PAN – IN DEFENSE OF

A “wonderful” Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard, leading Peter (Levi Miller) and Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara) forward.

DIRECTOR: Joe Wright

CAST: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara

CERT: PG

RUNTIME: 111 mins

It looks like Joe Wright’s latest offering has been royally panned. The Atonement and Hanna director’s spin on J. M. Barrie’s beloved creation has been savaged by critics (especially Stateside) and died at the box office. For this viewer, its limp performance in both categories has been almost painful to watch. Why? Because I genuinely loved Pan and have regularly thought about it with fondness ever since I attended an advance screening a month ago. However, despite how strongly I’ve embraced the film, it’s easy to see why most haven’t.  Pan is an anomaly in modern family-friendly cinema.

Numerous viewers have described the picture as “uncomfortable”, “creepy” and even “thoroughly unpleasant”. While I wouldn’t condone such statements, I can entirely understand where they’re coming from, because there is a distinct air of menace and danger to Pan, which is noticeably absent from so many children’s films, as of late. It was no surprise to learn that it was significantly toned-down prior to release. Yet, this is easily one of the movie’s strongest aspects, as it allows Wright and screenwriter Jason Fuchs to be bold with their artistic choices throughout. Hugh Jackman’s wonderful take on Blackbeard is where much of the darkness generates, from his unsettling facial rejuvenation mask to his almost bleak conversation with Peter about death to his introductory scene where he murders a child slave. He is simultaneously a tragic and unnerving character, having a deep, intimidating talk with Peter one moment and then offering him a sweetie the next. Blackbeard also acts as the perfect antagonist to Peter, as he desperately attempts to avoid death, while the latter will remain forever young. Some may contend that elements like these are too dark for a family film, but this darkness is what makes it stand out and subsequently, shine.

The man behind the curtain – Blackbeard unsettles Peter.

While Pan is darker than expected, it is also considerably weirder than anyone could have foreseen. The madcap sequence in which the orphaned children are abducted from their beds is like Roald Dahl filtered through the zany eyes of Terry Gilliam. Moreover, the scene where Peter and the other captured boys arrive at Neverland looks like what might have happened had Baz Luhrmann directed Mad Max: Fury Road. We see countless pirates and slaves (some painted like Fury Road’s ‘war boys’) bellowing Nirvana’s ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’, just before Jackman jumps into view, just in time for the chorus. A few minutes later, Blackbeard orders them all to work, to the sounds of ‘Blitzkrieg Bop’ by The Ramones. There is also a moment where Peter floats into space and spins Saturn around using his hand. Oh, and if you ever wanted to see Garrett Hedlund fighting on a trampoline, here you go. Having seen everything from Hausu to La Planète Sauvage, I relish the moments when I see a film that makes me think, ‘Wow, that’s insane!’ Pan provided this in spades. Nonetheless, it’s entirely understandable why bonkers touches like the aforementioned would frustrate or even annoy audiences. Most people don’t enjoy films that are bonkers, because it challenges them and who wants to be challenged, especially by some silly ‘ol kids’ movie?

He’s behind you – Hook (Garrett Hedlund), Peter and Smee (Adeel Akhtar) look on.

Putting aside the outlined eccentricities of Pan, I also enjoyed it as a brisk, thoroughly entertaining romp, with some terrific setpieces (the WWII dogfight with the pirate ship being a highlight) and lovely little touches, such as Peter’s dyslexia. John Powell’s score is suitably stirring and favourably reminiscent of his outstanding work on both How to Train Your Dragon films. Levi Miller makes for an engaging lead as Peter, while Rooney Mara is magnetic as always, even if this iteration of Tiger Lily is relatively unremarkable. Her scenes with Garrett Hedlund bore an uncanny resemblance to the Han and Leia flirtatious scenes from The Empire Strikes Back. This actually worked quite well in the context of the film, with their intentional cheesiness meshed quite well with the old-fashioned approach. On the other hand, Hedlund’s performance is a real curiosity, albeit an utterly delightful one. Imagine Armie Hammer doing an impression of Indiana Jones doing an impression of Jack Nicholson. It may sound baffling, but it works. As for Jackman, he is wonderful, managing to be a full-on ham and a quietly unsettling menace. There is surprising depth to his character, as he’s essentially a panto showman in public and a depressed introvert in part – his life is significantly less glamorous behind the curtain. However, when he dials it up to eleven, Jackman chews the scenery in boulder-sized chunks, clearly relishing every second of it.

It’s far from perfect though. Some of the CGI is atrocious, the plot occasionally feels quite rushed, the cinematography has moments of ugliness and the denouement is somewhat anticlimactic. Also, the second half never quite recaptures the buoyancy of the first. The very brief addition of a silent Cara Delevingne as multiple mermaids is distracting; the role could easily have been ‘played’ by anyone else. Yet, even with its noticeable flaws, I can’t deny how much I liked it. It’s a bizarre, twisted and fresh interpretation of a property that has been mined for decades. Pan possesses a distinctly old-fashioned sensibility and never makes any effort to be ‘cool’. In many ways, this makes it a peculiar case when placed alongside recent family fare, like Hotel Translyvania 2. This isn’t a film for everyone, (in fact, I’m not even sure who it’s actually aimed at), it is an oddity that probaby shouldn’t exist, but I’m glad it does.

Interstellar – RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

A career-best Matthew McConaughey as Cooper, waking up after dreaming of his aerial crash.

