Change Your Image
elliot-75668
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Rocketman (2019)
Musical-fantasy biopic soars
If there's one thing the movie industry is good at it is noticing a slight trend and then trying to capitalise on it. Even though an Elton John biopic has been in the works for years, the success of A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody made for promising signs of it being a hit. Bohemian Rhapsody, despite its success, certainly has its very vocal detractors who despised the director and hated how the film depicted Freddie's sexuality by either straightwashing him or depicting it in a way people found grossly offensive. It seems unlikely similar criticism would be aimed at Rocketman because it is one of the very few mainstream Hollywood productions to feature gay sex. Rocketman's higher rating allow it to be more explicit allowing it to provide at least some of the action that alluded the Queen biopic.
As fun as Bohemian Rhapsody was it's not easy to argue its merits as a great movie. It played itself as more of a collection of Queen's greatest hits and was so bereft of ideas that it featured almost the entirety of the band's performance at Live Aid. Rocketman doesn't feature a 20-minute sequence you can find on Youtube and instead attempts to subvert some of the tropes of a musical biopic by smartly tying in the most famous Elton John songs into the themes and narrative of the film. It plays as a biopic, and a musical-fantasy as the timing of the musical numbers match the events of the story. Take for example, Elton's I'm Still Standing which follows his return from the brink of destruction from drink and drugs. Director Dexter Fletcher's (who also worked on Bohemian Rhapsody) creativity and lighthearted take on the material helps the eye-popping, fantastical elements have an extravagant visual appeal (the colours are worthy of the man himself) and bring something refreshing to a tired genre.
Taron Egerton is marvellous as Elton John, playing him at his elaborate highs and terrible lows perfectly, and whilst he doesn't bear a striking resemblance to the singer, it's still an impressive performance in which he does his own singing. Having performed I'm Still Standing in Sing, Egerton already had the relevant experience to take on a role he really makes his own. Elton's friendship with Bernie (Jamie Bell) is moving, and his toxic relationship with John Reid (Richard Madden) elicits sympathy for man taken advantage of. The film follows a typical biopic tale, but the central point of the narrative is an AA meeting which utilises flashback as a story telling device (starting at his childhood) thereby giving us a feeling that Elton is reflecting on his past life, especially his regrets and feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing.
Elton John was closely involved in the production of Rocketman so it was never going be an entirely warts and all depiction yet it does depict his slide into a life of drugs and the struggles of his personal life. It's certainly not a rose tined picture of his life, however, the drug addiction and sex fuelled orgies feels a little underdeveloped (it does depict it impressively in song, but it never felt as though there was a reliance on drugs) as the film focuses on his incredible stage presence and insecurities. It does feel like a conventional biopic (the middle sags a little) even if the way Elton's songs are shown in the movie subvert some the clichés and make it feel more than just a montage of Elton John's greatest hits.
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)
Bundy Focus betrays movie's Core Aims
There's a morbid and macabre aspect of humanity that enjoys true crime, particularly that of serial killers. You can probably name quite a few from John Dillinger to Harold Shipman, but almost everyone in America, and most parts of the Western world, can name Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy's name has found itself back into the public consciousness following two highly publicised films/documentaries on Netflix about the notorious serial killer.
This of course has been a subject of discussion and criticism as these two films have been accused of needlessly publicising and sexualising the killer but that is undoubtedly why so many of his victims fall prey to him (that and pretending to be handicapped). Portraying this without making Bundy seem appealing is a trap filmmakers have to avoid. They also have to avoid making this story about Bundy and despite assures from cast and crew to the contrary this movie does exactly that.
To see this movie as a Ted Bundy (Zac Efron) tale as told from the eyes of his girlfriend, Elizabeth Kloepfer (Lily Collins), is a lie. This is a Bundy movie because there is so much Bundy. Sometimes it's even just Bundy (taking away from the Elizabeth POV). There're times you almost even feel sympathy for him because of the sadness and anger he feels as the couple grow further and further apart. It's fact it's a long time before Elizabeth is the focus because the film is so dominated by Bundy. Inadvertently this movie gave Bundy the attention he would have wanted especially considering he's stealing the limelight from somebody else.
