The Gentlemen Review

The Gentlemen is out and giving the impression that Guy Richie has returned to his crime film-making roots. It appears to be working in his favour, if the early reactions are anything to go by. The film begins with a pre-title sequence with an American marijuana dealer based in London named Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) in a situation that will have the audience asking the question, how did this happen?

Then we join Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who is visiting Pearson’s right-hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam). Fletcher describes a screenplay he has written and this becomes the story of McConaughey’s background and how he got to where he is. Pearson is looking to leave his life of crime and live with his wife, an admirable if unmemorable Michelle Dockery. But the downside of leaving the life behind appears to be that many other criminals now want his fortune for themselves and will do anything to get it. The people who want the fortune include an up-and-coming Asian gangster (Henry Golding), another American (Jeremy Strong), and a boxing coach (Colin Farrell), who claims to be all about keeping young men out of crime, but who will still do gangster stuff from time to time. There is also a tabloid editor (Eddie Marsan), but I will get to him soon enough.

The performances are quite mixed. McConaughey is good enough in the role and it’s interesting to see him play a gangster. Hunnam also manages to stand out in most of his scenes - he’s gained more charisma and likeability than he had in King Arthur. But the real surprise performance in this film is Hugh Grant who is unrecognizable at first, in a role you would never have imagined him in back in his early days. He is likeable and funny, and it catches you off guard to have spent time looking for Hugh Grant in this film only to realise he was in front of you the whole time.

This being a Guy Ritchie script and a crime film, all the tropes you would expect are here. There are a lot of strong London accents, violence, swearing and all sorts of vulgar language including slurs. There is a rather odd, dark sense of humour, for example a scene in a Chinese restaurant involving Golding’s boss and what becomes of Marsan’s tabloid man. That was where the film took a big shot at dark humour, even if it was near the end. Let’s not forget a joke involving Barry White that whether you’re a fan or not should make you laugh.

The film also has quite unusual lighting; most of it looks relatively bright, but at the halfway point we see some of the characters go to a council estate and suddenly everything has a very grey look to it, and no effort is spared in making these well-dressed criminals stand out like sore thumbs among a group of drug-addicted youths. (Even if one of them is a young woman with royal connections.)

So much was going on in this that the music escaped me, except for That’s Entertainment by The Jam that played over the end credits. I should also mention a character called Ernie, played by Bugsy Malone who is a real rapper. A fight takes place involving him that then becomes a rap video and that is the film’s most “out there” moment - there is some humour to be had in the idea of something like this happening in a Guy Ritchie film, although I’m not entirely clear why it had to be there at all.

While this film mostly works very well, there are a few problems but they’re confined to the pacing. The film takes time to get going, but once it does it barely stops and keeps you engaged.. until the third act when it starts dragging again, mostly for the sake of intensity, which I can understand, but a bit of light trimming and moving things along faster wouldn’t have hurt.

The Gentlemen proves to be a promising return to form for Guy Ritchie with a very memorable performance from Hugh Grant. I really believe Ritchie may have put his recent run of less successful films behind him, as long as those who see his work as offensive and homophobic don’t get their way. Because The Gentlemen is neither of those things, it’s nothing more than a quality film from a skilled storyteller who has clearly shown that making crime films is what he is good at... and not films about a motion-capture Will Smith genie with a six-pack.

Jojo Rabbit Review

Director Taika Waititi returns with his latest film JoJo Rabbit which is set in the late stages of World War II in Nazi Germany and is about an over-indoctrinated ten-year-old member of the Hitler Youth (Roman Griffin Davis). He finds his ideals challenged when he discovers that his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin Mackenzie) in their house. And JoJo has an imaginary friend, a comedic version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi himself)…

 

In supporting roles we have Sam Rockwell, Stephen Merchant, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen and others, some of whom give very promising performances. Griffin Davis especially feels credible in how much he undoubtedly believes and doesn't question the Nazi ideology; Merchant comes across as the most serious Nazi in the film, but still manages to be funny; Wilson has moments where she shows promise; Allen is overshadowed by the other actors; and Rockwell shows some comedic ability as a very out-there soldier.