NOTE: This review contains MAJOR SPOILERS

Expectations can be a troublesome thing. If a filmmaker, such as Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese, consistently releases terrific features, their next film will have to satisfy increasingly lofty expectations. Another director similar to the aforementioned greats is Christopher Nolan, whose most recent work Interstellar was arguably the most widely-anticipated of his career. Considering that it was arriving after his phenomenally successful The Dark Knight Trilogy had concluded, it’s no surprise that so many were feverishly anticipating its release. A string of trailers further raised excitement, as the thought of Nolan venturing into the stars was a tantalising one indeed. Thus, expectations were naturally quite high. However, everything didn’t pan out as all had predicted (or hoped). In only a few days after its release, Interstellar had established itself as Nolan’s most polarising work. Some declared the film as a “masterpiece”, others believed that it was “flawed but enjoyable”, while some argued that it was “Nolan’s worst film”. Personally, I fall in line with the first and consider it to be Nolan’s greatest work, even though on my initial viewing I would have aligned myself with the second opinion. Nonetheless, it is rather easy to see why Interstellar is the most divisive film of Nolan’s career; the marketing and the expectations it raised had a lot to do with this.

Interstellar is not the film it was marketed as or the film many expected/wanted it to be. The promotional material, ranging from the posters to the trailers, presented the movie as tale of human exploration. In particular, the teaser trailer was mishandled as it featured Matthew McConaughey’s Cooper narrating stock footage showcasing the technological progress of the human race. remarking that “We’re still pioneers”, and how “Our destiny lies above us.” Being the first footage released, it misdirected those who saw it, causing them to believe that Interstellar is primarily concerned with human endeavour and mankind finding a home among the stars. Frequent comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey, especially from Nolan himself, were also misleading, as Interstellar possesses very little similarities with Kubrick’s masterwork, most of which exist on a superficial level. After its release, some viewers believed the film to be a half-baked disappointment that fails to explore its concepts about human exploration, dropping them in favour of mushy sentimentality. Yet, they are wrong, because Interstellar is not a science fiction movie at its core; it is a love story. This is perfectly evidenced by the fact that prior to production, Nolan handed composer Hans Zimmer a single sheet describing his next feature. That page described a love between a father and child and never referred to science fiction elements. Subsequently, this is Nolan’s most sentimental film, throbbing with a human heart from start to finish. Around the midpoint, Dr. Amelia Brand (an excellent Anne Hathaway) delivers a speech that perfectly encapsulates what this film is truly about,

“Love isn’t something that we invented. It’s observable. Powerful. It has to mean something… Love is the one thing that we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t understand it.”

Cooper with his young daughter Murph, as played by the “luminous” Mackenzie Foy.

Interstellar is a film about love, specifically the love between a father and daughter. The relationship between Cooper and Murph (played by Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn) is beautifully realised and deeply touching. I particularly love the moment where an emotional Cooper is leaving home to embark on the expedition and he lifts up the blanket on the passenger seat to see if Murph has sneaked into his truck like she did earlier. His reaction when he discovers that she isn’t there is subtle and heartbreaking. While only a brief touch, it adds so much and further emphasises the love he has for his child. Moreover, this tangible bond grounds the movie even during its most fantastical moments, especially the climactic sequence in the tesseract, which could have seemed ridiculous but, doesn’t thanks to the strong undercurrent of humanity and genuine emotion. It also results in a number of tear-jerking scenes, a considerable rarity in the work of Nolan. The moments that really had me welling up were Cooper’s goodbye to Murph at the farm, a shaken Cooper watching 23 years worth of messages and Cooper’s final encounter with his now-elderly daughter. Strong performances greatly aid the relationship and such emotional sequences. Foy is luminous as the young Murph, superbly combining innocence with a sense of intelligence beyond her years. Chastain is similarly excellent, strong-willed and independent, while also utterly convincing in conveying her character’s development from resenting to eventually loving her father. Burstyn is reliably watchable and rather effective, despite only appearing in a single scene during the epilogue. McConaughey, on the other hand, has never been better. A fantastic protagonist, he is flawed, magnetic, fascinating and most importantly, relatable. McConaughey is wholly believable as a loving father and plays a significant role in the effectiveness of the more sentimental moments.

The supporting cast are also fantastic. Like McConaughey, Hathaway is at her finest here. Starting off quite unlikeable and icy, Brand develops into a more emotional character and becomes Cooper’s friend, which Hathaway sells with the utmost conviction. Michael Caine is perfectly adequate as Brand’s father, imbuing proceedings with a sense of gravitas. As Cooper’s benevolent father-in-law Donald, John Lithgow is an understated delight, reaffirming his status as one of the most criminally underrated actors around. Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley and David Gyasi are all solid, as Cooper’s adult son Tom and fellow astronauts Doyle and Romily, respectively. All of the characters feel real, as if they existed long before the film began. One of the most surprising is the monolith-esque robot TARS. So many cinematic robots are humanlike in design, thus it’s refreshing to see a robot primarily designed in a practical fashion. Furthermore, it’s a credit to Bill Irwin’s fantastic voice-work that TARS is such an engaging and memorable character who I came to care for. One cast member shrouded in much secrecy prior to the film’s release was Matt Damon as Dr. Mann. Excellent in the role, he convincingly conveys his unstable mental state with nuance. His attempts to lie to Cooper and the crew become clear on repeat viewings, showcasing the layers to Damon’s performance. It’s nice to see Damon try his hand at playing such a selfish, cowardly and tragic figure. Additionally, while some viewers felt that Damon was distracting, it’s possible that they mightn’t have had the character been played by a lesser-known actor.

