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The positives: The amount of historical references this film has is actually pretty cool.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.

Demolition

Demolition is the latest film from Jean-Marc Vallée (Dallas Buyers Club, Wild) and stars Jake Gyllenhaal in another of his roles as a dejected man who seems incapable of feeling emotions, a bit like how I felt at the end of this film.

Davis (Jake Gyllenhaal) works in investment banking for his father-in-law Phil (Chris Cooper). Davis and his wife Julia (Heather Lind) are involved in a serious car-crash, and whilst she’s killed, he suffers only minor injuries. Wandering the wings of the hospital afterwards, he has an encounter with a dodgy vending machine and writes a complaint letter to the company that owns it, explaining his troubles for context in a unique form of grief that could only belong to a Gyllenhaal character. However, things take an interesting turn for Davis when he receives a response from customer service representative Karen (Naomi Watts). What follows is one of the most leisurely paced, unprofound, waffling films that we’ve seen so far this year.

Demolition starts off promisingly - a car-crash that will undoubtedly send Davis into a cinematic spiral of insanity - but what follows is...well, tedious. There’s always a couple each year, the films that could be brilliant but end up a conceited mess. Think Words and Pictures. Demolition is one of those. I’m not one to dismiss character-centric dramas, in fact I tend to take a high-horse attitude and think that if you judge a film solely on its supposed ‘lack of plot’, you’re most likely a toddler who hasn’t learnt to think for themselves - bloody plebs, am I right?. But the characters in Demolition are either unrelatable or just plain unlikable, which doesn’t leave much of interest to draw you in.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout there are these little references to 9/11, and whether intentional or not it felt as if it’s was pushing a not-so-subtle message toward how grief has evolved in a post-9/11 America. It also keeps drawing weird linkages between Davis’s dejection and how it could be cured by embracing his inner child. Whilst normally these would be buried deep into our subconscious viewing of the film, in Demolition there’s not a lot more to focus on and so they stand out like a sore thumb. It starts to skate the thin line between intellectual cinema and ‘art for art's sake’.

You also get the impression that detail is important to Davis, and so little close-up montages are scattered throughout. They work but only to a certain point, even though the editing is one of the better takeaways from this. Don’t get me wrong, there are other positives as well. There’s a scene right at the end with a carousel which was about the only time I felt something in the nearly two-hour run time, is that a positive? There’s certainly a handful of funny moments but it’s not laugh-out-loud. A lot of Yves Bélanger’s cinematography is well-constructed and interesting, even if the film isn’t. You can tell that both Gyllenhaal and Watts are invested in crafting good performances but that never really happens because of deeply flawed character writing/direction.

In the early stages of Davis’s downfall, you see him meticulously take things apart, but never put them back together. This film feels a bit like that, a series of scenes that should have some sort of coherence as a whole, but just don’t. It’s not awful, just frustrating, tedious, a waste of talent and of your time.

Classic Movie Review: American Beauty (1999)

"Look Closer" - The tag line for Sam Mendes' directorial debut American Beauty, is a perfect descriptor for a film that gazes beyond the materialism of American suburbia, to present a portrait of love, confusion, obsession, voyeurism and a cynical man that will have you in stitches on every viewing.

 Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is a middle-aged, middle-class American, sedated by the state of his life. He describes his morning masturbatory session as the highlight of his day, "It's all downhill from here". Lester's wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening) is an ambitious real-estate agent who seems to have little time for Lester, or their daughter Jane (Thora Birch), a self-conscious teenager who distances herself from her parents.  

 One evening, at a high school basketball game, Jane and her friend Angela (Mena Suvari), a self-obsessed girl, driven by popularity, participate in a cheer-leading routine. Lester, who's in the audience, suddenly becomes fixated on Angela, fantasizing about a sexual encounter with her. Lester's crush on Angela rejuvenates his drive, and sees him quit his job, get fit, and trade his Toyota Camry for his favorite sports car. A new family moves in next to the Burnham household, a disciplinarian, Colonel Fitts (Chris Cooper) with a subdued son, Ricky (Wes Bentley). Ricky takes an interest in Jane, filming her in a perverse manner, though this is perhaps the first time that anybody has taken an interest in Jane.