I like to think that this film was made with the best possible intentions and it was one for the victims, but it doesn't feel that way. It doesn't feel like a film for the victims as it focuses too much on Bundy, treading familiar ground that anyone with a working knowledge of Bundy and his crimes will already know. The tone of film is odd (it's like a fun crime caper in the mold of Catch me If You Can), but the film avoids being grossly exploitative by focusing on Bundy's charm and charisma (which Efron captures very well) rather than depicting his gruesome murders in detail.
Even despite that, it's far too long into the film before we begin to feel sympathy for Elizabeth. Lily Collins is fine in the film but the film's dedication to Efton's Bundy at the expense of Elizabeth (despite assurances that this won't happen) becomes the movie's downfall. As does the fact it's somewhat dull and the terrible cinematography during one of Bundy's conversations with Carole Ann Boone where the camera wouldn't stop circling the two for the entire duration of the scene. I hate that and always will.
2/5
The White Crow (2018)
Dancing Through the Iron Curtain
Ralph Fiennes foray into direction started with a modernized adaption of a lesser known Shakespeare play, Coriolanus. In between this and his latest effort (White Crow) was a rather unextraordinary effort about Charles Dickens, but his latest effort is notable for Fiennes working in another language, albeit one he speaks fairly well. Still I can't think of many British directors that make films in a different language.
White Crow is about legendary ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev (Oleg Ivenko) and his defection from the Soviet Union to the West whilst on a tour in Paris. Fiennes' film about the iconic ballet dancer was never going to be a film about the dancing, this is clear because of the time period the film focuses on. Due to the fact that the film focuses on the period of time where Rudolf defected from the USSR the film is about the different ideologies of communist USSR the capitalist West, their different ways of life and different levels of personal choice and freedom granted to its citizens.
In the regard the film is an interesting watch as it compares the two worlds. The reaction of the tour group to Paris when they first arrived was one of wonder at this world of culture and freedom. Nureyev's reaction is central to the film as he makes the most of the chance to explore the city of Paris. He visits the celebrated art galleries, marveling at the masterpieces restricted by his regime. Emphasis is added to the French motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité emblazed on the statue in the center of Place de la Republique to highlight what is nonexistent in his homeland.
The tour group make the most of this chance to experience the freedom of the West. The freedom to shop, watch great theatre in the grandest of buildings and drink merrily into the night. But there's always the threat of the KBG and their bureaucrats attempting to stamp out any threat of westernization that may infect and topple the regime. There is always an uneasy feeling leering over Nureyev anytime he doesn't tow the party line, especially when he becomes more acquainted with his new western friends.
As the film is more about the politics than the dancing I do feel the ballet was neglected. I knew nothing of the man before the film and I never convincingly sold as to why people considered him the greatest male dancer of his generation. Only experts can tell the difference between a good dancer and a great dancer and whilst the film highlighted Nureyev's ability to dominate the stage I still never fully understood what made him so great.
The dancing is still important to the film, and the ballet scenes are beautifully filmed. Oleg Ivenko is a dancer himself so I am comfortable in the authenticity of these scenes, but I felt he was more at home when dancing or speaking in his native language then he was speaking English. His performance is good, but at times I felt he was slightly wooden when speaking in English (but the scene in the airport is an incredible sequence). Any with scene with his German boyfriend was painful to watch due to the blandness of their chemistry.
It's an impressive effort from Fiennes who clearly took this project to heart looking deeply into the heart of the matter as to why Nureyev defected from his homeland.
Robin Hood (2018)
Modernised Robin Robs Your Time
The film starts off by saying it doesn't want to bore us with the history. This is a sure-fire guarantee way to piss me off as I quite like history so telling me the history of how English royalty and lordships abused the lower classes in 12-14th century England would be interesting to me. I think saying something like this gets the film off to a bad start because it shows that the filmmakers don't have a passion for the history of the legend or the time it is set. It doesn't feel like a project that isn't backed by love.
