Blood Father

While everyone is talking about Mel Gibson's upcoming Hacksaw Ridge, it seems like Blood Father has snuck under our radars. Blood Father, directed by Jean-François Richet, provides us with a solid action thriller with just enough emotion and comedy thrown in to make it interesting. Mel Gibson seems to finally be moving into the next logical character stage of his acting career: buff dad. Think Taken, if Liam Neeson found his daughter instantly, and was much, much angrier. 

Recovering alcoholic and ex-convict John Link (Mel Gibson) reconnects with his estranged daughter Lydia (Erin Moriarty) after she gets caught up in the workings of a small Mexican cartel, led by her boyfriend Jonah (Diego Luna). Link, not wanting to lose his daughter again, relapses back into his old criminal ways to protect her.

In any action thriller film, you might expect character and dialogue depth to be lacking; that is not the case at all with Blood Father. Link's explosive actions and gruff speech make him believable as a struggling ex-con, while Lydia totally sells as a confused girl in way over her head. The acting of both Mel Gibson and Erin Moriarty are much to commend for this success, working off each other flawlessly in a messed up father-daughter dynamic, in roles that feel strangely comfortable for both actors. The dialogue between the two is especially well-measured, with just enough emotion and comedy thrown in without feeling over the top.

In this same manner, Blood Father deals with both gang and bikie culture in a way that does not feel forced or excessive, and it creates an interesting dynamic to the film's story. The action sequences and shootouts are believable and ultimately well-shot, utilising the film's use of a mostly mobile camera to create lively and fast-paced scenes. This highly mobile camera feel adds a layer of chaos to the design of the film, mimicking that of the story itself. This is paired with the overall aesthetics of the film being convincing, both in the costuming and makeup of the characters and the locations and designs of scenes. After all, it's difficult for a film set in the California desert to not be beautiful.

Despite some very slight pacing issues, Blood Father is a surprisingly enjoyable action flick and ultimately a  very fun movie. No doubt a role like this would've been hard for Gibson following his own drug and alcohol addictions, but both he and Moriarty are both wholesomely convincing as leads and drive the movie in the right direction. It might be rash to claim this movie as a comeback for Gibson, but it is definitely a start, and the film would not be the same with any other actor in his place.

Room

From the creative genius of Tommy Wiseau comes the long-awaited….what? This isn’t a sequel to The Room? YOU ARE TEARING ME APART LISA! So...Lenny Abrahamson’s Room may not be the same emotionally nuanced masterful work of cinema as Wiseau’s not-at-all-related film of almost the same name is, but what it does promise is a unique experience and some hefty story matter. 

Joy is twenty-four years old. She has a son, Jack who’s five years old, and they live in Room; a small shed with a toilet, bath, television and squalid kitchen. Their only source of light is a skylight and they have limited furniture, including a wardrobe. Once a day at the same time, Jack goes into the wardrobe as their captor and Jack’s father, Old Nick (Sean Bridgers) enters Room and rapes Joy. After planning and executing an escape plan the two adjust very differently to the outside world. 

Room is based on the novel of the same name by Emma Donoghue, which was inspired by the sickening Fritzl case where a father imprisoned and abused his daughter for nearly three decades, fathering seven children. Room may well be toned down in comparison, but it’s still an intense, often brutal story. Taking inspiration from such things would be challenging enough but adapting them into a novel and then for the screen would certainly have its hurdles, and indeed Emma Donoghue should be praised for her screenplay. Whilst there are a fair few supporting cast, the two leads are the focus and are both brilliant. Brie Larson gives an extremely honest, often understated performance as Joy, who seems to have adapted herself to the Room so well that her plans of escape feel selfless, although this is challenged in the second half. Jacob Tremblay is astoundingly good as Jack, capturing the innocence, inquisitiveness and ultimately the transformation of his character with a surprising amount of nuance, especially given the subject matter he would have had to deal with. 

Room is essentially split into two acts, before and after the Room, and it feels as if it puts near equal amounts of time into each portion. Abrahamson hasn’t made this film nearly as dark as it could have been, where the first act and back story could have conceivably been History X or Requiem level dark. I don’t think this is because he wants the story to be more family friendly but rather that it would clash with the second act where Jack is first seeing the hope and the beauty of the world. However if building this contrast is one of the underlying intentions of Room, then it could have had a stronger emotional payoff in parts, however nit picky that issue may be. 

That’s not to say Room doesn’t have some other frustrating issues. The sequence between the two acts has a montage from Jack’s perspective that feels sentimental when it should really be about the awe of the outside world in that moment. William H. Macy is criminally underused, elements of the cinematography seem ill-conceived and overall there are some pacing issues that make sections of the film feel rushed. The second act seems to have a lot more focus and was for me more interesting than the intense first act. At times I wondered if the film would have been better served to put more time into one of the periods over the other. These changes however would lead to a drastically different film and it’s undeniable that Room holds a lot of weight as is. 

Room is a captivating, sometimes challenging and thought-provoking film that feels like a unique release in a period where a lot of different films are following the same formula. Where in parts the direction lets it down, its writing and performances more than make up for it.