The breathtaking docking sequence.

Interstellar is also a remarkable technical achievement for Nolan. Once again, his dedication to practical effects works wonders and adds a powerful sense of physicality to proceedings. For the heart-pounding sequence on Miller’s planet, Nolan had the spacecraft land on the water with the actors stepping out of it in costume. An approach like that will always be more impressive than the greatest CGI backdrop. The use of miniatures during the space scenes helps to make them more believable and favourably recalls the methods used in Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey. The setpieces are the greatest Nolan has ever delivered, from the aforementioned water planet scene to Cooper blasting off into space. However, the ten-minute sequence consisting of Dr. Mann’s unsuccessful attempt to dock on space station the Endurance and Cooper’s subsequent, successful docking is one of the most breathtaking setpieces ever committed to celluloid. Interstellar is also notable for being the smoothest that Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have incorporated exposition. Even superb films like Inception and The Dark Knight Rises featured moments that simply felt like exposition dumps. While this film does indeed contain scenes that verge on this, they manage to work. Though, it is questionable why a team of elite scientists would need to discuss concepts such as relativity with each other, when in reality, they would already be quite familiar with them. However, given that the majority of viewers would have no experience with such concepts, this is easily forgivable.

Nolan once again works brilliantly with his collaborators, resulting in Interstellar being his best looking and sounding film to date. Despite the absence of long-time collaborator Wally Pfister, the cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema is incredible and Malickian in its beauty.  From a quiet moment of Cooper and Donald sitting on the porch to the expanse of the ice planet, the visuals are consistently breathtaking. The use of 35mm and 70mm film imbues the cinematography with a richness and tangibility. The CGI, though sparingly used, is so great that it’s invisible, particularly in the jawdropping entrance into wormhole. Zimmer’s score is not only the greatest he has applied to a Nolan film, but the greatest of his entire career.  Clearly taking influence from Philip Glass’ hypnotic score to Koyaanisqatsi (one of my all-time favourites), Zimmer’s work here is remarkable and quite unlike anything else currently in mainstream cinema, centring on an extraordinarily powerful pipe organ. Combined with the visuals, the score really helps to make Interstellar an ‘experience’ that is magical to behold on the biggest screen possible.

Anne Hathaway as Dr. Amelia Brand.

However, as brilliant as this film is, it’s not flawless. There is considerable suspension of disbelief throughout, particularly during the third act – Cooper’s floating body being located just in time, TARS getting a signal through to Cooper in the tesseract and Murph’s realisation that Cooper is her ‘ghost’. Moreover, it is questionable why humans would colonise a habit orbiting a black hole. Murph’s ecstatic cry of “Eureka!” after her climactic revelation is a rather clunky moment. 15 minutes in, there is cutback to one of the interviews from the start that jars greatly. Also, it would have been nice to see the film conclude on a more thought-provoking final shot, in the way that Inception or The Dark Knight Rises did, instead of showing Brand looking onwards. The epilogue is arguably unnecessary, because the story essentially concludes with Cooper successfully getting his message through to Murph. Yet, Cooper and Murph’s last scene is so poignant and moving that the problems of the final few minutes are easily forgivable. In fact, none of the film’s flaws detract from the overall experience and actually become easier to overlook on repeat viewings.

Interstellar has stayed with like few films ever have, lingering in my mind on a daily basis months after first seeing it. It reminded me why I go the cinema and reaffirmed my love of the art form. Hugely rewarding repeat viewings, it gets better every time I see it. Despite its lengthy 169-minute runtime, it never drags and is always engrossing. Refreshingly earnest and crafted with love, there isn’t a hint of cynicism to be found here. So many technically impeccable films are emotionally cold, whether it be much of Kubrick’s work or even Inception; but not Interstellar. Rich with emotion and sincerity, it combines the technical sophistication of Kubrick with the effective sentimentality of Spielberg. This is the greatest achievement of Nolan’s career and as far as I’m concerned, one of the greatest films of the decade thus far.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 – FILM REVIEW

Jennifer Lawrence, “a commanding presence” as the no-nonsense Katniss Everdeen.

Splitting a book into multiple films seems to have become an increasingly common trend in Hollywood as of late. The final instalments of both the Harry Potter and the Twilight series were adapted into two movies; one successfully and one unsuccessfully. Divergent’s closer Allegiant will also be released in two chapters. Most controversial was Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s relatively slender ‘The Hobbit’, which stretched the text into a trilogy, to mixed results. This is indeed a questionable process, because while lengthier books artistically justify it, others simply appear to be an attempt to maximise box office returns. In fact, the only wholly satisfactory example of these is the aforementioned Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. However, those films’ crown looks to be seriously challenged if the quality of Mockingjay Part 1 is anything to go bye.

Having survived the 75th Annual Hunger Games and shattered the tournament forever, our reluctant heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, great as always) finds herself deep inside the bunkered catacombs of District 13. Her home District 12 has been laid to waste by the Capitol and a revolution has begun. Unfortunately, Katniss’ closest ally, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), has been seized by her enemies, causing to be racked with worry as she fears for his safety. Thus, she agrees with President Coin (Julianne Moore) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to become the symbolic leader of the rebellion – the ‘Mockingjay’.

Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark, arguably delivering his strongest work in the series thus far.

