Silence

“I pray but I am lost. Am I just praying to silence?”

For decades Martin Scorsese has been pushing the limits of the cinematic medium through evocative styling and directorial decisions as a channel for storytelling – so perhaps it’s telling that one of his greatest achievements is his new film, the understated, brooding, minimalistic Silence.

In the 1630s, news reaches St Paul’s College, Macau that Cristóvão Ferreira (Liam Neeson), a Portuguese Jesuit who had helped bring Christianity to the people of Japan, has renounced his faith after being tortured in the anti-Christian purges of Japan. Two of Ferreira’s devout pupils, Father Sebastião Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Francisco Garupe (Adam Driver) cannot believe that their mentor would commit apostasy and set out on a three year long journey to find him.

With the help of an alcoholic fisherman, Kichijiro (Yôsuke Kubozuka) the priests reach Japan and land at Tomogi, a small village with a secret Christian population to which the priests administer the sacrament. Soon however a band of Samurais led by “The Inquisitor” (Issei Ogata) arrive in the village, looking to flush out Christianity from the land and are after the Jesuit priests. Meanwhile, the fate of Father Ferreira remains a mystery.

With Silence, Scorsese strips away the directorial personality he’s built up over nearly fifty years of filmmaking. His camera is almost always static because the beauty and terror of what’s on-screen speaks for itself. The Kluge siblings score is practically non-existent, because like with a smattering of examples from Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas and The Departed, Scorsese’s use of silence is the most powerful sound. His co-authored screenplay doesn’t draw you in like some of his others, but is true to the novel, and aside from a smaller than you might expect role from Liam Neeson, his frequent collaborators are nowhere to be seen. What hasn’t changed is his undying passion and dedication to storytelling. Twenty-five plus years of research, understanding and maturity went into the creation of this, one of his most impressive films to date.

To suggest however that Silence isn’t cinematic would be an injustice to DoP Rodrigo Prieto’s work and would gloss over one of the crucial elements that ties Silence together. With a distinctly minimalist look and feel, the character of the landscape is as mysterious and unforgiving as the inquisitor himself. If Raging Bull is Scorsese’s most physical portrayal of the harsh realities of the body, then Silence is his most visceral representation of how abusively all-encompassing nature can be, and is central to the films depiction of the direct correlation between Buddhist beliefs and the environment – a determinate factor in the fate of the Christian communities living under such intense persecution.

Indeed the core focus of the film is to find some sort of reconciliation between the ancient undying beliefs held in 17th Century Japan and the influx of Christianity, a task simply impossible for the time with many indirect victims on both sides. Layered on top of that is the challenge for these priests and the persecuted population to maintain unwavering faith with no sign or manifestation from their deity; only silence. Where some films use cinematic technique to manipulate audiences, Silence simply lays down a narrative and lets the viewer draw meaning. Faith is cruel and unexplained, as is humanity, and it’s up to the audience to find some sort of answer or at the very least closure from that.

Ultimately though this is the story of one man’s crisis of faith. Garfield’s Rodrigues takes centre stage for the vast majority of the film and suffers immensely at the hands of a people trying to protect their dynasty from what they see as a spiritual pollutant. Rodrigues is torn between his search for answers in regards to Father Ferreira, a desire to peacefully serve the oppressed Christian Japanese, and personal spiritual uncertainties that have been brooding throughout his Mission. This is Andrew Garfield’s best performance to date, brimming with compassion, suffering and spiritual rumination. Driver is similarly fantastic, although as with Neeson his time on screen is limited compared to Garfield. Some of the best depictions come from the hugely talented Japanese cast. Yoshi Oida as the Elder of Tomogi, Shin'ya Tsukamoto - one of the oppressed villagers, and Issei Ogata as the horrific yet somehow serene Inquisitor are all superb in their roles.

Silence is an extremely rare example of elemental filmmaking that will have hugely varied effects on audience. It will enlighten some, bore others and destroy many. It trusts so deeply in its own material and the themes buried beneath that it’s willing to leave audiences with questions unanswered, perhaps to dig deeper if they can find themselves ever watching it again. It may not have the mainstream appeal of Wolf of Wall Street, but Silence is nevertheless, a masterpiece.

