Reviews Archives - Page 6 of 9

December 5, 2015December 5, 2015

Film Review: Lady in the Van

Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward. On th-ink.co.uk Harry will be writing a series of posts in which he will be sharing his opinions on things he has watched.

The Lady in the Van, 2015, cert 12A, dir Nicholas Hytner, 4/5. In cinemas now

I’ve hardly read any of Alan Bennett’s writing, apart from one of his Talking Heads monologues at school. But me and my sister grew up listening to his quirky, soothing Leeds accent reading Winnie-the-Pooh and Doctor Dolittle on our tapes, so I have a spot of affection for him. I now have some affection for Alex Jennings‘ portrayal of him in this year’s film The Lady in the Van, as well as the film in general.

The film is based (loosely, the film admits in a caption at the start) on events that actually happened to Mr. Bennett, which he turned into a play and screenplay. A homeless old woman calling herself Mary Shepherd, played by Maggie Smith, parks her van on Bennett’s street in Camden one day and after various interactions and disputes with his neighbours, road officials and loutish youths, ends up parking her van on Bennett’s drive for fifteen years.

This is the kind of film you’d expect from the BBC: a literary based drama set in the 70s/80s with seasoned actors like Dame Maggie and Jim Broadbent, and a bit of a cosy Sunday afternoon teatime feel. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad film. As well as being a movie you could watch with your grandparents, the film asked some relevant questions about homelessness, social care and of course the process of writing. It is also genuinely funny in places and sad in others, or both at the same time in classic British style.

This is a film about two people: Alan Bennett and Mary Shepherd. Alex Jennings has been impeccably transformed into the author, complete with ginger hair and thick spectacles. His amusing and insightful voiceover echoes Bennett’s dry Northern tones so well it’s uncanny. In the film, the character of Bennett sees himself in a rather scathing light as a grumpy, solitary, unsympathetic bore, even though the film makes subtle nods to the author’s sexuality by having him invite various young men to his house. One of the film’s most playful features is having two Alan Bennetts flawlessly together on screen. According to the author, one is his living self and the other is his writing self and they rarely get on.

Bennett’s soft side surfaces when he’s confronted with Miss Shepherd, who he ends up looking after better than any of the other characters. He also deals with the deteriorating mental health of his mother. To his disgust, he finds himself comparing his mother to the batty Miss Shepherd, both of whom are old women under his responsibility. His two selves also argue over writing about Miss Shepherd. His writing self insists on writing about spies. It is fascinating and fun to have such a perfect physical manifestation of a writer’s mind, and to have insight into a writer’s debate on writing about real people.

As for Maggie Smith’s performance, it’s the best I’ve seen out of her yet. Her character is a delight to watch, over the top and full of life even though she can barely walk. She demands to be treated with dignity even though she behaves like a child, refuses all help and never thanks anyone who gives it. She is also a devout Catholic and uses God to justify her eccentric actions. At first she is comic, stalking up and down Bennett’s street, screaming at children, parking her van where she pleases and painting it custard yellow. However, her fluent French and conflicted interest and fear of music hint at more than meets the eye. There are also suggestions of darker, more tragic events in her past, besides her ending up homeless. The film is inviting us not to judge someone we’d perceive as a social misfit.

The way the other characters treat her is varied and an interesting comment on society’s treatment of homelessness in general. Bennett is not the only person to treat her with kindness, but he is one of the few to treat her with respect. Luckily, most of his Camden neighbours are quite relaxed about the new resident. However they still see her as either an amusement, someone to pity or someone to perform good deeds for in order to justify their own lifestyles, such as giving her Christmas presents or leftover crème brulée, or telling their children off for calling her smelly.

Other residents, mostly the men, see her as a nuisance. Others, mostly the young men, are very aggressive and some characters see her as someone to exploit, like Jim Broadbent’s slimy character who holds knowledge of some terrible crime Mary supposedly committed. Luckily, Alan is there to protect her and social workers do pop up to try and absolve her situation, while her nunnery who Alan appeals to want nothing to do with her. Nevertheless, Alan is openly annoyed when one social worker tries to teach him about a person they don’t have to cope with on a daily basis. The question of what to do with a situation like Mary Shepherd’s raises relevant issues in today’s society. Should we do all we can to change the lifestyle of someone like Miss Shepherd, even if it’s what she’s comfortable with, and make her a acceptable member of society? Or should we leave her where she’s happy, even though her health is at risk, her living conditions are deprived and she is exploiting people’s kindness? Thankfully this film does not set itself up as a moral parable but focuses more on the human relations of its characters.