Above all else, Mockingjay Part 1 is a decidedly different beast to its predecessors. It successfully departs from the first two chapters’ focus on the eponymous games and emerges as a dystopian political drama, replete with compelling manoeuvres orchestrated like pieces on a chessboard. Aside from a pulse-pounding bombing setpiece and an outstanding sequence set to Jennifer Lawrence’s beautiful rendition of ‘The Hanging Tree’, there is little action to be found here. Most of the thrills are delivered in a comparatively quieter and subtler manner. A subplot sees Katniss collaborate with a team of filmmakers led by the tattooed Cressida (Game of Thrones’ Natalie Dormer) and shoot numerous propaganda videos. This offers interesting satire of propaganda, particularly through how the media manipulate the truth and world events. Dressed in black combat gear, Katniss is instructed to do her best flag-waving impression and is assured that, “Everyone is going to want to kiss, kill you, or be you.” It’s incredibly encouraging to see a teen-targeted, PG-13 blockbuster explore how propaganda can be used to politically stir a conflict. It also incorporates elements from war movies, through the sight of environments destroyed to rubble, strategic bombings and the impressively grim tone.

This is also a slower-paced affair than The Hunger Games or Catching Fire. As the stage is set for a cataclysmic conflict, director Francis Lawrence moves at a leisurely speed in a manner that greatly benefits the film. Taking a more personal approach, the characters are allowed greater room to breathe, with Plutarch Heavensbee leaving an even stronger impression than he did in Catching Fire, while second love interest Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) is given significantly more screentime than ever before. Hemsworth may not be the greatest actor in the world, but this instalment allows us to become properly acquainted with him as a character. The longer time spent on character development helps to boost the emotional with greater weight.

Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and President Coin (Julianne Moore) look on.

Moreover, the cast are reliably superb, from an understated Hoffman to a deliciously villainous Donald Sutherland as chief antagonist President Snow, both of whom bring gravitas. The increasingly good duo of Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson are similarly excellent, imbuing the film with a sense of levity and wit, despite only appearing fleetingly. Also given little screentime is Hutcherson, but he excels in his role more than ever, delivering his most nuanced performance yet during his various television appearances. Unfortunately Moore, usually a formidable talent, is given relatively little to do and fails to leave a lasting mark. Though, at the film’s centre, it is Jennifer Lawrence who burns the brightest, continuing to impress as she improves with each chapter. A commanding presence, she effortlessly conveys the various complexities of her character and possesses a grounded quality that ensures she remains an empathic protagonist. It’s utterly believable that people would rally behind Katniss and so easy to see why Lawrence has become a huge star so fast.

Mockingjay Part 1 could have easily been a place-holder for events to come, akin to the penultimate episode of a television series. Fortunately, it is so much more. Intelligently written and well-crafted, it takes the franchise in an interesting direction. It is quieter and subtler than its predecessors, but absorbs just as firmly, simmering with underlying tension and featuring fascinating character development. Amazingly, it maintains an impressive level of unpredictability during its nail-biting closing scenes. As it expertly sets up what should be a riveting climax it becomes favourably reminiscent of the first half of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. This film cements The Hunger Games status as one of the greatest movie series to grace cinema screens in recent years.  Mockingjay Part 2 cannot arrive soon enough.

Shaun the Sheep: The Movie – FILM REVIEW

Shaun, Bitzer and their new companion race off in the heat of adventure.

Cinematic spinoffs of TV shows are rarely successful. Most adopt the enervated formula whereby our protagonists leave their familiar environment and head off on their biggest adventure yet, often abandoning man supporting players in the process. Just look at everything from The Simpsons Movie to The Spongebob Squarepants Movie , both of which were huge disappointments. However, if anyone can be relied upon to deliver a superior spinoff, it’s Aardman. Their most popular creation, Wallace and Gromit, moved to the silver screen in 2005 with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, a film that was a resounding success. Now, another of their television staples is venturing into cinemas – Shaun the Sheep. The result meets and surpasses expectations.

Finding himself in a mischievous mood, Shaun decides to take a day off from his cyclical farm life. Unfortunately, he ends up getting a lot more than he bargained for. A mishap involving the Farmer leads Shaun, Bitzer the dog and the flock to ‘The Big City’ in order to rescue their owner and evade the nefarious animal containment officer fiercely determined to place them behind bars.

The animal containment officer, “a formidable villain”.

There was slight trepidation surrounding a big screen iteration of Shaun the Sheep. Unlike Wallace and Gromit, the TV series was dialogue-free and packaged in easily digestible ten-minute chunks. Thus, stretching such a programme to feature-length was a somewhat risky task. Thankfully, it’s one that has paid off dividends. The utter lack of dialogue doesn’t harm the film in any capacity. Everything is perfectly conveyed solely through visuals and the characters are so loveable that every viewer will quickly forget that they are watching a modern silent movie.

Like so many silent greats, this movie is bursting with comedic gold, ranging from broad slapstick to witty visual gags to quintessentially British humour. Moreover, it is replete with many jokes that will delight adults and children simultaneously. The moment involving a disguised Bitzer being mistaken for a surgeon and brought in to carry out an operation was a cracking highlight.

This film is “wonderful from start to finish.”

Despite following the standard TV movie spinoff route of ‘let’s leave home and go on a grand adventure’, Shaun the Sheep: The Movie is wonderful from start to finish. The terrific character dynamic from the show is never lost, as all the heroes are present for the majority of the film. Additionally, the aforementioned animal containment officer proves to be a formidable villain, visually reminiscent of Wayne Knight’s Al McWhiggin from Toy Story 2 and musically signalled with a theme song akin to ZZ Top’s ‘Sharp Dressed Man’.