Fences

Adapting a famous Broadway play into a film is never an easy task. There are always going to be a lot of expectations that come with it. Will the story be faithful? Will the performances live up to those that came before? Not only that, how is it possible to make a film out of a play that takes place on one set? Luckily, Denzel Washington knew the weight of what he was doing when it came time to direct this film.

Troy Maxson (Washington) is a garbage collector in Pittsburgh. He has had a rough life, but has finally settled down with Rose (Viola Davis), whom he has been married to for eighteen years. Together they have a son, Cory (Jovan Adepo), who is being scouted by a college football team. Troy, however, is adamant that Cory get a job that he can apply himself to and not be beholden to the whims of white people. This is something that he has already seen with his brother Gabe (Mykelti Williamson), who suffered a brain injury during the War in the Pacific, and with himself as he tries to get a job as a driver of a garbage truck.

Fences has a bit of genius when it comes to the staging of the action. Rather than the restrictive nature of the stage play being confined to the Maxson's small yard, Washington is seamlessly able to move throughout the house and street out the front. This gives us a lot better understanding of the area in which Troy and Rose live as well as the living conditions of the black neighbourhood in which they live. It is also the way in which the film is able to convey the differences between black and white people. We never see white people in the neighbourhood, they are always shown in other places, places of unknown distance to Troy and Rose's house, but we can only guess there is a large distance separating them.

The performances are the strongest that I've ever seen in a movie and this probably has to do with something that not a lot of other films get to do. The main cast members were actually able to do a Broadway run of the play before they went into shooting the film. And you can tell this with the final product. The sheer intensity of the first thirty minutes of the film comes from so much practice. I was really surprised by Denzel, because I am so used to seeing him in action or crime films. I know he did a lot of serious roles in his younger days, but nothing can prepare you for seeing an overweight and drunken Washington. Viola Davis is even better, as it feels as though the pain she experiences throughout the film is genuine. Finally, Mykelti Williamson is just so amazing as Gabe, and his performance is able to bring out reactions in his cast mates that are just beautiful and telling.

Fences takes place on both a small and large scale at the same time. The story that we are seeing before our eyes may be localised, but the implications were much broader for black people of the 1950s. Fear of white people was completely justified. Denzel Washington does a great job in terms of the balancing act that he had to do and drew fantastic performances from the rest of the cast.

Hidden Figures

With Hidden Figures you get a two-for-one deal. It tells the story of the forgotten black women who worked on the early days of the space program in the US, just like it's advertised as, but it also goes deeper and explores the damaging nature of the segregation laws that were present in many of the southern US states during the 1960s. Those two parts combine to make an impactful and inspirational story.

In 1961, Katherine Goble (Taraji P. Henson) works at NASA, crunching numbers on whatever project she is assigned to. She is one of a larger group of black female mathematicians that do this job that also includes Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monaé). One day she is hired by Al Harrison (Kevin Costner) and his Space Task Group in order to put a man into space. There is immense pressure to do so from the government, as the Soviets have not only launched their series of satellites, but they have beaten the US in sending a man into space. Since Katherine is a black woman, she has the twin obstacles in proving that she can actually do the job and gain the respect of her colleagues.

After doing some research, I found out that the segregation of the facility in which they work had been basically non-existent since the 1950s. The reason I mention that fact is that it leaves the film in a strange limbo. The movie is very much about being a black person in the 1960s and the majority of society was subject to these Jim Crow laws, but at the same time the film has to be true to experiences of the people being portrayed in the film. I think that director Theodore Melfi balances these two elements really well and that although the segregation laws may not have affected these women in the ways presented in the film, it allows the audience to extrapolate them into the rest of society.

To make these strong women believable and sympathetic, they need to be backed up by strong performances from the female leads. Luckily this movie has plenty of those. Taraji P. Henson transforms into Katherine Goble so completely it's fantastic. She is able to really convey the strength and confidence that the Goble must have had to work in a completely male environment at a time when women were not at all seen as intelligent beings. I am a huge fan of Octavia Spencer and whenever I see something that she's in, I know that she is going to give the best she can and she doesn't disappoint. Especially when it comes to being the comic relief of the three leads, something that she excels at. It seems that to get your film nominated for best picture you need to put Janelle Monaé in it, because she has been in two Oscar nominated films this year (the other being Moonlight). Her character's struggle against segregation is the more amazing of the three as she became the first qualified black female engineer for NASA, which is no small feat. It's also worth noting that if you want to make a movie set during the Cold War, there is an obligation to put Kevin Costner in it.