The relationship that develops between Mr Bennett and Miss Shepherd is the most intriguing and charming element of the film. Bennett sees the woman as a curiosity, then a nuisance (especially when he has to clean up her stray poo which is definitely the grossest moment of the film). Yet he doesn’t have the heart to turn her away and begins to see her, not just as a grumpy old bat but as a victim of unfortunate circumstances striving for some dignity. Miss Shepherd at first sees Bennett as just another kind soul to exploit, but comes to depend on him. Both are stubborn and then humbled by each other.

So yes this film has thick dollops of heart warming charm and thus one or two slightly cringe-worthy scenes of sappiness. And yes at times it might be a rather warm, comic portrayal of the serious issue of homelessness. But there is still some relevance and genuine tenderness under this simple story of an unlikely friendship. Overall the filming is good, the acting is great and the movie is an all-round pleasant and moving experience that holds an unfortunately realistic mirror up to the social attitudes of twenty-first century Britain.

November 27, 2015

Film Review: Circle

Circle, 2015, dir Aaron Hann and Mario Miscine, 3/5

The plot is simple. A staggering amount of fifty mixed American strangers wake up in a big dark room with an ominous red-lit floor. They are arranged facing each other in a circle. If they leave their spot, they are zapped dead by a mysterious dome in the middle. They then realise there are timed zaps every two minutes (heralded by a drumming sound) killing them off one at a time and that between zaps, they can mentally vote for who gets it next. They are faced with two options: work together to try and stop this fiendish game or decide who deserves to be last person standing.

Circle

The explanation offered for their hellish situation is aliens. They have all been abducted and subjected to this highly imaginative, psychologically-torturing experiment. Thankfully the film doesn’t delve too much into this idea. It’s simply used as a quick and swift excuse for the plot. Let’s imagine the screenwriters (who also directed the film) in action:

‘So we’ve got a random bunch of people trapped in this cool but scary game we’ve invented. How do we explain it?’
‘Aliens.’
‘Done. Let’s get on with the plot.’

For as elaborate a set-up it is to have aliens putting humans through some mindless death game for science or kicks, it’s nowhere near as interesting as the characters and their dialogue.

Circle reminded me of two films combined: Saw and 12 Angry Men. I say Saw because this is another film where the script writers shove their characters into a horribly distressing scenario involving some murderous puzzling game, just to see what they’d do and to bounce them off each other to make a story.

Circle

As for 12 Angry Men, for those who don’t know it this 1957 movie is about a jury of men from different factions of American society quarrelling over the guilt of a boy accused of stabbing his father. It’s an intense, claustrophobic, emotionally charged drama much like Circle. The characters of Circle are also faced with a similar moral dilemma, except they are forced to weigh up the moral worth of themselves and each other before they get bumped off.

The characters also represent a spectrum of American society. We have students, the elderly, a child, a pregnant woman, a cop, a soldier, a minister, a cancer survivor, a banker: all manner of ethnicities, beliefs and careers. This variety adds chemistry to the plot, for various prejudices raise their heads, exposing the ugliness festering beneath the polite face of Western civilisation.

For example, when it turns out one member of the group can’t speak English, some people clamour for his death simply because he can’t contribute and the one student who can translate for him would merely be slowing them down. Even worse, one or two individuals accuse and victimise him for being an illegal alien. Race, sexuality, age and even jobs are used as excuses and arguments to slaughter people.

Ironically, those that expose their prejudices are swiftly targeted, which brings me onto the manipulative way the film handles its audience’s emotions. I felt a savage satisfaction whenever a dislikeable character got zapped, and then guilt. This is a film about the enormity of taking life, but do the characters and the audience become numbed to the sheer amount of death? Though the characters are stuck in an extreme situation, is it right for them to vengefully target bigots and stoop to their level?

Circle

Although there are a few cultural stereotypes (the rich businessmen tend to be the monsters) plenty of stereotypes are challenged and many characters who I thought I liked and understood could change their nature and intentions at the drop of a hat. There are a few noble characters who sacrifice themselves (much to the joy of the more selfish people) but this is certainly one of those films you shouldn’t watch if you want faith in humanity.