One thing I really don't quite get is why nobody figured out Robin of Loxley was The Hood. The evidence is pretty damning. Stories of The Hood began soon after he arrived home from the crusades, and somehow, he managed to donate a large sum of money to the war effort despite losing his estate (where did they think he got the money from?). Nobody thought it odd that he managed to donate a large sum of money a day after the war tax collection money was stolen. And another thing his actions in Arabia (freeing the captive Arabs) must at least aroused some suspicion he was the hooded crusader because of his uncommon regard, among the ruling classes, for the welfare of the lower man.
The latest version of the Robin Hood tale is a modern (rather than modernised) telling of the story and it makes for a refreshing take on the legend compared to the many Robin Hood stories that have been produced. The modern telling of the story with its clearly and deliberately anachronistic costume design and modern style of filmmaking allows the film to shed more light on the parallels between the historical story and the current period in which the majority are still a clear underclass. The film is shot more like a modern action thriller or an Iraq War, Call of Duty type film than a traditional historical swashbuckling romp in the mould of Prince of Thieves or Errol Flynn's 1939 classic. In itself this isn't a flaw as its not too dissimilar to Ridley Scott's 2010 film but the action itself is so generically modern that it isn't as refreshing as it could have been. Not only that, the gore felt toned down to get a lower rating and reach a larger audience which, in hindsight, proved to be pointless decision as the film was a failure at the box office.
It's also very rare that the leading star is so easily out performed. Taron Egerton's cheeky chappie persona was fun to watch in the Kingsman movies but now the novelty is wearing thin. He's outshined by his villainous co-stars Ben Mendelsohn (Sheriff of Nottingham), F. Murray Abraham (the cardinal) and Paul Anderson (Guy Gisborne). Ben Mendelsohn's Sheriff of Nottingham is the star of the film with his evil clearly personified with a swish of a cape and threatening growl. However, the central paring lets the film down as I couldn't give a monkeys about the romantic relationship between Marion and Robin because both performances just aren't good enough for me to care.
It isn't the intolerable torturous mess that some have made it out to be, but it feels like it wasted an interesting opportunity to revamp a tired and old story. However, at least it tries to. On the plus side, it doesn't pretend to be a historical accurate telling of the legend of Robin Hood unlike Prince of Thieves which believed one could walk from Dover to Nottingham via Hadrian's Wall in less than 12 hours (in actuality its about 178 hours - and that's without rest, getting hopelessly lost or sheltering from the rain).
Le trou (1960)
One the best Prision films
There are very few films as impressive as this French classic. The reasons why this is an incredible film are plentiful, but the main ones are often dissected and discussed. The way the film goes into such incredible detail about the daring escape reminds me of the heist in Rififi and how that also went into immense detail. The scene where they break the cell floor is played out in real time. This, and the fact that the film focuses on the tiny details, makes this such a tense watch.
What also makes this film great is the focus of the film which is so narrow it spends most of the time in the small cell. It feels so claustrophobic you almost want to escape yourself but, most importantly, this allows us to get to really know, and care about, the prisoners. You are brothers in arms, stuck in the cell with them so when that final reveal happens it's a massive punch to the gut. Incredible cinema.
The Favourite (2018)
Good but doesn't win my favour
The Favourite has been a favourite amongst the critics but the disparity between the masses and critics is pretty telling (one person on google pretty much admitted to being closed minded and simple by saying they shouldn't force arty stuff on the masses). They were disappointed at not getting exactly what they wanted, but anyone with any knowledge of the films of Yorgos Lanthimos will expect absurdist humour rather.
Like The Lobster that is exactly what we get, even though The Favourite is slightly more accessible than the strange parable that was Lanthimos's first English language film. The Favourite is dominated by the three leading ladies who all give powerhouse performances with Olivia Colman tipped for award success. It's a film powered by three women, one of whom is a pawn in a psychological battle between two strong women. It makes for enthralling viewing to watch three great performances battle for supremacy on screen as two of them fight for the third's favour, using whatever dastardly means springs to their deadly and deranged minds.
As enthralling as their battle is, the longer it goes on the more depressing it becomes as we watch two women essentially exploit a weak, frail and childlike Anne playing her as a mere pawn in their own psychological game. One begins to feel sympathy for way the Anne is exploited more than gripped by the psychological battle between Abigail (Emma Stone) and Sarah Churchill (Rachel Weisz). Colman really is perfect in the role, that's high on melodrama, giving it an erratic vulnerability that highlights her character's childlike and temperamental personality.