Hidden Figures is an incredibly inspirational movie. I know that we don't live in a world that has such open discrimination where racism is acceptable (in most countries at least), it is good to be told a story that you can do whatever you want if you work really hard to go out and get it. This is especially true of a world where the pay gap between the genders is so big when it shouldn't be.

Patriots Day

Patriots Day is the third movie in an unofficial trilogy directed by Peter Berg and starring Mark Wahlberg (the other two being Lone Survivor and Deepwater Horizon). I say it's unofficial because no one has come out and said as much, but when you watch all three back to back, you can definitely see a unified theme. And that's the idea that Americans can band together to overcome adversity. The first one was a single man, the second a small group of people and this one a whole city.

The movie starts the night before the 2013 Boston Marathon, where BPD Officer Tommy Saunders (Mark Wahlberg) is arresting a suspect of a murder. He is on probation for his unconventional techniques and is told by Commissioner Ed Davis (John Goodman) that the probation will finish if he patrols the marathon in uniform. As the day of the marathon begins, various people go about preparing for their day, whether it's going to the marathon or baseball, or just another day of school or work. Also preparing for something, although much more sinister, are Tamerlan (Themo Melikidze) and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Alex Wolff), two Chechen-American brothers intent on committing a terrorist act in the name of radical Islam. The majority of the movie takes place after the bombings during the subsequent manhunt for the brothers.

This movie does a good job at not stirring up anti-Islamic sentiment in it's characters. There is even a hesitation on the part of the lead FBI investigation to even call it terrorism. There isn't even any dialogue condemning Islam apart from a character asking "Is it Al-Qaeda?" only to be shut down. The only real bias this movie has is a pro-Boston leaning, in which it showcases the strength and unity the people of the city had during the tough few days. The Bostonian elements are also are weakness for the film as there are a lot of over the top stereotypes. There are accents galore, especially from the proud hometowner Mark Wahlberg, as well as a scene where a native husband teaches his wife to say "let's watch the Red Sawx and Fenway Pahk". While it would be fun to satirise in any other movie, it doesn't really have a place here. I think the only two other more Bostonian films you're going to find are Good Will Hunting and The Departed.

Peter Berg does do a great job in building the tension leading up to the bombings. He builds the scene by cutting from the victims (who we've met) to the brothers placing the bombs. This heightens the fear that we have for what is about to happen. Various use of actual news and CCTV footage from the event is edited into the actual film quite seamlessly and this is aided by the fact that Alex Wolff looks shockingly like the real Tsarnaev. The shootout that happens towards the end with one of the brothers is handled well, although it is a little over the top. This sequence has the best (and pretty much only) part of J.K. Simmons appearance in the film. In it he's jumping over back fences spouting one liners, it's a fun five seconds.

That's also one of the more frustrating parts of the movie, the fact that there are way too many characters. We spend the first ten minutes getting to know characters who disappear halfway through, or don't have any importance to the plot until the latter part of the film. Take for instance, Dun Meng (played by Jimmy O. Yang). He is kidnapped by the Tsarnaev brothers three days after the bombing, but we see him at the start of the film. While I understand that this was done to show the widespread impact the whole event had on everyone involved, too much time is used to build a life for these characters. There are a lot of characters in the film who suffer from this because they are all based on real people and I guess they didn't want to do injustice to any of the people. Nearly all of them are real anyway, all except Mark Wahlberg's character. I think they were trying to make him the main character, but failed as they spread themselves way too thin.

Patriots Day has the best intentions. But I think those intentions have made it difficult to cover such a harrowing event. There seems to be a feeling that every aspect of those couple of days has to be covered. Instead of focusing on just the people of Boston or the investigation or the bombers themselves, they try and cover all of it. When you do that there has to be a sacrifice of details and I feel as though that is what happened.

Manchester by the Sea

The ultimate challenge for a filmmaker is creating a rich enough atmosphere to connect audiences with the deeper themes and emotions they are presenting on screen. From sorrow and loss to heart and love, Manchester by the Sea delves deeply into the story of a man who’s lost his way; his sense of self.  Not a single opportunity is lost in creating a rich emotional story for all audiences to get absorbed into.

Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is a lonesome yet irritable man living a reserved life in Boston. He seems content living out his days completing odd jobs for cash and moping his way about the city, until news of his brother’s (Kyle Chandler) passing summons him back to his hometown to take care of his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges). This return to his past fully unearths Lee’s demons; an emotional tragedy linked to his past he has clearly been trying to forget. With Lee’s past tragedy showing itself once again, he is tested as he is forced to confront all he has tried to run away from, with relations such as his ex-wife Randi (Michelle Williams) being shoved back into his life.

The dynamics explored between Lee and various other characters are fantastic. A man who has completely shut himself off emotionally, forced to face the realities he has been running from for so long; no doubt a big ask. Affleck nails this range perfectly, while the severity of the situation is contrasted with vibrant flashbacks to Lee’s former life, making his emotional unavailability even more jarring. Surprisingly tasked with the job of taking care of his nephew, Lee is distant and unsupportive to a teenager who doesn’t want to admit he is grieving. Tense freak-outs line their dynamic as grief displays itself in strange ways, and Affleck’s range is tested as Lee looks to battle fresh grief and old sorrow at the same time.

As a whole, this emotional atmosphere is created and maintained well. A blanket of calm seems to lay over a catastrophe of pain and loss in Lee’s life, and the audience can really feel the tension. As the severity of Lee’s personal situation begins to reveal itself, this aura increases in intensity, and by the end of the film you’d find yourself completely engaged. Affleck’s acting ability headlines the credits for this success, but merit must be given to writer/director Kenneth Lonergan who no doubt worked tirelessly and meticulously to create this rich environment on screen.

With The Oscars fast approaching, Manchester by the Sea has definitely thrown itself in the running for a plethora of awards. The rich, emotional acting across the board has not gone unnoticed, as the audience really gets pulled into the story of sorrow and grief on display. Exploring the entire range of human emotion, Manchester by the Sea is a great flick, as it easily draws in audiences and leaves them wanting more from the emotionally turbulent story.

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.

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.

Split

Guess who’s back! After what could only be described as the week from a nightmare and a brief soiree in Bankstown Hospital I am back on my feet and ready to review the shit out of this movie. Come at me Shyamalan.

Split follows the stor(ies) of Kevin, a man who has spent his life living with Dissociative Identity Disorder, with 23 different personalities inside his head. His dominant identity, ‘Barry’, has been treated for many years by his therapist, Dr Fletcher, who has a fondness for people who suffer with DID and believe they possess abilities that other humans could never achieve. However, things start to go sour when three of Barry’s ‘banned’ identities, nicknamed ‘The Horde’, start to take control. ‘Dennis’, an obsessive compulsive with a desire to watch girls dance, ‘Patricia’, a mother hen and religious enforcer, and ‘Hedwig’, a nine year old boy with a penchant for Kanye West, all begin to hatch a plot to bring about a possible 24^th identity, known only as ‘The Beast’. This plot involves kidnapping three young teenage girls and holding them prisoner until ‘the Beast’ arrives, as well as silencing Kevin’s other identities so they cannot find help. Can the girls gain an identity’s trust long enough for them to escape?

The positives: This movie is genuinely a really interesting and engaging film that really explores its subject matter in the sense that they don’t try to rush anything. The moments of suspense really keep you on edge and you become invested in these characters. James McAvoy does a great job convincing us that he is multiple people and this film is a testament to his acting ability. The 3 girls Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) are also great at showing what typical people would do when faced with this situation, with a shoutout to Anja who’s role as Casey is both haunting and intriguing (and definitely one of the best characters in the film). As well as this, Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley) is also a surprisingly interesting character, as a person who does not try to ‘fix’ Kevin but rather tries to understand him. Thinking back, I’m not sure there was bad acting from anyone, so props to the casting director.

The negatives: They really push the idea of ’23 personalities’ but only about 8 are fully explored: I don’t quite understand what the drive behind the number 23 is (aside from that shitty Jim Carrey horror movie, sorry Jim). They really shove it on the movie posters and in the trailers but it never really impacts the film: there are about 4 personalities that ‘take the light’ and another 4 that are discussed/viewed briefly, but why the need for another 15? There were also a few issues with the plot here and there: things that you only notice afterwards when you’re finally able to process the film as a whole. As well as this, although I doubt most people will feel this way but it bears mentioning: this movie is in no way a reflection of people who actually live with DID. Seriously, this films portrayal of the actual disorder is very much a Hollywood-ified version, and I know it sounds stupid to bring it up, but considering that a talking orange is currently running the US forgive me if my faith in humanity is a little lax.

