throat from the get go either. Instead the concepts are introduced gradually. First the alien invasion is presented to us in the form of news reports, which at the same time introduces the main character William Cage (Tom Cruise). He is a PR officer for the United Defence Force and gets conned by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) to be a frontline troop in an invasion that directly mirrors the D-Day landings that happened 70 years ago.

The origin of the aliens, or mimics, is never revealed. Nor is the type of being which they are. This is a detail that is irrelevant, however. All we need to know is what they look like and that they are bad news. They tear through soldiers like tissue paper, but they can be killed, as Cage finds out soon enough. Only the one he kills, ends up killing him too.

It's at this point that Cage wakes up the day before the invasion. In killing a particular type of mimic, he now has the ability to reset the day after dying. He does this time after time until meeting Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), a war hero who once killed a thousand mimics. It soon turns out that she too once had the ability to reset the day. Once Cage awakes another time, he sets out to find Rita, who can help him find a way to stop the mimics.

In recent years there seems to be a push to turn Emily Blunt into some kind of sci-fi star. She played a telekinetic in Looper and had a part in the trippy sci-fi The Adjustment Bureau. However, Blunt has some real acting talent and is much better suited for drama films. I would really recommend everyone checks out The Five Year Engagement. Whilst it's a long film, she really showcases how good she can be in a film.

There are two fantastic cameos from Bill Paxton (Aliens), as a drill sergeant, and Noah Taylor (The Life Aquatic) as the seemingly crackpot scientist.

Verdict: A decent sci-fi flick that melds Groundhog Day, Starship Troopers and the D-Day landings.