Yet it still feels that the film eventually peters out. Much of the film's setting and costume design does brilliantly evoke the classic period dramas but the frequent use of the word c*** is an oddly jarring experience as it's not one that's common in stuffy costume dramas (but of course The Favourite isn't your typical costume drama). At first, it feels rebellious and daring but when it begins to get tiresome and repetitive, losing all its sting, you just sit there thinking "Come on Yorgos...grow up". This also relates to a lot of film's raunchy humour which feels oddly awkward and shoe horned into a film that didn't need it (on the other hand the absurdist humour is more rewarding comedically).
Where Yorgos Lanthimos excels is in the beauty of the film (with exception is the ghastly soundtrack). The longshots, extravagant costume and set design and the use of natural lighting is greatly reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's classic Barry Lyndon (which is also set during the 18th century). The film is good, but doesn't win my favour.
Kamera o tomeru na! (2017)
Smart and Inventive
One Cut of the Dead was the most lauded film of Frightfest 2018. Everyone was raving about it almost as though a virus has been passed from person to person that meant they were deeply in love with the film. For about thirty minutes I was completely stumped to why people regarded this in any positive light. The acting was stilled and awkward, the dialogue awful and the makeup effects lame and cheap looking. The one cut technique was brave, but it seemed too much for an inexperienced crew.
However, approximately 30 minutes in the movie changes direction completely. The second part of the film is about a new zombie channel hiring a small-time director to shoot a 30 minute, live, one take zombie thriller for their opening day of broadcasting. It becomes apparent that it was a movie within a movie and, for the next hour, time jumps back a month showing the whole filmmaking process including all the behind the scenes disasters that cultivated in the supposed poor quality of the film.
The final third of the film is very much like The Disaster Artist and fact you need to see The Room to appreciate The Disaster Artist. You need to get through the film's supposedly poor first 30 minutes to appreciate the comedic brilliance of the film as a whole. Overall, the film is a loveable, inventive and hilarious riot.
Aquaman (2018)
Stays afloat despite time lost at sea
Slowly the DC Cinematic Universe (DCCU) is building its own world to match the colossus built by the MCU. The next Justice Legend to get his own origins story is Aquaman, but quite when this origins story is set is massively unclear apart from a line of throw away dialogue. However, a quick search online informs me that events in Aquaman take place after the events of Justice League but it would be difficult to tell because events of Justice League seemed to have very little bearing.
Anyway, the underwater realm of Atlantis is being pushed to its limits by the surface world's endless polluting of Earth's oceans. This leads to a political discourse where Atlantians decide whether to launch an assault on the surface world. When the surface world (debatable) attacks both Om/Ocean Master (Patrick Wilson) and Nereus (Doplh Lundgren) the tribes of Xebel and Om join forces to destroy the surface world.
The only man who can stop them is Arthur Curry, half man, half Atlantian who harbors a strong resentment towards Atlantis for the execution of his mother as punishment falling in love and having a child with a human. The only way for Arthur to stop Om's destruction of the surface world is to find the Trident of Atlan which is will give command over all ocean life.
Such is the legendary and mythological status of these superhero characters in their own universes it is not perhaps surprising that the story is Aquaman is inspired by some of the most famous mythological tales in literature. The most notable being the Legend of King Arthur (the two even share names) where King Arthur is the only one who can pull the sword of Excalibur from the rock much like how only Arthur Curry can wield the trident of Atlan.
Other inspirations include Jason and the Argonauts as our heroes face deadly monsters in their quest to retrieve the legendary item - be it the Golden Fleece or the Trident of Atlan. It's here that fault in the movie can be found as the various epic set pieces don't feel tired together by a strong script which, in fact, is as weak as soggy paper. It feels too unconnected as the movie bounds to from epic set piece to epic set piece with the only breaks from the action used as exposition so that we can keep up with everything going on (even if some of it was painfully obvious).