In the end, the movie is an entertaining thriller that Shyamalan fans or thriller movie fans are going to enjoy. Although its not his best work, its certainly a step in the right direction for him. He seems to be getting his groove back and that’s good news for the film industry, I look forward to seeing what he brings to the table next.

Moonlight

Barry Jenkin’s coming-of-age drama Moonlight may struggle to win over audiences that feed-off the latest high-concept blockbuster, but this composed and affecting three-part story brings a sorely-needed intimacy and contemplation back to the cinema.

Growing up in a world that he doesn’t understand and that doesn’t understand him, Chiron (Alex Hibbert), nicknamed “Little”, struggles to come to terms with his Mum’s drug-addiction, his troubles at school, and his sexuality. Docile in physical size and personality, Chiron’s only companions are his school friend Kevin (Jaden Piner), a kind-spirited drug-dealer he befriends, Juan (Mahershala Ali), and Juan’s affectionate girlfriend, Teresa (Janelle Monáe). These relations help define Chiron as he slowly tries to breaks free of his skin as a teenager (played by Ashton Sanders) and as an adult (played by Trevante Rhodes), in each act he’s very much a minor evolution of his former self, at his core he’s still “Little”.

Moonlight stems from a small drama school project by American playwright Tarell Alvin McCraney, In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, and Barry Jenkin’s manages to sustain the collected, deeply personal and reflective elements of the piece which ultimately define the film itself. As I said before, this will not appeal to the low attention-span audiences that only attend the modern blockbuster, but they’re not the sort of people who would willingly see Moonlight.

The more refined three-chapter structure of Jenkin’s script perhaps addresses the concerns of the few detractors to Richard Linklater’s Boyhood and its (in-effect) 12-part story - but whilst it might be the most comparable contemporary film to Moonlight, they are not one in the same. Where Boyhood aimed to be smooth in transition, Moonlight makes a point to divide Chiron’s deeply-personal odyssey into three distinct short-stories. These contained periods each define and build upon the whole of the man, and as the film cuts to black you feel not as if you’ve followed a boy growing up, but more as if you’ve been privileged to witness the determinate moments in the building of a character.

Neither strategy is better or worse, they’re both simply designed to serve the needs of their story. Boyhood’s Mason has an arguably normal (for a white family) set of circumstances growing up that the free-roaming structure celebrates. Chiron’s life is anything but normal in comparison to Mason, and the challenges he faces are immense, hence each new chapter is a reactionary reflection of the last and an indictment of representational issues in the film making community.

Each of these three periods emerges through the extraordinary performances of the Chiron actors. Hibbert’s “Little” is uncertain, shy and confused. Sanders’ Chiron is dejected, independent and desperately reaching out for an understanding. Rhodes’ “Black” is informed, sentimental and as equally uncertain as his young self. One character, three actors, three dominant portrayals. Then in support you have a similar situation with Kevin, one of Naomie Harris’s best performances, and Mahershala Ali s the knavish yet fostering Juan.

Much like its structure, Moonlight is at its most poignant and honest across a few moments where the dialogue drops and Nicholas Britell’s score comes in, teaming up with James Laxton’s breathtaking cinematography to beckon the audience into the most intimate moments of Chiron’s episodic pilgrimage of self. It’s the superb acting, writing and structure that build Chiron into a tour de force of empathy, but it’s these scattered moments of directorial finesse that allow us to truly understand him.

Lion

Up and coming directors can only hope for a powerful story to tell through their directorial debut, but Garth Davis was one of those lucky few, transposing Saroo Brierley’s incredible story A Long Way Home into his first film, Lion.

Saroo (Sunny Pawar) is a young but precocious and adventurous child who looks up to his older brother Guddu (Abhisek Bharate). Saroo wants to work the night shifts with Guddu so he can contribute more to his family, and Guddu reluctantly lets him come along. By the time they’ve reached the train station, Saroo is exhausted and falling asleep. Guddu asks him to wait whilst he tries to find work, but Guddu doesn’t return. 