Like another film of its era, David Fincher's Fight Club, American Beauty is pessimistic about the effects of consumerism and the emasculation of men in such a society, but instead of presenting this viewpoint through an obsessively dark world, Mendes creates an overly-bright neighborhood, almost like a model-town in its repetitive, flawless construction. The Burnham family house is white with shades of blue and red, a recurring colour palette in the film. The petals that fall in Lester's fantasies are as impeccably red as Carolyn's "eggshells and Miracle Gro" roses. Lester remarks in his opening monologue about how the handles of his wife's pruning shears perfectly match her gardening clogs. "That's not an accident". He's a man trapped in a clichéd suburbia and suppressed by his shallow yet ambitious wife. The brand of dark humour that inhabits Lester's dialogue is a crucial, binding element that runs through the film. Without the snide comments that Lester jovially commentates to the audience, the film would lose its central personality, something which is specifically lacking in Lester's world.

American Beauty is the first of two collaborations between Mendes and prolific cinematographer Conrad Hall (the other being Road to Perdition), both films have similar artistic concerns, but they function best here, in a script full of personal fantasies and stylised realities. Hall utilises fluid camera movements, with extreme closeups and clever angles to bring Lester’s feelings of suppression to the forefront. The fantasy scenes are composed of bright, often angelic lighting and repetitive cuts, all of which form the unique style of Hall’s composition. The  film is accompanied by a memorable and very percussive score by Thomas Newman, another frequent collaborator of Mendes. The framing denotes Mendes’ theatre background, with long static shots, such as the ones at the Burnham’s dinner table, used to create distance between the characters. Mendes also put the actors through weeks of practice (typical of the theatre), which helped them to bond with each other and their characters.

Kevin Spacey is the core reason that I love this film. His portrayal of Lester's transformation from docile to driven is among the best on-screen rebirths, and his asides never fail to amuse me. Annette Benning takes an almost unlikable character and manages to draw a huge amount of empathy from the audience. You genuinely feel sorry for her by the end, for many different reasons. Birch provides a very mature performance for her age and forms Jane into a difficult-to-read but complex person. All the other supporting roles are very good, especially Allison Janney, who conveys the tragic nature of Barbara in the few words that she utters.

Whenever I discuss American Beauty with someone, it tends to be a polarised conversation. This seems to be a movie that you either love or you hate. It could certainly be argued that it's too steeped in its own symbolism, that it metaphorises everything to death. But its denouncement of a consumerist society through what is, in many ways, a lighthearted and almost mocking style, has always been endearing to me. The tongue in cheek humour, unique look, memorable characters and fantastic delivery from Spacey has left American Beauty perched atop my favourite movies for many years now, and it’ll take a lot to dethrone it.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I am still undecided in my feelings toward the newest iteration of the Spider-Man film franchise. He is my favourite superhero and I grew up with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films. I loved those movies as a teenager because they had all the things a Spider-Man film needed. When the first of these new films came out, I was very reluctant to see it because I didn't know what they could change from before. I watched that film a week ago, so that I could understand the new angle that was being put forth and I wasn't blown away or disappointed by the film but I understood the new direction. That way was toward the comics on which it was based.

Of course there are a lot of things that has been created for the films, but the character of Peter Parker is much more like in the comics. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) trash talks the perps he is chasing. He is fun and bubbly when he is in the suit and moody when he isn't. One aspect that Garfield doesn't really portray is the nerdiness that comes with Peter Parker, a trait that Maguire had down-pat.

In this film Peter's relationship with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is pushed to the limit, as Spidey promised her dying father that he wouldn't let any harm come to her. That is a one of the big themes in this film; Peter's relationships with all the other characters, whether as Peter or Spider-Man.

Of course this film also has some action in it, with some new villains as well as a new twist on an old favourite. First up is Jamie Foxx as Electro, a former Oscorp employee who gains electrical powers after an accident involving some electric eels. His genesis was very reminiscent of one of the Batman movies of the 90s, the villains were always falling in toxic chemicals back then. I feel as though Foxx wasn't able to flex his acting prowess in this film, rather just shouting through every scene.

I was also disappointed with the inclusion of Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich or The Rhino. He appears only briefly in the film at both the beginning and the end and is underused completely, especially having such a fantastic actor as Giamatti playing him. My only hope is that he makes another appearance in the next film.