When attempts to work together and beat the game keep failing, the characters resort to the easier option of playing along and squabbling over who should be sacrificed in order to buy more time, thus starting a vicious circle. It becomes every person for themselves and there’s even a divide when people realise the child and the pregnant woman will likely be spared to the end. Some people strive to make this happen, while others try to persuade people to get them zapped in order to save their own skins.

So yes the film is bleak, but it’s undeniably thrilling and fascinating. The plot and dialogue is intense and charged, with lots of tension and twists to keep it unpredictable. None of the actors are big names but they make each one of their fifty characters stand out with incredible performances, which really make the film. Their characters’ behaviour feels realistic but they still take you on an emotional rollercoaster. I felt fear, anger and my eyes did get wet at some points, particularly when the terrified child and pregnant woman were on screen. The film works as an absorbing psychosocial exploration of what values different people hold onto when faced with life or death, as well as being a gripping thriller which is tricky to pull off. What the characters say and do still haunt me. I don’t think this got much of a cinematic release but it deserves to be more of a hit. It’s on Netflix so go watch it now. It’ll be interesting to see what the clearly talented writing/directing pair behind this will come up with next.

November 13, 2015November 19, 2015

Film Reviews: 5 Best War Films

Last Sunday was Remembrance Day and World War One is now over a hundred years old. Yet we’re still obsessed with war. War films, that is. Not only does war keep marching across our screens in a variety of guises but we love revisiting the classics and rightly so. War is one of my favourite film genres. You’re guaranteed extraordinary action and emotion when you thrust characters into extreme situations. So here’s a countdown of what I believe are the five best war movies and no, Saving Private Ryan did not make the list.

5. All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930

The power of this film is evident due to the fact that it was censored while troops were mobilising for WW2. Based on Erich Maria Remarque’s novel (which I still have to read), this is a classic story of an idealistic young boy going off to war and getting traumatised and, bar Kubrick’s Paths of Glory, this may be the finest WW1 movie. Not only is it extraordinary for being an American movie about German soldiers but it is beautifully shot and it foreshadows a lot of the anti-war sentiments of modern war films.

4. Cross of Iron, 1977

Film director Sam Peckinpah is a favourite of mine and is notorious for breaking the late 60s/early 70s film violence barrier in such intense classics as the Wild Bunch and Straw Dogs. His one war film is equally violent but like his best films, under the action there is surprising depth. Also casting American actors as German soldiers, the story focuses on a German squad on the Russian front during WW2 and an ideological battle playing out between a disillusioned but caring sergeant (James Coburn) and an ambitious but cowardly captain. This epic wins for depicting relentless action together with the emotional turmoil of war.

3. Come and See (Idi i Smotri), 1985

A Russian film with the familiar storyline of a boy going off to war only to discover how horrible it is. This is, however, still one of the most unique war films you will ever see. It is an artistic, beautifully shot emotional bruiser on how much it sucked to be a Russian peasant during WW2. It is notable for depicting more of the common people’s suffering during war rather than just the soldiers and for getting such extraordinary emotional performances from its young main actors. Be warned, this film will leave you shaken.

2. Full Metal Jacket, 1987

As well as being revered for making The Shining and Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick has directed a handful of the greatest war films. There’s the heartbreaking drama of Paths of Glory and the satiric comedy of Dr Strangelove. But nowhere is his vision of war more savage or bitter than in his penultimate movie Full Metal Jacket. Dealing with the Vietnam war, his depiction of young soldiers is one of the most realistic and biting I’ve ever seen. His characters get kicks out of prostitutes and insulting each other with crude slangs, yet even Kubrick can get humanity out of them when they’re pushed to their limits during the Tet Offensive in Hue City. This war film is unique for spending half its length in the training camp, where young American boys are shaved and broken down psychologically to be rebuilt as killing machines by the unbelievably foul-mouthed Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (a monstrous performance by ex-marine R. Lee Ermey). This movie also boasts a cracking soundtrack, including Trashmen’s Surfin’ Bird (way before Peter Griffin tormented everyone with it in Family Guy).