Brimming with heart and warmth, this lovely film contains numerous moments that may have you reaching for the nearest Kleenex. Once again, Aardman have expertly combined sophistication with innocence and simplicity, delivering a film perfect for everyone. Beautifully crafted, its animators’ thumbprints are tangible; as is the affection clearly poured into every shot. Above all else, it should further cement Aardman’s status as one of the greatest animation studios ever.

My Life Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn – FILM REVIEW

A “blossoming bromance”. Nicolas Winding Refn and Ryan Gosling during filming of ‘Only God Forgives’.

It’s difficult to deny the comparisons between My Life Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn and Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse. Both centre on a director (the eponymous Dane in the former and Francis Ford Coppola in the latter) struggling to follow-up their most successful work (Drive and The Godfather Part II, respectively) with a less accessible movie filmed in an Asian country under stressful circumstances. Moreover, both are directed by each filmmaker’s spouse – Liv Corfixen and Eleanor Coppola. However, by the time its end credits roll, My Life emerges as a rather different film to Hearts of Darkness.

My Life recounts polarising filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn’s attempt to succeed his most celebrated work, Drive, with his arguably most abstract, Only God Forgives. The documentary follows him throughout the film’s entire production and to its world premiere at Cannes.

An anxious Refn is comforted by wife Liv Corfixen, on the way to the Cannes premiere of ‘Only God Forgives’.

Given priceless access into Refn’s life, Corfixen paints a candid and personal portrait of her husband in the midst of film production. Fortunately, she doesn’t idealise her Refn, being unafraid to include moments where her patience is clearly being tested by him, as he wallows in depression and grapples with stress. It is commendable that she also featured scenes where Refn expresses his lack of faith in Only God Forgives and begins to doubt his ability as a filmmaker.

Refn himself proves to an erratic figure, once mourning that, “I’ve spent three years making this film and I don’t even know what it’s about.” Yet, later he proudly declares that, “It would be boring if we all just made safe films.” Simultaneously, he also appears to be a quiet and contemplative, in stark contrast to the pretentious ‘artist’ he often comes across as in interviews. It is evident that he is wrestling with expectations, frequently comparing Only God Forgives to Drive, lamenting that, “I’m now the guy who made Drive”, and, “It won’t be as commercial as Drive.” The climactic moments offer a fleeting, but fascinating glimpse into Refn’s anxiousness during the film’s Cannes premiere and his deflated reaction to the largely abysmal reviews.

“Sex is like violence!” Refn declares to an amused Gosling.

Occasionally appearing in the documentary is Refn’s recent muse, Ryan Gosling. Corfixen delivers an interesting peek into the blossoming bromance between this actor and director, with the former’s teasing of the latter being a highlight. In a humorous moment, Refn earnestly attempts to illustrate the comparisons between sex and violence, while an amused Gosling turns to the camera with a wry grin and remarks “Did you get that?”. Cult surrealist filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky also shows up, reading Refn’s fortune using tarot cards prior to production and appearing at the debut screening.

Above all else, My Life has given me newfound respect for a film I already adore. With his often-miserable state, this documentary is unlikely to garner Refn a new legion of fans, but for this viewer, it provided a compelling insight into the filmmaking process and an unpredictable director.

It Follows – FILM REVIEW

The brilliant Maika Monroe as Jay with Jake Weary’s Hugh, as she discovers her supernatural fate.

A sexually-transmitted monster. An original and interesting premise, it is the one at the centre of David Robert Mitchell’s sophomore feature It Follows. Set in a timeless suburban Detroit, where mobile phones and laptops are notably absent, the film centres on high school senior Jay (the indelible Maika Monroe, recently seen in The Guest), living a pleasant life, unwinding with friends and going on dates with new boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary). One seemingly innocent night, Hugh and Jay share their first sexual encounter, where the aforementioned curse is transferred to our heroine. Hugh informs her that the sole way to rid herself of it is to sleep with somebody else, further passing it on. If she doesn’t, ‘it’ will follow her until it kills her. However, if the person she transmits it to is killed, the creature will revert back to her.

One problem consistent in the majority of teen horror movies is the presence of caricatures instead of characters. So many works in this sub-genre forgo imbuing its heroes with depth and simply focus on exhausted archetypes – the jock, the cheerleader, the geek, etc. Mitchell takes a different and significantly more satisfying approach. Perfectly capturing teen interactions, he crafts a cast of utterly believable characters, each of whom is relatable in their own way. At the heart of them is Monroe, delivering an empathic and beautifully human performance. She anchors the film, subsequently creating a tangibly emotional core that injects the horror with considerably more heft than it may have had otherwise. Additionally, unlike so much teen horror, which chastises and sadistically torments its characters, It Follows never judges its protagonists. Above all else, the scares work so well because Mitchell makes the viewer care.

Jay in a tense moment with her sister Kelly (Lili Sepe).

Furthermore, Mitchell emerges as one of the most compelling horror filmmakers around. He incorporates elements uncommon to the genre – slow, measured shots and unhurried editing – while also proving himself to be an absolute master at delivering genuinely scary jolts and imaginative distractions. Combining the conventional with the unconventional, Mitchell has moulded a film that is truly original and terrifying. From its startling, panic-inducing opening, a sense of lingering dread persists through every frame of It Follows. Mike Gioulakis’ excellent, widescreen cinematography often pauses on shots, provoking the viewer to scour the background in search of the constantly approaching terror. This proves to be a brilliantly effective technique. Moreover, the eponymous creature is deliberately ambiguous, unexplained and all the more disturbing for it. Its various appearances will have the viewer paralysed, gripping the armrests of their cinema seats and shrieking with fright.