 

In the end it does all come down to Waititi as Hitler, and he immerses himself completely in his role. He does go over the top, and it would very hard not to laugh, but here I think that might just be acceptable. You could call it egotistical of a director to cast himself in such an important role, but he does such a good job with it, it's hard to complain. Johannsson didn't really leave me with a lasting impression, and Mackenzie while good, just seemed to be there to throw out the occasional insult.

 

 The script (by Waititi, and adapted from a novel called Caging Skies) seems to get through the essentials fairly well. The world is set up for the core events of the story and the main characters all feel distinctive. Where it truly stands out, though, is how well it balances absurd, fantasy humour, with a period in history that isn't something to laugh about. It manages to make its serious points without dragging down the generally light-hearted tone.

 

The cinematography, by Mihai Mălaimare Jr, is rather mixed for me; there are some shots in the film that give you a good long look at just how bizarre this film is. It's mostly done through the use of slow motion - I can think of one notable shot early on, and another that tries to combines the brutal nature of war with the film's style of comedy. It also has quite a striking colour palette, going from very bright at the start, gradually turning to grey as it reflects the changed viewpoint of the main character.

 

 The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, and while I have nothing to say about that, I do have to mention the film's use of very familiar songs, but in their much-less familiar German language versions. The songs in question are the Beatles' I Want To Hold Your Hand and David Bowie's Heroes.You can hear them throughout the film, but the two occasions I can think of that stand out are at the beginning and end. These songs are well known all around the world, as are the artists, so I feel it is a good way to bookend the film, especially at the start as it helps to give a feel of what the next hour and forty eight minutes are going to be like.

 

 The main flaw I found with the film was that it dragged a bit, especially in the first and second acts. There are scenes that seem to go for far too long and could do with being trimmed down, and while I could mostly deal with the film's style of comedy, one joke came out of nowhere and left me wondering what was supposed to be happening.

 

 The conclusions I draw from this are that: JoJo Rabbit has good performances; a script that balances its unique humour while not forgetting what's happening in the background; some very notable shots in the cinematography that show an understanding of the film's tone; a use of colour I could an actually notice and admire; and intelligent use of popular songs translated into German. But it's flawed in moving along too slowly in places and one joke involving JoJo's absent father that I found mystifying.

 For a film out in January, this is a promising start to the new year and new decade, and judging by what I have seen and read about future releases there is much more in the way of promising material to come.

 

 B-

 

 Thank you for reading.

1917 Review

Instead of making a third Bond film, Sam Mendes has given us 1917 which is set in World War One and follows two soldiers (George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman) as they race against time to deliver a warning to the allies of an impending attack by enemy forces that could have horrific results. And to make matters worse, one of the soldiers sent to deliver the message has an older brother on the front line who will probably die if the message is not delivered in time.

As well as the two leads the cast features Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Benedict  Cumberbatch and Richard Madden. They have all proven their talents as capable actors, but unfortunately are all on screen at separate moments for short periods of time and have been given underwhelming material to work with. Meanwhile, the actors we spend the most time with are uncharismatic and seem rather inexperienced in their roles.

The script (by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) only stands out in one regard, and that is by not being as action-heavy as many other films with a similar setting. There are scenes of action, but they are spread throughout the film and there's only one scene of a battle that is a trope of the genre. I must mention how boring the characters are - not one feels at all interesting or complex. Also, many of the supporting characters just feel like genre clichés. There is something to say abut the pacing but I will address that later.

The cinematography is by Roger Deakins and he had the job of bringing about the film's most talked-about aspect, to present the action as a single continuous take. Thanks to his skill, and backed by quality editing, the continuous take succeeds and never breaks, not once. It's especially noticeable when characters walk around corners.

The score is by Thomas Newman and he's given us music that works in the context of each scene, whether it be an intense piece of music or something a bit more sombre.

The main issue I have with this film is as follows: the plot is very simple - get from A to B - and the characters have just under two hours to do so. Time is obviously meant to play an important part in this film but I feel there are one or two scenes where the characters stop and walk around random places just to pad out the running time. A film with this kind of premise should have better control over its pacing. So maybe it would have been ideal to trim some of the scenes down.