1. Apocalypse Now, 1979

Another film about the Vietnam war with a great soundtrack. But while Full Metal Jacket is your punk war movie, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse is your prog-rock war movie: a steaming three hour drug-fuelled, hallucinatory, nightmarish odyssey into humanity’s heart of darkness. But this is what makes it such a good movie, that and the fact that it’s shot like a work of art. As well as boasting a gallery of magnificent actors like Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando and Dennis Hopper (even Harrison Ford and Laurence Fishburne in small roles) and killer lines that have cemented themselves into popular culture like ‘I love the smell of napalm in the morning’ and ‘the horror… the horror’ (taken straight from the novella Heart of Darkness the film was based on, giving a dread history to the line), this epic succeeded in depicting all the faces of war within its rambling episodic plot of an American captain voyaging upriver into Cambodia to assassinate rogue colonel Kurtz. There’s action (helicopter attack set to Ride of the Valkyries), black humour, tragedy and of course the horror. This film also succeeds in rising above simply depicting the absurd nightmare of war and tries to answer the ancient philosophical question of what to do about evil. It’s incredible that such an ambitious, philosophical nightmare got made and came out looking perfect, especially regarding the horrendous problems that plagued production that led to their own documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse. I feel Coppola should be more revered for this than his Godfather movies.

November 8, 2015

Music Review: Strange Wilds

Our guest blogger is hobbyist reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward:

Strange Wilds, Subjective Concepts , 2015, Sub Pop Records

A grungy punk trio from Olympia, Washington State signed to Sub Pop records. No we have not gone back in time to 1989. I am reviewing a debut album released this year in July by a band named Strange Wilds, who sound like they’ve teleported straight from the late 80s/early 90s Seattle grunge scene to assault our ears. Their state and record label has been home to Nirvana and other indie rock legends, whose anguished noisy spirit they tap into with joyous enthusiasm.

Now surely a band coming out and replicating a sound popular over a decade ago is a sign to be worried about the progression of music. Then again, there aren’t many places left for music to progress to. There are still lots of good bands coming out, but there’s no big unifying rock movement pushing the genre forward. There are lots of scattered bands who mostly try to sound like great bands from the past who already broke down some musical barriers. A few bands who have cropped up in NME , like Wolf Alice for example, sound and dress like a 90s grunge band. As nice as it is to see people still inspired by this great time in music, the fuzzy-angst-in-converse-and-scruffy-sweaters formula has been done a lot and some current bands (like, in my opinion, Wolf Alice) sound like bland reproductions.

Strange Wilds are the first grunge throwback I’ve heard that I enjoyed. This is because they choose not to channel the brooding stadium-ready gloom popularised by mainstream grunge acts like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, which countless post-grunge fakers have wallowed in (Nickelback being the chief culprit). The album Subjective Conceptions harks back to the glory days of grunge’s punk/hardcore roots, sounding like a lost Mudhoney or Black Flag record. Each song snarls and drips with twisted scorn while thundering along with gnarly riffs not out of place on Nirvana’s first album or a Melvins record.

While there’s nothing strikingly original here, it is nice to listen to a band who like making noise for the hell of it and having a good time. Most current indie bands are either light and fluffy, or take themselves too seriously. Take Metz for example, Strange Wilds’ fellow contemporaries of noise also signed to Sub Pop, who have released their second album this year. The bleak and terrifying din from Metz is impressive, but noise is all you get with some barely distinct lyrics hollered over the top.

Listening to Subjective Concepts however, I found myself (shock horror) singing along, something I haven’t done with any recent bands for a while, especially since most bands insist on distorting the vocals beyond recognition. Strange Wilds singer Steven’s vocals are left free and clear to bitterly mutter the verses and howl the choruses in true grunge fashion. The twisted lyrics aren’t bad either, if a bit infantile (‘the streets are littered with our filth’ etc) but the whole band yells them with such gleeful abandon they’re infectious. The band have mastered the art of the catchy grungy chorus, with some spikes of smart sarcasm throughout.

Nowhere is this more effective than on the album’s most powerful track: the opener and single ‘Pronoia’. This is the one song that comes close to being a sincere anthem despairing of the human condition, roaring along with full throttle punk energy. The video is cool as well, showing off the band’s imagination. Standard shots of the blond, long-haired singer thrashing around on his guitar (remind you of anyone?) are interspersed with queasy shots of food and other unidentifiable squishy objects being smashed.

