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.

Horrible Bosses 2

The original Horrible Bosses was an enjoyable film with a great cast, but apart from perhaps 22 Jump Street, comedy sequels don't tend to have a great track record. Inevitably, Horrible Bosses 2 has come along, this time under the direction of Sean Anders. Is it a film destined to be a classic? Or is it likely to be as graceful as a plane crash? Let's check it out.

After the events of the first film, Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) and Dale (Charlie Day) decide to form their own business, centred around their invention, the shower buddy. The company, erroneously named 'Nick-Kurt-Dale' (say it quickly for the first racist joke of the film), are approached by Rex (Chris Pine) and his father, Burt Hansen (Christoph Waltz), the owner of a large retail chain. After Burt stabs them in the back, the trio decide that their best course of action is to kidnap Rex and ask for a ransom.

After that plan typically fails, they find themselves partnered up with Rex, who also has a motive for getting the ransom from his father. They brainstorm an outlandish kidnapping plan that sets in motion the rest of the events of the film. Along the way, several characters from the original are reunited with the trio, including the now incarcerated 'horrible boss', David Harken (Kevin Spacey), the sex addict dentist, Julia (Jennifer Aniston) and Dean "Motherf*cker" Jones (Jamie Foxx), in a sequel that seems incapable of differentiating itself from many other comedies of recent years.

Similar to the first, almost all of the jokes in Horrible Bosses 2 are incredibly crude. Be it sex, masturbation, 'toilet humour', or just swearing for giggles, they generally lack taste. There's something quite charming enjoyable about that sort of humour, but the problem in this case is that the jokes seem so tired that they're really quite hit and miss. 

Though the wit can be somewhat forgiven thanks to the incredible follow-up cast. The returning trio seem to have lost none of the chemistry from the original and many of the returning cast members, including Aniston & Foxx are just as fantastic as in the first. As for Kevin Spacey, well, his two short appearances are the best scenes in the film. New to the series are Chris Pine and Jonathan Banks, both putting in great performances, the latter holding the same hilarious gravitas as he did as Mike in Breaking Bad. The only slight disappointment (mainly due to script) was Christoph Waltz, who's character doesn't really get many jokes so ends up being a bland placeholder in the overall plot.

The heist-like kidnapping scenes make for some fantastic sequences from cinematographer Julio Macat (Home Alone, Wedding Crashers) which really do elevate the entertainment value of the film. With fast paced tracking shots, car chases and some cool edits, they bring more to the series than the first, which was visually, a straight-forward comedy. 

Horrible Bosses 2 has an incredibly strong cast and is visually quite compelling. It's full of hilarious moments that are dark and crude in a similar fashion to the first, but unfortunately there are many, many other moments which are in bad-taste and are too overused to amuse.

Fargo & the Value of the Hollywood Remake by Edward Christie

So I have my first exterior submission for a review and it's a little different from what I normally post. My friend and fellow film student, Edward, has submitted an essay entitled Fargo and the value of the Hollywood remake. Remember, if you want to submit a review or essay of your own, you can email me at jackreviewsubmit@gmail.com

Fargo & the Value of the Hollywood Remake

by Edward Christie

As the text “This is a true story” began to fade in over the long snowy road covered in darkness, the first thought that hit my mind was, “Oh here we go again, another hollywood carbon copy”. Thankfully within the first half of episode one, it became apparent that this was not the case. The TV series “Fargo”, rebooted by Foxtel’s FX channel is not a mere remake of the classic Coen Brother’s 1996 film of the same name, nor does it carry on from those events as some form of sequel. Instead, the series takes the premise of the characters and the environment, and weaves them into a new, intriguing and amusing plot. Unlike some other reviewers, I would not describe the characters as brand new, as there are many crucial similarities between the series’ characters and their film counterparts.Rather, I see the series as more of a ‘What if?’ scenario, exploring a parallel universe with similar quirky characters that experience a comparable yet provocative series of events that you will find absolutely impossible to stop watching until the close.