I know this film has gained the approval of many audiences and critics and won multiple awards -  and it may be up for several more. But apart from what was done with the film visually (the apparently continuous take), I fail to see where all this praise is coming from. Then again, this is not the first time I have had negative opinions about a film everyone else seemingly loves, and I have a feeling it certainly won't be the last!
C

Thank you for reading.  

Jojo Rabbit Review

Director Taika Waititi returns with his latest film JoJo Rabbit which is set in the late stages of World War II in Nazi Germany and is about an over-indoctrinated ten-year-old member of the Hitler Youth (Roman Griffin Davis). He finds his ideals challenged when he discovers that his single mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin Mackenzie) in their house. And JoJo has an imaginary friend, a comedic version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi himself)…

In supporting roles we have Sam Rockwell, Stephen Merchant, Rebel Wilson and Alfie Allen and others, some of whom give very promising performances. Griffin Davis especially feels credible in how much he undoubtedly believes and doesn't question the Nazi ideology; Merchant comes across as the most serious Nazi in the film, but still manages to be funny; Wilson has moments where she shows promise; Allen is overshadowed by the other actors; and Rockwell shows some comedic ability as a very out-there soldier.

In the end it does all come down to Waititi as Hitler, and he immerses himself completely in his role. He does go over the top, and it would very hard not to laugh, but here I think that might just be acceptable. You could call it egotistical of a director to cast himself in such an important role, but he does such a good job with it, it's hard to complain. Johannsson didn't really leave me with a lasting impression, and Mackenzie while good, just seemed to be there to throw out the occasional insult.

The script (by Waititi, and adapted from a novel called Caging Skies) seems to get through the essentials fairly well. The world is set up for the core events of the story and the main characters all feel distinctive. Where it truly stands out, though, is how well it balances absurd, fantasy humour, with a period in history that isn't something to laugh about. It manages to make its serious points without dragging down the generally light-hearted tone.

The cinematography, by Mihai Mălaimare Jr, is rather mixed for me; there are some shots in the film that give you a good long look at just how bizarre this film is. It's mostly done through the use of slow motion - I can think of one notable shot early on, and another that tries to combines the brutal nature of war with the film's style of comedy. It also has quite a striking colour palette, going from very bright at the start, gradually turning to grey as it reflects the changed viewpoint of the main character.

The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, and while I have nothing to say about that, I do have to mention the film's use of very familiar songs, but in their much-less familiar German language versions. The songs in question are the Beatles' I Want To Hold Your Hand and David Bowie's Heroes.You can hear them throughout the film, but the two occasions I can think of that stand out are at the beginning and end. These songs are well known all around the world, as are the artists, so I feel it is a good way to bookend the film, especially at the start as it helps to give a feel of what the next hour and forty eight minutes are going to be like.

The main flaw I found with the film was that it dragged a bit, especially in the first and second acts. There are scenes that seem to go for far too long and could do with being trimmed down, and while I could mostly deal with the film's style of comedy, one joke came out of nowhere and left me wondering what was supposed to be happening.

The conclusions I draw from this are that: JoJo Rabbit has good performances; a script that balances its unique humour while not forgetting what's happening in the background; some very notable shots in the cinematography that show an understanding of the film's tone; a use of colour I could an actually notice and admire; and intelligent use of popular songs translated into German. But it's flawed in moving along too slowly in places and one joke involving JoJo's absent father that I found mystifying.
For a film out in January, this is a promising start to the new year and new decade, and judging by what I have seen and read about future releases there is much more in the way of promising material to come.

B-

Thank you for reading.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker Review

J.J Abrams returns to finish what he started with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. In true finale fashion, this film sees Finn and Rey (John Boyega and Daisy Ridley) and what little remains of the resistance, prepare to fight The First Order and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), one last time.

In terms of cast, 'ensemble' feels a bit of an understatement. On one side (excluding those mentioned above) we have the likes of Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson and Richard E Grant. Then on the other side you have Antony Daniels as C-3PO, Joonas Suotamo taking over Chewbacca, Jimmy Vee as R2-D2 and Billy Dee Williams - and Carrie Fisher, whose presence in the film, despite obvious circumstances, never seems distracting. Let's also not forget the much-anticipated and advertised  return of Ian MacDiarmid as Emperor Palatine.