There is depth and texture beneath the scares. Unlike so many horror films where adolescents are scorned for sexual encounters, Mitchell showcases a more nuanced attitude towards teen sexuality, as the creeping menace is never used to insinuate that girls should be punished for promiscuity. Likewise, there is an interesting dichotomy between sex and death, specifically through how the former is used to mentally stave off the inevitability of the latter.

It Follows almost takes place in a world of its own. As previously stated, modern technology doesn’t make an appearance, aside from a cute, seashell-shaped Kindle, while black-and-white movies from the ‘40s and ‘50s seem to be the preferred viewing choice. Televisions consist of vintage sets solely controlled by two dials. The unspectacular suburbia is made up of attractive detached homes and expansive avenues where a feeling of emptiness pervades. There is no Spielbergian sentimentality to be found in these suburbs. The ruins of Detroit cast a shadow in the background like hollow, ghostly figures. So too are the characters’ parents, largely absent and leaving their offspring to lead laidback lives in a fashion reminiscent of Larry Clark.

Dreamlike and nightmarish in equal measure, ‘It Follows’ is a mesmerising concoction.

Accompanying proceedings is Disasterpeace’s incredible synth score, taking influence from John Carpenter’s iconic work, while also establishing a distinctly individual voice. It is certainly one of the most fascinating pieces of modern film music, easily rivalling the likes of Mica Levi’s extraordinary scoring on Under the Skin. It helps Mitchell in crafting a dreamlike atmosphere that induces many scenes with a mesmerising, hypnotic effect.

Mitchell interestingly plays with familiar genre tropes, but never winks at the audience, unlike self-aware satires like Scream and The Cabin in the Woods. Instead, he adopts a refreshingly earnest approach, caring for and respecting his protagonists. Moreover, this is clearly a film crafted with love; something you can’t say for the majority of modern horror. A slow burner, it takes the time to develop its characters, causing the viewer to empathise with them, making the scary moments gripping and suspenseful. Like its central creature, this movie will prove impossible to shake off and haunt your waking hours. In fact, it is impossible to imagine a scarier film being released this year. I cannot recall the last time I felt so terrified in a cinema, often struggling to catch my breath during the nightmarish appearances of the titular menace. Superbly crafted, masterfully performed and remarkably frightening, It Follows is a masterpiece.

Palo Alto – FILM REVIEW

A career best and “luminous” Emma Roberts as shy high school senior April.

Teenagers are often handled poorly in cinema. Whether they’re portrayed as annoyingly clever for their age, smart-mouthed rebels or insufferably introspective, it is rare to see this age group accurately depicted onscreen. However, based on polymath James Franco’s (who also stars) short story collection of the same name, Gia Coppola’s directorial debut Palo Alto offers a compassionate and crucially, honest look into the lives of complex and confused teens.

The film centres on a pair clearly interested in each other, but struggling to overcome the drama and complications that are keeping them apart. April (Emma Roberts, more gangly and awkward than ever) is a shy and sensitive high school senior caught up in the normal teen dilemmas (school, romance, her future, etc). Teddy (Jack Kilmer) is pensive, artistic and just as conflicted as the girl he desires.

April shares an intimate moment with the introspective Teddy (Jack Kilmer).

As far as story goes, that’s about it. Coppola abandons a conventional or rigid narrative structure, instead opting for a more poetic flow to proceedings. This considerable lack of a plot doesn’t harm the film in any capacity, if anything it enhances it and it quickly emerges as an experience you should simply allow to wash over you. What helps to engage so strongly are the textured characters. Instead of delivering some weighty statement, Coppola concerns her with the inherent frailty and vulnerability in her characters. Moreover, the director doesn’t condescend them by wagging a finger at them for the foolish mistakes that are an intrinsic part of youth. Conversely, she handles them affectionately, helping to craft a tangibly emotional core.

The superb cast greatly help too. Roberts is luminous, delivering the strongest performance of her career thus far and arising as the film’s most captivating performer. Her scenes with soccer coach Mr. B (Franco, charismatic, but sleazy) are some of the best, as she capably holds her own against this experienced player. Baby-faced newcomer Kilmer (whose father Val has a fun, pot-smoking cameo) proves to be a hugely impressive and ever-engaging screen presence. His terrific work here certainly signals him as a talent to watch. As Teddy’s jittery, unpredictable best friend Fred, Nat Wolff (recently seen in the pleasant The Fault in Our Stars) constantly ticks with a nervous energy that makes him an attractive figure onscreen and an effective contrast to Teddy’s introspection.

‘Palo Alto’ is raw, affecting fiilmmaking.

Coppola may not offer any startling, profound insights into teen life, but Palo Alto is refreshingly raw and truthful in its portrayal of adolescents. She beautifully captures the nuances present in teenage interaction and relationships in a wholly naturalistic manner. Furthermore, Autum Durald’s understated, but resplendent cinematography and Devonté Hynes’ dreamy score (he also contributes to the soundtrack, in the form of Blood Orange’s sultry and sublime ‘Champagne Coast’) both complement the film’s drifty, dreamlike atmosphere to great effect.

Overall, the film is a rather promising directorial debut. Over the course of its concise runtime, Coppola establishes a style of her own, distinct from aunt Sofia or grandfather Francis. With her subtle, talented direction, Coppola has a delivered an affecting portrait of youths caught in the twilight period between the directionless times of adolescence and the unspectacular lives of adults.

Honeymoon – FILM REVIEW

“Superb” and “utterly convincing”, Harry Treadaway as Paul and Rose Leslie as Bea.