Searching the nearby trains for his brother, Saroo falls asleep again and wakes up on the travelling, empty train, many miles from wherever his home is. Lost in a faraway city and unable to point the authorities to his local town, Saroo is soon adopted by an Australian couple, Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John (David Wenham). Twenty years later Saroo (Dev Patel) wants to find his family, and one of his University friends tells him about a new program, Google Earth, that might be able to help him in his search.

The biographical films that soar during Oscars season are a bit hit and miss, often too concerned with glorifying a historical personality than telling a unique, incredible story, but that’s certainly not the case with Lion. Told in a linear style - not regularly seen in the modern era of flashback obsessives - we pick up Saroo’s story just before his separation from his family and his devastating experience as a homeless sojourner. The human cost of overpopulation and a very different parental culture becomes evident when he has to spend the night sleeping with other displaced children on sheets of cardboard in the Calcutta train station and narrowly avoids abduction. A sobering passage of the film - underscored by the message of Lion’s final titled card, over 80,000 children go missing in India each year - This first half of Lion is defined by the tragic, Dickensian performance of young Sunny Pawar. Truly if ever there was a child actor deserving of an Academy Award nomination, Sunny is the one.

Saroo’s troubles take a different turn when he’s adopted by a loving Australian couple who he meets in Hobart. Before long we’ve jumped forward twenty years and the now grown-up Saroo finds himself opening up old wounds as he begins his search for his family. The film slows in pace but it’s certainly not the dramatic bottleneck that some critics claim. In many ways the second half of Lion is just as painfully engaging as the first, and if anything the conclusion could have done with more time and space to complete the story without the hint of emotional overreach that somewhat emerges. Otherwise, Lion manages its pace and linear technique in a thorough and satisfying way.

Whilst it’s difficult to meet the challenge that Pawar’s performance sets in the first half, Dev Patel still delivers what might be his best performance to date, and Kidman, who has struggled to match the quality of some of her earlier Roles in recent years, puts all of that behind her with a very strong portrayal as the patiently nurturing Sue. Rooney Mara plays Saroo’s gentle and tolerant girlfriend, Lucy, and continues to firmly cement her position as an awards season regular, whilst David Wenham does what he can with his relatively little screen time. Apart from a slightly jarring wrap-up song from Sia, the gentle and contemplative soundtrack works with the often stunning visuals to bring all of these elements together into a film worthy of its story and of the international audience attention its receiving. 

Lion could have so easily fallen into the bottomless pit of cliched Oscar-bait that we have to suffer through each year, but its writing is so engaging, its performances so enticing, and it's directing so delicate that it certainly does justice to Saroo's riveting odyssey.

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage

After leaving this movie, my seventeen year old cousin told me that he had lost all respect for Vin Diesel. That got me thinking. The Iron Giant came out before he was born, Pitch Black came out the year he was born and The Fast and the Furious didn't come out much later after that (side note: that first F&F movie is the only one I like because my school camp didn't have any other movies to show us). So why did my cousin have any respect for him in the first place? Maybe Groot, I guess. Hopefully you can tell from this opening paragraph that I don't have much to say about this movie, so it's going to be a fun review for all of us.

Former government operative and extreme sport enthusiast Xander Cage (Vin Diesel) is coaxed out of retirement in order to hunt down a terrorist named Xiang (Donnie Yen) who has stolen a device that can bring satellites crashing down to the Earth. But shock horror, Xiang is actually part of the same xXx program and Xander's boss Jane Marke (Toni Collette) is the bad guy. There you go, you've just been informed of the world's most basic and predictable action movie ever. Helping Xander is the most standard group of buddies ever. Standard except for one DJ who he keeps around for the good times.

The action in this movie is the most logical thing happening. That's weird to say considering the movie starts with Diesel skiing down a gravelly hill in move that makes me question whether they understand how skis or gravel works. But then again this is the movie that has dirt bikes that whip down rivers and under waves (all in the same chase mind you). Because this is a movie that is appealing only to teenage boys, there are a lot of gratuitous girls in bikini shots, as well as a scene in which Diesel is the 'victim' of a female gangbang (I actually feel disgusted that I wrote that sentence, let alone watched it in a movie). The movie tries to even out this disgrace by adding two female action heroes, which doesn't work. Before you all go "Ruby Rose is my kween, she slays in OITNB, what are you talking about?", I have to remind you that I grew up with her being presenter on the Australian version of MTV and nothing will ever get that out of my head. In addition to all this weird portrayal of women where they're not sure if they should degrade them or make them strong, Nina Dobrev plays the cringiest character ever, someone who is geeky and shy, but unafraid of telling Xander Cage she likes rough sex and flirting with Ruby Rose. Again, this is obviously the very warped fantasy of what a woman should be like.