Director Appreciation: Paul Thomas Anderson

Paul Thomas Anderson is truly a modern auteur in every sense of the word. In his career spanning nearly two decades has consistently made films that are both critically acclaimed and crowd pleasers. His penchant for long sweeping narratives with lots of characters is one of his films defining traits, along with vibrant visuals and the odd long take, that usually follows one or more characters through an amazing set piece.

Like Wes Anderson, P.T.A. is known for his collaborations with many actors on his films, including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzmán, William H. Macy and, most recently, Joaquin Phoenix. He has also directed actors to give some truly career defining performances, most notably Daniel Day-Lewis (it's a performance that really sticks out in a career of amazing ones) and Adam Sandler (who surprised everyone).

Anderson's main themes used throughout his films are dysfunctional families, alienation and loneliness. Most of his characters are flawed and seek to redeem themselves from these flaws through their interaction with others.

Boogie Nights (1997)
"I'm a star. I am a big, bright, shining star."


Anderson has spoken openly about the amount of porn he watched in his teenage years to inspire the making of this film. It chronicles the meteoric rise of young porn star Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), as he rises to fame in the adult film world, mentored by producer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds).
























As much as this is a film about the Golden Era of Pornography in the late 1970s, it can also be viewed as modern tragedy with an almost dynastic feel to it, as Dirk is taken in by an unlikely family that rises and falls. Toward the end of the film there are some really scary scenes where the characters reach desperate times and do whatever they can to stay in the lives they have created for themselves and realise life is harder than they wanted it to be.

The film sports some amazing performances, including that of its star Mark Wahlberg. Although he'd been in movies before this one, it's his performance as Dirk that really shows that he had some great skills when it came to being a serious actor. John C. Reilly gives one of my favourite performances of his as fellow actor Reed Rothchild and Phil Hoffman is just hilarious as Scotty, a sound guy who falls in love with Dirk. That's not to mention other great performances offered up by Julianne Moore, Heather Graham and Don Cheadle.

Punch Drunk Love (2002)
"I have a love in my life and that makes me stronger than anything you can imagine."



















Barry Egan (Sandler) is a timid, shy and single man who owns a warehouse that markets novelty items. He has seven sisters who all abuse him emotionally to the point of lashing out. One day he meets Lena (Emily Watson), whom he falls in love with immediately. Barry is also being extorted by a phone sex operator, whose boss is the explosive Dean Trumbell (Phil Hoffman again).

The world that Anderson has created with this film is extremely developed. Barry wears a blue suit for the whole movie and it is hinted that this is the first time that he has worn the suit, leading you to think what he usually wears that makes this such a surprise for the other characters. The film also has an exceptionally intriguing subplot in which Barry discovers that he can get around a loophole in a coupon deal for cheap air miles by buying extremely large quantities of chocolate pudding, leading to a superb little dance in a supermarket aisle and me thinking if he isn't slightly autistic.

The film has a surreal quality to it, with vibrant colours distorting the frame constantly, as well as lens flares that would make J.J. Abrams blush. Most of the music adds to the feeling; the main music is played on a harmonium, which gives the film a calming quality. The calmness is intercut with high intensity sounds that are repeated (I wouldn't necessarily call it music) at times when the characters are under pressure.

Every so often Adam Sandler offers up a performance that proves he can beyond shabbadoo and it takes a director like Anderson or Judd Apatow with Funny People (2009) to bring it out of him. Barry is a nervous, compulsive character and Sandler handles him well. Phil Hoffman's Dean Trumbell is an amazing powder-keg of a man and although Hoffman is only on screen for a total of five minutes, he leaves a lasting impression.

There Will Be Blood (2007)
"There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet! No one can get at it except for me!"

For most audiences, the idea of a movie about oil drilling, especially in the early 1900s, would sound incredibly boring. But when a director such as Anderson combines forces with an actor like Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the greatest actors alive, it makes for an extremely captivating movie.

Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an oil baron who has oil drilling operations all around the state of California. His attention is brought to a possible oil claim in the small settlement of Little Boston, where he buys a ranch from the Sunday family, where he believes the oil is. He soon comes to confront Eli Sunday, one of the sons and pastor of the community's parish.

This is Anderson's best film. It looks at both dysfunctional families and greed. As the film progresses, Daniel does more and more heinous things to increase his wealth, whilst becoming more and more distant from his adopted son, H.W. Day-Lewis gives his only Oscar-worthy performance in this movie, he is absolutely terrifying to watch. Paul Dano gives an equally good performance as the pious Eli Sunday.

The Master (2012)
"If you figure out a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let us know, will you? For you'd be the first person in the history of the world."

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is an alcoholic WWII veteran who is struggling to find purpose after the war. He crosses paths with Lancaster Dodd (Phil Hoffman), the charismatic leader of a philosophical movement known as "The Cause." Freddie soon gets caught up in this movement and sees a great man in Dodd.

The parallels between this movie and the origin of the Church of Scientology are present and in a way too big to ignore, but Anderson is making a much broader statement about the nature of man. The fact that Freddie needs a master like he is some sort of animal shows that man would be aimless without a person in an authority position. When Freddie leaves the embrace of the group, he has no idea what to do with himself.

Although Joaquin Phoenix is the lead actor in the film, Hoffman steals all the scenes he is in. Dodd is an intensely complex character who only wants what is best for his family and his followers, but you can really see that he feeds off the power he gets from being in front of a crowd.

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.