James Franco did such an amazing job as Harry Osborn and was such a good character in all three films, so I was understandably shocked with Dane DeHaan's amazing portrayal of the character. Harry is dying of a rare genetic disease which he inherited from his father Norman (Chris Cooper) and believes that Spider-Man's blood will save him. This is where the plot gets too convoluted for me. (Also quick side note before I go on, who thought it was a good idea to cast Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Willem Dafoe is the only person who should ever play that character).

Now, the convoluted plot elements come from including Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents, in this film. (Also isn't Richard Parker a tiger, or did Spidey's dad come first?) I understand putting them in the first film to make sense of Peter's relationship with The Lizard, but in this one it really just slows down the pace. There is one scene between Peter and Aunt May where bringing up his parents is needed, but that's it.

Verdict: I am still unsure what the point of having this new series of films is or what it's leading to, but these need to get a little better in the story department. We needed to see more of the Green Goblin and Rhino in their suits.

August: Osage County

Over the years, I have always wanted to see a classic film when it first arrived at cinemas, be it Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver or Casablanca. With the release of August: Osage County, I feel as though I have had that opportunity. With a fantastic cast, extremely well written script and superb direction, I find it hard to fault this film.

It follows a family from Oklahoma who have come together for the first time in years because their father Beverly (Sam Shepard) has gone missing. Their mother, Violet (Meryl Streep), is an abrasive woman who is addicted to prescription medication. The three daughters, Barbara, Ivy and Karen (Julia Roberts, Julianne Nicholson and Juliette Lewis, respectively), each with their own problems, come together to try and comfort their mother.

For a film with a lot going on in terms of story and sub-plots, everything is presented quite clearly and this comes down to Tracy Letts' brilliant script (he also wrote the award-winning play on which the film is based). It's never hard to keep track of everyone's story and every plot element is resolved without being dismissed too quickly.

John Wells direction is also very evocative. He brings out stellar performances from his entire cast and shoots each scene in an extremely planned way. One of the major scenes in the film revolves around a family dinner and it is shot in such a way that the audience is gripped for the entire duration.

The two standout performances come from both Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts. Streep is amazingly witty, yet at the same time sharp-tounged, as the matriarch of the family. It is definitely a standout role for her in her recent career (even though her recent career has been full of those). Julia Roberts has come a long way from the roles that she played early on (both Runaway Bride and Pretty Woman were terrible in my book). She is excellent as a long suffering daughter who just wants to be done with her family.

Verdict: A fantastic family drama that is surprisingly funny. Stellar performances from both Streep and Roberts.

The Company You Keep

This movie is kind of like The Expendables, but instead of washed up action heroes of the 80s, all the actors are classic 70s stars, some of whom you'll recognise and some of whom you won't, and instead of brutal action, it is a complex thriller storyline.

The story focuses on young hotshot reporter for the Albany Sun-Times Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf), who after seeing the capture and arrest of a fugitive wanted for a bank robbery in the 70s, Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon), follows the story of trying to find the others involved. One of these suspects is James Grant (Robert Redford). Grant, after seeing the capture of Solarz, decides to track down the other person involved in the robbery, so that he can clear his own name.

This leads Grant on a journey through a web of people from his past, all involved in anti-war and anti-government groups in the 70s. Shepard is figuring out some of these connections himself, but hot on Grant's tail is the FBI, led by Agent Cornelius (Terrence Howard). These three people all have their own motivation for finding the third person involved.

I personally have never been a huge fan of Robert Redford. I've seen a few of his films from the 1970s and his last film that he directed as well (2007s Lions For Lambs) and none of his work has ever resonated for me. I found that this film was just motivation for a lot of actors of his generation to come out and play.

There are some good performances in the cameos. Susan Sarandon is haunted by her past actions and needs closure. Julie Christie plays a still psychotic terrorist. The performances from Chris Cooper (American Beauty) and Richard Jenkins (Cabin In The Woods, still one of my favourites that I will get around to reviewing) are stunning. However brief these performances are, there is a resonance that comes through.

The younger generation get a good representation in this film. LaBeouf has come very far from his Transformers days (until another one comes out). His Shepard is a driven reporter who just wants to know the truth, rather than anything else. Brit Marling, who is a relative newcomer, portrays the daughter of one of the officers who initially investigated the robbery. She is only in a few scenes, but she plays them with conviction.

Verdict: Robert Redford has weaved a complex thriller about the past that is decent enough, but could do better.