The acting from the cast is superb all round, but especially from Martin Freeman, who certainly does justice to William H. Macy’s Academy Award Nominated performance. I found the cinematography to be a little bit more active here than it was in the film - which in my opinion contains some of the most provocative static shots in film history - yet overall it manages to uphold the same aesthetic that Roger Deakin’s & the Coen Bros. created, which is crucial to the unusual feel of the film. Overall, I cannot recommend the series to you more, especially if you are a fan of the original movie. But of course, I’m sure you’ve heard the same advice from countless reviewers by now.

There was one question though, that really gnawed at my brain throughout: Is it the fantastic acting, directing and writing that I find truly enjoyable about the series, or is it more the weird, sadly humorous and utterly depressing universe that the Coen Brother’s created that keeps me coming back for more? I cannot understate the importance of the aforementioned qualities of the series but the core concepts that make it so enjoyable - the town, the people, their accents, the original crimes & the offbeat humour - are all undeniably present in the film (albeit in different forms). It is therefore challenging to decide who truly deserves the acclamation for this series.

There are other instances where this is also the case. Another contemporary example would be Netflix’s House of Cards - a remake of the original BBC political drama - which so far has been brilliant in almost every respect. Yet despite possessing the unmeasurable talent of Kevin Spacey, who in my not so humble opinion is probably the greatest actor of his generation, I find it difficult for his Underwood to surpass Ian Richardson’s scheming, cheeky, quintessentially British Francis Urquhart. Of course, this is all down to a matter of opinion, but I personally believe that no matter how outstanding the remake/sequel/spin off, whatever you want to call it, will be (and don’t get me wrong, both Fargo and House of Cards certainly do justice to their predecessors), I will most likely always turn off my TV or walk out of the theatre thinking, “Well that was brilliant, but was it really necessary?”.

So I’d like to summarise this article with three ratings:

Fargo (1996 Film): 4 stars

Fargo (2014 Television Series): 3 & ½ stars

The concept of Hollywood Remakes: 1 star.

Classic Movie Review: The United States of Leland (2003)

It's no secret that I am a huge fan of Ryan Gosling, although considering that everyone else on the planet likes him, it isn't that strange. Now it occurs to me that he goes after either rom-com roles (Crazy, Stupid, Love or The Notebook) or darkly disturbed characters in independent films (Lars and the Real Girl or Blue Valentine). In this film however, he plays a character that's different to the rest (and I don't mean because he has brown hair).

The film chronicles the events leading up to and after the murder of a mentally disabled boy by Leland P. Fitzgerald (Gosling) and the effects that it has on the people who were close to either Leland or the boy, like Leland's ex-girlfriend and the boy's sister, Becky (Jena Malone), or Leland's teacher in prison, Pearl (Don Cheadle).

The family of the boy all try to escape their grief. Julie (Michelle Williams) and her boyfriend Alan (Chris Klein), try to focus on their future at university, but this puts a strain on their relationship. Becky turns to heroin, to which she gets addicted. Leland's own father, Arthur (Kevin Spacey), is an author who tries to come to terms with the fact that his absence from his son's life could have been a motivating factor for Leland. Meanwhile, Pearl, who is an aspiring writer, tries to write a novel about Leland, but is hampered at every turn by his work.

This role is very different to anything that Gosling has played before. He is detached from the world and although his character in Drive (2011) was similarly detached, here there is a certain naivety and innocence in the character.

Don Cheadle is excellent as Pearl, who tries to coax the truth out of Leland, so that he can understand the teenager's motivations. And also, as always, Kevin Spacey plays a role that is cold and calculating, not to unlike John Doe in Se7en or Roger Kint in The Usual Suspects.

Verdict: A real landmark film that I think everyone should see before they die. It is an interesting look at perceptions of life and right and wrong.