So much horror today is so stale. In recent years, mainstream horror has primarily consisted of movies that solely rely on cheap jolts or icky gore to frighten viewers. Akin to amusement park attractions, such films may prove effective in the moment (not for this viewer, mind you), but they don’t linger in the memory at all. Most of these movies are empty, lacking characters for us to latch onto – just look at recent offerings like Annabelle and Ouija, or the seemingly never-ending Para-snore-mal Activity franchise. Last October, Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook felt like a breath of fresh air and so too does Leigh Janiak’s first feature, Honeymoon.

The film centres on a pair of newlyweds, Bea (Rose Leslie, terrific) and Paul (Harry Treadaway, excellent). For their honeymoon they decide to spend their time in a rustic cabin nestled in a secluded forest. All seems to going well, that is, until Paul discovers a disoriented Bea sleepwalking through the woods and a series of decidedly strange events are set in motion.

‘Honeymoon’ is creepy and intelligent.

For a micro-budgeted directorial debut, Honeymoon is seriously promising. Janiak handles the film’s genre transition with the confidence of an experienced veteran. Over the course of its efficient runtime, the movie gradually morphs from a dreamy romance to an unpredictable and deeply unnerving chiller, in a wholly successful manner. Refreshingly eschewing any cheap scare tactics, Janiak crafts a decidedly creepy atmosphere that is maintained from the aforementioned moment Bea wanders into the woods. This air of unsettlement lingers effectively like a cold hand on the back of the neck. It’s evident that this is a filmmaker who understands that there is greater fear in anticipation and implication than brash shock and terror.

As the central couple, Leslie and Treadaway are superb. Both have been rather impressive in the past; the former in Game of Thrones and the latter in Fish Tank. Here, they are utterly convincing as married lovers, replete with naturalistic idiosyncrasies and nuances. They are so believable together that it feels as though you are watching actual couple. Moreover, they both convey the increasing distance between them brilliantly, as tension and paranoia begin to seep in.

Honeymoon may not be for everyone. Distinctly a slow-burner, it frightens with subtlety and a creeping sense of dread, instead of shoving scares in the audience’s face. It also builds to a strikingly weird and uncompromisingly enigmatic ending that proves hugely efficacious in amplifying the creepiness. Essentially a two-hander reminiscent of Andrzej Żuławski’s Possession or Lars von Trier’s Antichrist, it offers a compelling portrait of newlywed anxiety, focusing on a couple who achieve emotional resonance and draw empathy. Intelligently crafted, well performed and quietly disturbing, this lean horror will worm its way under the skin.

Nightcrawler – FILM REVIEW

A “remarkable” Jake Gyllenhaal as the sociopathic Lou Bloom.

“If it bleeds, it leads,” is the motto for the LA TV network at the centre of Dan Gilroy’s brilliant directorial debut Nightcrawler. Essentially operating on an apathetic level, they utilise footage of horribly injured victims, car crashes, shootings etc. As Rene Russo’s news director Nina utters at one point, “Think of our newscast as screaming woman, running down the street, with her throat cut.” Deeply intrigued by this line of work is the driven Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal). After buying himself a camcorder and police radio scanner, Lou begins ‘nightcrawling’. It’s not long before he’s masterful at his newfound job, however, he soon becomes dangerously good at it.

Appearing in practically every scene, Gyllenhaal delivers a tremendous, transformative performance that’s been disgracefully overlooked in the forthcoming Academy Awards. Lou is an utterly fascinating character. With a dearth of empathy and morals, he is truly ruthless in his path to the top, resorting to horrific, psychopathic means to ensure he gets what he wants. On the surface, Lou is laced with a wide-eyed, but wholly artificial charm, offset by his gaunt cheeks and unsettling bug eyes (a result of Gyllenhaal’s noted weight loss). Moreover, he’s a refreshingly arc-less character and no mere sociopathic caricature; there are definite layers. Thankfully his backstory is shrouded in secrecy, which further adds to his enigmatic presence. From Donnie Darko to Zodiac to Enemy, Gyllenhaal has slowly established himself as one of the more interesting, talented actors around and fortunately, his work here further cements this status.

Russo offers strong support, firmly holding her own against Gyllenhaal. Sharing electric, possibly erotic chemistry, their moments together are gripping, particularly a midway dinner date in which Lou shocks her with his ‘proposal’. Riz Ahmed is similarly terrific and utterly believable as Lou’s idealistic assistant. Furthermore, his American accent is so superb that it’s difficult to believe you’re watching a Brit.

Lou with news director Nina (Rene Russo, great).

For his first outing as a director, Nightcrawler is a hugely impressive feat for Gilroy. The sharp script is excellently written and features a strong undercurrent of jet-black comedy. With a distinctly sick tinge to its comedy, the film contains many moments that leave you unsure whether to laugh, recoil or both. Additionally, Gilroy directs with the utmost precision, maintaining a taut grip over proceedings; there’s not an ounce of fat to be found here. Proceedings begin on a relatively subdued note, but Gilroy steadily escalates the drama, climaxing with a pulse-pounding, unpredictable third act that is elevated by a riveting car chase. Deeply benefiting him is the ever-incredible cinematographer Robert Elswit, who expertly builds on his work shooting LA in the past, such as Magnolia. It’s unfortunate that the usually-sterling James Newton Howard turns in such a conventional, perfunctory score. The movie’s only flaw, a dark, pulsating electronic score in the vein of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ recent work for David Fincher may have served the film considerably better.