So what do they all bring to this film through their performances? Well, most just seem to settle for what worked before, they're likeable enough and you feel you can root for them. Most of them don't get that much screen time and perhaps their talents are being neglected. But I do think that Ridley and Driver work very well together and demonstrate their capabilities as dramatic actors with great credibility and potential. MacDiarmid, after 14 years of not playing the part, effortlessly falls back into the role. He may just be doing more of the same, but it worked back then, so why shouldn't it work now?

Moving on to the script by Abrams and Chris Terrio, it's everything you would expect from a climactic Star Wars film. There's plenty of action with lightsabre fights, lasers and spaceships, that are all tailored to feel very exciting and crowd-pleasing. But it does have problematic moments that can be found in some of the directions the characters go in, as they feel very sudden and not properly built up. Where the story chooses to pick up with some of these characters could have done with some more explaining, rather than just throwing us into the story with them in some random place with little or no information as to what happened before.

I have very little to say about Dan Mendel's cinematography, except for maybe some of the angles he tries out during any scenes involving flying spaceships, even if they come off as a cheap way to make the scene feel more exciting. A brief note on the effects by Industrial Light and Magic who provide nothing ground-breaking in the special effects but it's still decent work.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to know that the most memorable parts of the score by John Williams are when he plays his most iconic pieces of Star Wars music. It would be easy for me to look down on this and put it down to a lack of inspiration, but in this case I don't think I really expected anything more than what I got.

Moving on to the flaws of the film, there are two that this film cant seem to shake- it's very repetitive and it drags. Even with a two hour and twenty-two minute runtime, and constant action onscreen, the film has quite a number of scenes that go for far too long, and some scenes feel like exact re-treads of scenes from earlier in this film and the two films that preceded it. The dialogue between the characters does change slightly, but what the scene is trying to convey stays the same. We have so many repeats of particular scenes that by the time all is revealed, it's hard to care.

So The Rise Of Skywalker has brought the saga to an end with good if mixed results. There are good performances from Ridley and Driver, lots of action, but questionable directions taken with the characters lack of explanations. But the film is flawed in scenes dragging on for too long and being far too repetitive. This may not be the grand finale to a beloved saga that the world was hoping for, but it's very clear to see that with a little luck, Star Wars can still be saved and have a future.
C+
Thank you for reading.

Ford Vs Ferrari Review

Director James Mangold delves into the world of motor racing with Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans 66, depending on where you are in the world). This film is set in the 1960s and follows automotive engineer Carrol Shelby (Matt Damon) and British racing driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) as they work together to create a car that they hope will win against Ferrari in an upcoming race. But as they work they also have to deal with interference from the corporate side of things, the limitations of the laws of physics and their own personal demons if anything is to be accomplished.

Damon has a clear understanding of the kind of character he is supposed to be playing but despite the effort he brings to his role he seems rather one-note and fails to give the same level of performance he has brought to some of his other leading roles. In the supporting roles we have the likes of Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe and Tracy Letts who all play their parts well enough but are mostly as one-note as Damon, with Bernthal being the exception largely due to his distinctive voice.

Christian Bale seems to jump between two approaches to his part; on the one hand he brings his traditional immersion into the role which, for a while, appears to be working, complete with a strong English accent. At other times he goes for exaggeration, in a comedic or eccentric way, which makes it a little hard to take him seriously. But of course playing eccentrics has always been one of Bale's strengths.

The script comes to us from Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller, and they have taken the time to flesh out the core characters of the story, explore the drama going on in Miles's family, the friction going in the warring car companies and of course have fitted in a lot of racing too. But its strongest point is its characterisations of real people. Some of the characters are very easy to like and to root for, while others may seem at first to be be rather one sided, but on a closer look their viewpoints can be readily understood as well.

The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael lacks memorable shots but compensates for that with a pleasing aesthetic that can especially be seen in the racing sequences, possessing a feeling of authenticity and intensity.

As to the score (by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders) it's fairly forgettable but with the film being set in the 1960s it comes with a set of songs from that time, of which I Put A Spell On You stood out most for me.