If you still buy CDs, the album’s artwork is cool too. I love record covers that don’t match the content. On the Subjective Concepts cover, we have a young woman dancing on the edge of a building over some urban landscape at sunrise. That and the delicate album title suggest you’re in for some soft ambient music about the self-destructive desire for freedom from social constraints or something. I hope someone picks this up and is pleasantly surprised by the loud, squalling bitterness within. This is a band I’ve been waiting for since headbanging to Nirvana as a teen. This is a short but unforgettable blast of glorious rage that borrows heavily from the past but still sounds fresh, fun and rocks like a boss.

November 6, 2015

Film Review: Beasts of No Nation

Beasts of No Nation, 2015, cert 15, dir Cary Joji Fukunaga, 4/5

You could say this is an important film not just for its content but also because it’s the first feature-length movie produced by Netflix. I have mixed feelings for Netflix. It’s fun to use but I find its content rather geared to American mainstream movies. You still have to seek out international and cult/arty films on DVD. Not that I mind, because I prefer owning physical copies of films and music rather than having exhausting amounts of movies and songs online that don’t belong to me even if I pay a subscription fee.

I also disagree with the way Netflix have released their first movie. They pushed for cinematic release but a few cinema chains refused to show the film as Netflix released it on their channel at the same time. As representatives of these cinemas argued, why would people pay for cinema tickets when they could watch the movie at home? Their fears appear justified, for although the movie has over three million views online it only made $50,000 back from the $12 million Netflix doled out to distribute it in cinemas.

These cinemas have furthered accused Netflix of pushing for cinematic release just so they can qualify for an Academy award. If this is so, it feels slightly cynical to use a film about child soldiers just to get an award.

Not that it doesn’t deserve one. Cinematic politics aside, this is an almighty film. Based on a 2005 novel by Nigerian-American Uzodinma Iweala, the story is set in an unnamed African country (possibly Nigeria) and revolves around a boy named Agu played by first-time Ghanaian actor Abraham Attah. He lives the typical life of a fun-loving cheeky kid, safe within the buffer zone of a war-torn country with his friends and family. That is, until government troops storm Agu’s village, declare the men rebel spies and execute them, including Agu’s father and brother.

Agu escapes into the bush where he is captured by the real rebel army, mostly comprised of boys his age. He is trained by the formidable Commandant (played by British star Idris Elba) to be a guerrilla fighter and is thrust into a nightmarish world of bullets, blood and black magic.

For a young actor in his first role, Abraham Attah is magnificent. He doesn’t use a great deal of dialogue or expression and even his poetic interior monologue is used sparsely (as monologues should be). Nevertheless, he convincingly portrays the fear and trauma his character suffers, and the emotional damage and ageing war inflicts on him. Everything he says and does feels real, raw and pure: an incredibly mature performance from someone so young.

All the acting in the film is good, so much so it’s more like watching a documentary than a work of fiction. But the show is almost stolen by Idris Elba, whose portrayal of a guerrilla warlord is electrifying. His very presence and energy commands the screen along with his troops, especially during the scenes when he’s giving dramatic speeches to whip his boys up for battle. It’s great to see an actor we’re used to seeing play heroic characters like DCI John Luther effectively portray a devious and conflicted character like the Commandant. He proclaims to be a new father figure for the lost boys he recruits and that he’s given them fresh purpose in life, yet he’s willing to let them kill or be killed for his own ideals while never actually committing any violence himself. Rather, he’s more effective at inciting others to violence, which is what makes him so menacing. Yet he appears to genuinely care for Agu and this little bit of humanity is enough to make the audience feel some sympathy and respect for such a disturbing character, a great achievement on the film’s part.

The style of the film itself is an unflinching tour de force. The audience is thrust headlong into gritty realism, savage tension and heartbreaking tragedy. Rather than being steeped in politics, the film is more intent on portraying the psychological and emotional impact of war on its human characters. If there are any issues with the film, it’s that sometimes its portrayal of such psychological trauma is rather simplistic and idealistic, i.e. a child soldier can only recover from his experiences if he lets himself become a child again. You could also argue this is clearly another ‘issues’ drama, where the film is spending all its effort to show you how bad something is, along with the overriding strength of the human spirit etc etc. However, the film’s message is very clear and very relevant. Even if I judge Netflix, I praise them on getting behind such a masterpiece.