Mud Review

Engaging an audience in a truly captivating sense of wonder is a lost art form in the realm of cinema, or at least it has become so rare that we begin to forget how magical the silver screen experience can be.

Writer/director Jeff Nichols' latest atmospheric drama Mud continues his notable prestige for dramatic film making by creating a pure slice of Americana; an evocative and poignant coming of age tale that borrows the lyricism of Tennessee Williams works and mixes them with the harmonious sensitivity of a Sam Shepard play, who is ironically enough in a supporting role in the film, creating a witty and insightful modern day Mark Twain influenced adventure. 

The story narrows in on Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), two fourteen year old boys hungering for adventure, girls, and excitement in their lives. Ellis lives with his miserable father and his unsatisfied mother, while Neckbone resides with his womanizing uncle. They discover on an island located distally from their home that there is a large boat stuck in a tree, housing food and pornographic magazines showing signs that someone lives there. That man, they find, is Mud (Matthew McConaughey), a fugitive housing a checkered past and now making due with little in the middle of nowhere, attempting to reconnect with his love Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). 

The setting for this film is the Mississippi River. It dominates this film as it dominates the lives of the main characters in this film. This is not a film about small-town America. There is a small town, in which everyone knows everyone, but most of the action takes place out of town, out on the river, and out in the uninhabited areas of the river's ecosystem. The two fourteen year old boys and their families, are river people, making a precarious living from the river. Life is hard but the people are hard-working, honest and resourceful. If Mark Twain was writing now, these are the people he would be writing about.

This film could have easily strayed into The Selfish Giant's territory of making us pity the boys because of their lives as 'river kids', but it doesn't do that and that's important. We support these kids and we want them to succeed, but we're never made to pity them, thankfully. 

One questions the motive of the boys to continue to help Mud, even after discovering what horror he committed. Because Ellis's parents are enduring hellish circumstances and losing love in one another, his commitment to helping Mud find Juniper seems stronger than Neckbone's because he doesn't want to see a couple who should be together remain distant. This is one of the many lenses you can see Mud through. The film is such a visceral, multi-layered experience that each person has the ability to find something different or subtly unique that lies within the story's seemingly direct roots. I felt like I was going through the emotions with the two boys, as if I was there. It was an incredible feeling. I've never felt as close to a film as I have with Mud. 

However, Mud can also be seen as a rural coming-of-age story, not far off from the likes of Rob Reiner's impeccable Stand By Me, which, too, centered on young kids become more unified because of a dangerous adventure. But it also borrows liberally elements of neo-noir, Southern Gothic and melodrama while being filmed as if it was based on some great novel that was never written. There's nothing wrong with looking at Mud simplistically, as a drama centered around early-teenagers, because even when you do that, you still get a wonderful, more-than-complete package with performances that are enriching and an adventure that's unbelievable. Matthew McConaughey, again, gives an astonishingly capable performance after coming off of the likes of the beautifully quirky Bernie, the unfairly-ostracized Magic Mike, and the haunting, yet enigmatic Killer Joe. It's safe to say that McConaughey has made enough money so that he can shy away from the pathetic romantic-comedy or dull action hero in favor of riskier, more reclusive projects that test him as an actor. Teaming up with Jeff Nichols was certainly the right bet, as this is closest to the most perfect movie experiences I've had all year. It makes for a ripping good yarn that should please a wide audience thirsty for drama with a bit of heart and some sentimentality (without ever being sappy).

It was refreshing to watch and I was truly engrossed, and considering I watched this on a laptop screen I think that's pretty impressive. 

9/10 

Gravity Review

The 'surprise' hit of the season (for everyone but us Brits' who have had to wait what feels like an age for it) is Alfonso Cuaron's sci-fi spectacular Gravity.

But it's not Alfonso Cuaron who deserves the most credit. In fact it's his right hand man, Emmanuel Lubezki, who steals the show, the film and pretty much everything else. The man is a genius. We've all seen what he's accomplished in his Oscar-nominated works in Children of Men, in which he was teamed up with Cuarón, and Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, both of which resulted in unimaginable losses. Here, however, he brings something even better. A 13-minute opening shot shows his abilities to capture the essence of the now, the feelings that life offers. Real life doesn't cut, Cuarón and Lubezki understand this. The liberties where he chooses to take us, even when we step inside from the cold, lonely edge of space, manages to turn this very simple tale into a full-fledged meditation session with the sooth sounds of composer Steven Price.

And it is a very simple tale. I find it fascinating that this film was picked up by Warner Bros because essentially, at it's core, it's a B-movie. Gravity may look like a Hollywood blockbuster but it's far from it. The themes, characters and script are anything but mainstream. It's ninety minute running time is something to be desired too. It just goes to show that they've had a simple idea and they've just gone with it, which is why I love this film. The script is beyond simple, but it's tight and there's not an ounce that I'd change of it. There's not a single shred that's wasted. The script may be simple, but it's themes aren't. (Unlike Avatar).