There are two (related) defects with the film, firstly at two hours and thirty-two minutes it's simply too long. Ten to fifteen minutes could be trimmed without anything significant being lost. Also, the first act drags woefully as the main characters are introduced and the plot gets underway. These things have to be done but here they are executed painfully slowly.

Here is how I view Ford v Ferrari: it's got a competent but one-note performance from Matt Damon as well as several of the supporting cast; Christian Bale is good but uneven; a script that manages to balance a lot of ideas, but succeeds best with developing the characters; and a needlessly long running time and a very slow first act.

C

Thank you for reading.                                       

The Irishman Review

Martin Scorsese has made his first ever film for Netflix with The Irishman, where elderly mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) recounts the story of how he went from a man who delivered meat to a very well-respected member of the Mafia. The film also delves into his relationships with his family and his mafia associates, and how he and the Mafia played a small part in some key moments in history.

As well as De Niro this film does have quite a remarkable cast. We have other Scorsese regulars like Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, and also the likes of Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and in a rather unexpected turn to dramatic acting, Ray Romano. Most of these performances are passable enough - De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino manage to be charismatic and worthy of attention, but there is a constant feeling that they may just be looking to the usual movie gangster personas that they have made for themselves over the years. De Niro and Pacino in particular work quite well when it's just the two of them, with a really believable chemistry together. And despite their having been in a film together before, it's hard not to be at least half-interested in seeing these two greats act alongside each other again, which really helps given how the rest of the film is.

The script by Steve Zallian, adapted from a book called I Heard You Paint Houses, has a lot of material to get through. It's surprisingly dialogue-heavy and feels quite minimal in terms of violence, perhaps surprising given the kind of films Scorsese usually makes, especially his Mafia ones. It's maybe a bit odd why there's a sudden change of pace in an area where you would expect him to feel very much at home. Instead this film puts a greater emphasis on the characters, so that they can appear to us as fully fleshed-out human beings. This works in the film's favour, especially with some of the Mafia members as, instead of just seeing them as one-dimensional psychopaths,we see them as characters who one minute can be spending quality time with friends and family, then be off to blow up a building the next. While Scorsese may have gone minimal with the violence, I'm sure it will please someone somewhere to know the same hasn't happened with the film's liberal use of profanity - there's a lot of it.

I don't think I have much to say about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, except at the very start when my eyes briefly caught sight of what looked like very impressive camera work as it steadily went through a hallway taking us to the main character, and then the story could begin. Let's talk about the use of de-ageing for this film. This process has certainly been one of trial and error this year and with this film it's no different. De Niro is the one who has definitely come out best, since no matter what decade the scene is set in, he looks exactly like he actually did in that decade. But with some of the others the effort is there, but they just look like average young men.

The score is composed by Robbie Robertson, once of The Band. It tends to fade into the background compared to the more memorable songs that play throughout many scenes, mainly to enhance the setting of said scene. One or two of those songs stick in the mind but hardly any of the original score.

So far I have found some things in this film to praise, but like all films it's not without flaws. Starting with the one that people seem to be unanimous about, this film is simply too long. Three hours and twenty-seven minutes is way too long and even though this is counting the credits, without them the film is still close to three hours seventeen. And yes, I know that another film that was just over three hours long and is now the highest grossing of all time (Avengers: Endgame) did get a mainstream release back in April this year - but the difference is that film had enough to sustain its running time but I don't believe this one does.

Another flaw this film has is that most of the time it feels rather boring due to many scenes becoming very talky and dragging on for far too long. And when something slightly exciting does eventually happen, it's short-lived and soon back to boring conversations again.

The Irishman gives us good, if at times uninspired, performances from De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and the chemistry between the first two does manage to enhance their performances. We have a script that's very dialogue-heavy and minimal on violence, but chooses mainly to flesh out as characters so that they seem more like people. There is also some impressive work on the de-ageing process, especially on De Niro, and a score that is completely overshadowed by a selection of familiar hit songs from different decades. Finally the film is fatally flawed by its inordinate length, and with far too little going on to justify its  runtime.
C-

Thank you for reading.