The script's jumpy narrative makes the film the bloated mess that it is. However, helping us through it is director James Wan whose experience at helming massive franchises has been of great benefit to him. Working with a massive $200,000,000 budget, Wan has helped create some stunning underworld citadels that retain an element of awe even in his GCI dominated movie universe.
Jason Momoa (less said his teenage counterpart the better) is charming and engaging enough in the lead role, but much of the actors' performances are lost in the tidal wave of GCI which, whilst impressive, just leads the actors (and some great ones too) to be swallowed up by the oceans of GCI. With nothing to anchor the film with a strong identity it just gets cast adrift in the vast ocean of superhero movies
Leave No Trace (2018)
Sensitive and moving.
Leave No Trace is about a father and daughter who try to live their lives completely off the grid, leaving as little of a trace to their existence as possible. They do this by living in the woods and going to the local town for only the most basic of supplies. However, when Tom (Thomasin McKenzie) is spotted by a jogger she and her father (Ben Foster) are forced to find a living situation more suitable for her. The pair try to adapt, however, as Tom reaches a precarious age the two want different things.
Leave no Trace is like Captain Fantastic but without the sanctimonious smugness that made Captain Fantastic such an aggravating experience. Leave No Trace perfectly balances the rights and wrongs of both of the two different lives, leaving for a quite thought-provoking experience. Even though Tom was well cared for by her father, and educated at a level above her age, her living conditions were not suitable for a stable life (especially when the cold climate almost takes a heavy toll).
The caring and loving relationship between the pair makes the film delicately touching and engaging. Because of this there were times I was frustrated with Will failing to consider what was right for his daughter. It wasn't his fault (because of the PTSD), but because I cared deeply for the characters I was frustrated at the whole scenario of Tom being forced to move as soon as she settled in her new environment. It's a testament to Debra Granik's deft touch in the director's chair that the film is quite as sensitively profound as it is.
The two central performances are superb with Ben Foster displaying ruggedness with a sensitive vulnerability and Thomasin McKenzie's beautifully natural performance suggests that she has a promising career ahead of her.
Suspiria (2018)
Non-remake remake is too long
Dario Argento's Suspiria is a gory classic with the most incredible colour palettes to ever grace a horror film. It's brisk running time, corny script and iconic score only adds to the film's everlasting legacy. So, when it was announced that the 1977 classic would be remade there were murmurings of discontent among horror aficionados who wondered if anything sacred was safe from the evils of a remake? Then Luca Guadagnino announced himself as director and, following the success of A Bigger Splash and Call Me By Your Name, people were curious.
You can call the 2018 film a remake but in truth the film's similarities start and end at the characters and basic plot, therefore making it an entirely different beast. Clocking in at 155 minutes the film is almost an entire hour longer than the 1977 original and it does suffer from its bloated running time. The film's bloated running time is in part due to the pollical subtext. The film is set in 1977 (the year the original was released) and deals with themes of national guilt in a divided Berlin (the dance school is situated right next to the Berlin Wall).
This is all sounds very interesting, and does create an interesting back drop, but it doesn't really say anything new about the era. The film hints that blame should be laid at those in power rather than those who witnessed what happened but did nothing. This is hardly a new way of thinking, so it ends up being rather pointless and unnecessarily distraction from the tense story of witches harvesting young dancers for consumption by the mother witch.
What is also is a major drawback with the national guilt theme is that it's incredibly distracting watching the film with the knowledge that Dr. Josef Klemperer is Tilda Swinton dressed up in old man prosthetics. It's distracting because it feels like a superficial piece of stunt casting. Swinton said this was "only a little bit of fun" but this "little bit of fun" was nothing more than a vanity project that completely derailed a potentially interesting subplot. This all is just because I couldn't take Tilda Swinton parading around in poor prosthetics equipped with a heavy German accent seriously. On the plus side, Swinton is superb as Madame Blanc and Dakota Johnson's performance has tremendous physicality (her dancing showed great dedication to the role), but the slow delivery of her lines becomes grating.