The moment well-respected martial artist Donnie Yen realised he needs a new agent

This movie does give me a chance to educate you a little about the industry though; namely the relationship between Hollywood and China. This year it is expected that Chinese ticket sales will surpass those of America for the first time in history. Because of this, Hollywood studios want to capitalise on that untapped market by getting their movies shown in China. Now the Chinese government only lets in a limited number of decadent Western films a year (and boy is this one decadent) and to make those chances higher, a studio can co-produce with a Chinese company. In order to do that, the filmmakers have to agree to fill a certain number of lead roles with Chinese actors. (I know that this is a deeply complex issue and I'd suggest checking out this video by Vox). What does all this have to do with our horrible movie. Well, it explains the inclusion of Chinese actors Tony Jaa, Donnie Yen and Kris Wu and also why this movie will probably do so well in that market.

xXx is an extremely subpar action movie. I know that sometimes I come of as someone who doesn't respect the genre, but I do enjoy it and know when something is trying. There was no effort whatsoever here. Gone are the extreme sports that I'm guessing the x's stand for and are replaced by a lot of standing around with arms spread wide open. And remember those character title cards that everyone thought were pointless in Suicide Squad, get ready for a lot of those.

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.

Jackie

The assassination of John F. Kennedy is one of the most well-known events of modern history. When most people consider the aftermath of his untimely death, attention is usually drawn to Lee Harvey Oswald and his subsequent murder, and light is rarely shone on the intimate details of his family and widow. Jackie delves deeply into a previously shallow part of this time in history, and stands as a powerful and sombre biopic about a grieving widow struggling in the public eye.

Following her husband's assassination, Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) is left to try and hold together her life in a time of despair and confusion. Jackie explores the former First Lady's immense loss and different stages and experiences of grief, as it darts between her time in office before the assassination, the event itself, the immediate aftermath and an intimate interview a week onwards. Between arranging her late husband's funeral and explaining to her children why daddy isn't coming home, all while being berated with advice and consolations from advisors, this film follows the titular Jackie in a truly sad and tumultuous time.

In a film named after a character, there is no doubt going to be a massive focus on the actor or actress playing them. In the case of Jackie, Natalie Portman is tasked with exploring the complicated emotions associated with grief and loss. From struggling to remain composed and poised in the public eye, to frantically breaking down and sobbing in private, Natalie Portman greatly achieves this much needed range and carries the character throughout the entire film. Rarely can the facial expressions, dialogue and reactions of a single character render an entire theatre gobsmacked, but Natalie Portman absolutely does so in her performance as the former First Lady. This isn't even considering her imitation of Jackie Kennedy's signature accent (which she totally pulls off, by the way).

The entire film is wholesomely engaging and awe-inspiring. With a fragmented story darting back and forth between various events both before and after JFK's assassination, the audience is kept on their toes and engaged with what is unfolding. While the movie and Jackie's intimate interview (which serves as a base-line for the film's narrative) are based on a real interview conducted a week after her husband's death, we cannot be sure that all the intimate details of the story are true. This being said, even if Jackie's actions in the movie are stretched slightly beyond the truth, no doubt the grief and sadness emanated throughout them are accurate, and seeing these emotions displayed so beautifully on the big screen really hits home. Accompanied with a sombre and simple orchestral soundtrack, the mellow tone of the movie is really driven into the audience to great effect.

This movie carries great parallels between beauty and pain, from constantly contrasting Jackie's life before and after the assassination, to her comparison of her husband's time in office to a real-life Camelot. Through this same vein, Jackie is a great example of a movie which finds beauty in sadness, and is wholeheartedly engaging the whole way through. If you are prone to cry, bring some tissues, and prepare yourself for a performance that will no doubt snag a Best Actress Oscar nomination for Natalie Portman.