Nightcrawling is a form of tabloid journalism largely unexplored in cinema and Gilroy delivers a compelling insight into its questionable world, as essentially personified by its central player. Yet, Nightcrawler is a character study first and foremost, plunging us into the Travis Bickle-esque life of a twisted, chilling and modern sociopath in pursuit of the American Dream, bolstered by a remarkable Gyllenhaal. It’s a deliciously dark and thought-provoking film.

Jupiter Ascending – FILM REVIEW

With the help of his awesome flying boots, Channing Tatum’s Caine saves Mila Kunis’ Jupiter in one of the movie’s standout sequences.

For better or for worse, the Wachowskis have always and unapologetically been themselves. With their sophomore effort, The Matrix, they broke new ground, influencing films (and even videogames, see Max Payne) for years to come. It’s a movie that has become such an iconic piece of pop culture it’s difficult to remember a time before it existed. Though sprinkled with some impressive action sequences, the sequels were pretty abysmal. Nonetheless, they were wholly Wachowski movies. As was their fifth feature, the anime adaptation Speed Racer. Unsuccessful financially, the film perfectly captured the intrinsic OTT-ness of its source material and remains hugely enjoyable. For Cloud Atlas, the big screen version of David Mitchell’s daunting tome, the Wachowkis collaborated with German director Tom Tykwer and embarked on the most ambitious venture of their respective careers. Despite many deriding it, I consider the film to be a commendably audacious, if flawed masterwork. One uniting factor between the aforementioned movies is that they could have only been helmed by the Wachowskis. The latest addition to their filmography is the space opera Jupiter Ascending.

We focus on the unassuming, toilet-cleaning Russian immigrant Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis, doe-eyed as ever). She loathes her job and finds her life monotonous, but she is unaware of her YA-esque destiny in the stars. Enter the half-lycanthrope (and often half-naked) interplanetary warrior Caine Wise (born movie star Channing Tatum), who informs her that she is interstellar royalty and the heir to inherit planet Earth. However, the nefarious Balem (Eddie Redmayne, like you’ve never seen him before) wants to harvest Earth and places a bounty on Jones’ head to prevent her from realising her destiny.

Eddie Redmayne, “a camp joy” as villain Balem.

Whether it be The Matrix or Cloud Atlas, it’s undeniable that the Wachowskis are masterful at world-building and their work here further emphasises this. The world of Jupiter Ascending is beautifully realised, as if its director have cherry picked elements of Dune, Star Wars and the God of War series, and blended them together to create something truly unique. The spaceships are an extravagant sight to behold, resembling flying cathedrals dripping with decadent that wouldn’t have been out of place in ancient Rome. It may be unclear in the promotional material, but the world is populated with strikingly unusual creatures from anthropomorphised flying dinosaurs to a literal elephant man. The production design, costumes and make-up are excellent, expertly helping to bring the fantastical world to life. The prosthetic ears are less successful, particularly those lumped onto Belle breakout star Gugu Mbatha-Raw – they extend the length of her head and prove to be a consistently, if unintentionally hilarious distraction.

Despite her best efforts, Kunis fails to leave a significant impression in the central role. Despite her initial potential for stirring heroism, Jupiter is more damsel-in-distress than kick-ass heroine; it’s quite surprising that the Wachowskis had saddled her with such a thankless part. Tatum, on the other hand, is a considerably more enjoyable presence, delivering a reliably earnest performance. He’s rather loveable, appropriately like an endearingly loyal pooch; in a recent interview Lana Wachowski actually likened him to Toto from The Wizard of Oz. In fact, his chemistry with the half-bee Sean Bean (his name is Stinger) is more palpable than his with Kunis. As the villain of the piece, Redmayne is a maniacal delight, chewing up the scenery in large, hearty chunks. He essentially plays his character as a slow-spoken and (literally) stiff-lipped menace or as a shrieking lunatic – there’s no middle ground. Given little screentime, he’s a camp joy to be savoured whenever onscreen.

‘Jupiter Ascending’ is brazenly bizarre and thoroughly entertaining, despite its problems.

Yet, Jupiter Ascending is far from flawless. A tonal jumble, it is quite a mess, with the earth-bound scenes and those set in outer space never gelling; it often feels like two different films fumblingly spliced together. The script itself is leaden with exposition and over-(and under)-plotting. Moreover, the Wachowskis continue to (unintentionally) display their inability to deliver successful comedy. Whether Jupiter is awkwardly flirting with Caine or in the midst of ‘hilarious’ family banter, the comedy falls flat with a resounding thud. It’s actually many of the serious moments that end up generating laughs, particularly those involving Redmayne. At the centre of the film is a jarring homage to the 1985 dystopian masterpiece Brazil, which concludes with a cameo from its director, Terry Gilliam, looking like a bemusing cross between a steampunk Santa and an extra from The Hobbit. It’s a deeply intriguing sequence, but simply does not work.

Despite all these problems, Jupiter Ascending is a thoroughly entertaining slice of pulp fiction from start to finish. It’s replete with thrilling setpieces, particularly the aerial chase that takes place over the streets of Chicago during the twilight hours. Complementing proceedings is another terrific score from Michael Giacchino, here channelling his inner John Williams with thrilling results.

As usual, the Wachowskis have delivered a distinctly individual and financially risky movie, even with a blockbuster budget at their disposal. Similar to the aforementioned Speed Racer, this is a movie whose flaws can overlooked and can simply be enjoyed as a well-crafted, utterly bonkers audio-visual experience. It’s defiantly different, brazenly bizarre and a worthy addition to its directors impressively original repertoire.