What's most different about the 1977 Suspiria and the 2018 Suspiria is that the latter isn't a horror in the same way the 1977 film is, but the 2018 film still mostly fails on the basics of the genre. The film's length hampers the tension because the film's bagginess does not allow the tension to be sustained throughout. That said, there are a few scenes that are deeply horrifying, most notably the dancing sequence where a spell is cast upon Susie which contorts a fellow dancer's body to mirror Susie's dance moves. Criminally, despite all the weirdness on show and a climax that resembles something from the movie Climax, the film forgets to be scary but maybe it wasnt trying to be (in the traditional sense at least).
Despite being long, baggy and bizarrely paced the film isn't boring, visually it's too well made and enticing to be boring. It's certainly luxurious and beautifully made (even if the colour palette is the opposite of the 1977 original). The dance scenes are edited with an intoxicating excitement, almost as though a spell is cast upon you. The makeup effects are beautifully disgusting and the film appealingly gory, but the film is too long and too baggy to sustain the tension.
Roma (2018)
Epic and intimate
Alfonso Cuaron's last film was quite literally out of this world yet his latest effort brings him back to Earth but with a story no less epic and profound. Roma is partly based on the director's life but is told through the eyes of the nanny/maid, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), whose experiences reveal the extent of classism and racism in 1970s Mexico.
It's been almost 18 years since Cuaron made a film in his native language but he felt the time was right to return to his mother tongue and craft a revealing tale of class and racial struggle. The film is told through Cleo's (based on Cuaron's real maid, Lido) eyes and this unique way of telling the story gives the film a special insight into social issues in Mexico. Nanny/maid characters in films are usually bit parts in films, seen frequently but heard speaking only fleetingly. Cleo is always on hand to tend to the families every need, yet she is always on the outside. She is loved but never fully treated as part of family as she is ordered to do things only a servant would (it is always very uncomfortable when this happens).
This is evident simply in how her treatment in plain for all to see. Cleo (and her co-worker) stays in a separate part of the house that's vastly different to the luxurious brightly lit interiors of the main house. Whether the entire family are together, she's always on the side whether its kneeling on the floor whilst the family watch tv or standing, nearly out of frame, as the others sit on bench eating an ice cream. That's not to say the family are uncaring or dismissive of her, the kids revere her greatly but her race and class separates her from truly belonging in the household.
As we see the world through Cleo's eyes all these things become glaringly obvious even if the camera simply observes (like a ghost from the past as Cuaron said) life happening before it. As we see the world through Cleo's eyes we see her heartbreak, her pain and suffering in her most testing times (the most traumatic being the scene shortly following The Corpus Christi Massacre). Not only that we get a vital look at prejudice from someone who at the centre of it. Spending so much time with her, it's easy to notice the subtlest of prejudices. Oaxaca born Yalitza Aparicio restrained and moving performance is one of heart-breaking quiet poignancy as she provides a voice for the disenfranchised.
Working on his first feature film since Prisoner of Azkaban without his regular cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki (if you can't get Lubezki you may as well do it yourself), Cuaron forgoes the long handheld take technique of Children of Men and the exciting fluidity of Gravity and instead adopts a slow panning technique that resembles a casual observer. Much like Tokyo Story, Cuaron's camera simply observes the family unit, taking a non-judgemental and objective view of upper middle class of Mexico thereby allowing the viewer to notice the subtle elements of racism without ever explicitly mentioning them.
That said, Roma is not without its visual flourishes. The beautiful black and white cinematography transport us to the hustle and bustle of Roma region of Mexico City. The long, tracking shots reveal so much about the film's setting, taking us into the world inhabited by Cleo. The sound design allows us to experience the world in which the film is set. The chaos of Mexico City, the honking of horns and roar of plane engines above (hinting at an unreachable faraway world) makes the city feel alive and more than just a distant memory.
The most important aspect of the film is that it gives a voice to the voiceless and oppressed. It was only when Cuaron began to ask Lido (the maid on which the story is based) about her life that he began to recognise her as a real person with a life outside the home. These talks were perhaps as revealing and eye opening to Cuaron as the film Roma is to us. Understated and moving, Roma is a slow-moving film where, for a while, seemingly nothing happens but it's one that rewards a patient viewer with a highly emotional experience.