Visual effects have never been put to better use than what you will witness in Gravity. One of the few films I urge everyone to see on the biggest screen possible. The 3D is absolutely outstanding. I don't often like 3D, but this has to be seen in 3D. It adds to the story and the drama. An IMAX 3D screen - the largest you can find - with a sound system able to make your eardrums bleed. Those are the basic requirements. Do it for yourself as a film fan. It's a must. 

I haven't been in this much awe of a film's quality and optics since I saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day when I was six years old. Avatar and Life of Pi are great spectacles, but this will be revisited in years to come as the bench mark for modern day science fiction. It's this generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

It's more Kubrick than Cameron, thankfully. It explores themes that are heartbreaking and it's characters are complex. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are incredible. The latter is especially stunning in a role that channels Alien's Ripley as if re-imagined by Tarkovsky. Natural, poised, and fully engulfed, Bullock is absolutely magnificent and in many ways, my favorite performance of the year so far. She rallies an emotional connection from the audience and demands things of herself that she hasn't done before. An Oscar-worthy work that should land her as a Best Actress nominee...and perhaps a winner.

Gravity was utterly spectacular. Beautiful, serene and peaceful moments juxtaposed by uncomfortable tense action. I just spent 90 minutes in space courtesy of Alfonso Cuaron and co. 

Simplistic but so refreshingly new. Visually, it will be studied for years to come, and thematically, will be revisited by the genre's most ardent enthusiasts. This is what was imagined by the Lumière brothers, it's truly breathtaking. 

The best film I've seen this year.

9/10

The Bling Ring Review

Award-winning, insightful director, Sofia Coppola, has once again made a film that is highly successful in portraying fame and celebrity ... only this time she has turned the cameras onto those who obsess over and covet the fame and celebrity others have.  Her latest film, The Bling Ring, gives us a vibrant portrait of a society - that culture is so lost it's hard to decide who you hate more; wannabes or celebrities.

The Bling Ring is a character study/meditation of a group of people -- based on real life individuals in SoCal -- with NO character whatsoever. They are all beautiful bling on the outside with no inner core of morality. They are shells of a mass emptiness who worship others for merely having stuff they want ... or being on their TVs. 

As Coppola herself said it's as if "your experiences don't count unless you have an audience watching them" and you can really feel that in this film. None of the characters really have any "moments" despite their attempts at proving it.

Coppola's story is based on real-life events of a group of five vacuous and insipid teenagers (one boy and four girls) who used the internet to track the whereabouts of their "celebrity" idols -- some were merely "reality stars" -- so that when the stars were out of town the five could play. The five would break into celeb houses and play with beautiful things that belonged to Paris Hilton, Rachel Bilson, Orlando Bloom, Audrina Patridge or ... their ultimate idol, Lindsay Lohan. 

They had fun and bragged about their shenanigans at parties and on social media all the while believing that they had done nothing wrong. One even believes this happened in order for her to become more charitable -- her comment on "karma" must be heard to be believed. Coppola wisely lifted this line word-for-word as it is tragic comic gold. The script is expertly put together, everything is there for a reason - you've just got to work out why. 

Coppola's storytelling is absolutely fantastic, she shows her clear disgust of these girls through her cinematography. Coppola totally gets this generation and what's wrong with it and it's shown to perfection in this film. She understands the world of fame and she has proved she also understand the world of those who dream of it. This isn't a movie in which characters learn life lessons and change ... this is a depiction of people who believe they do no wrong (like never ever). It is eye-opening because these people walk among us. 

The films leaves you with a feeling of emptiness and while some may critic that, I actually believe it's quite clever, I think that's the point Coppola is making - you've just met the Bling Ring. They epitomise emptiness and nothingness. 


Totally.

8/10

What did the Thor: The Dark World mid-credits scene mean?

Ever since the first Iron Man movie had Samuel L. Jackson turn up to essentially promise an Avengers movie, Marvel's post-credits teasers have been as much of an event as the movies themselves, giving easter eggs to fans, teasing the events of future films and offering hints at where the Marvel Cinematic Universe might be going next.

So, what has Marvel promised now? Well, I think we could be getting an Infinity Gauntlet story down the line. 

Set shortly after the events of Thor: The Dark World, the mid-credits teaser shows Sif and Volstagg delivering the Aether to Taneleer Tevan - the alien known as the Collector - in the space-station museum/menagerie where he houses the artifacts he acquires.

The way Del Toro/The Collector describes  the Tesseract and the Aether is what's important. In the scene, they specifically refer to them both as "Infinity Stones". When Sif and Volstagg have departed, the Collector turns to his companion and states, simply: "One down, five to go."

In the comics, the Infinity Stones are a set of six different coloured gems which give the holder vast power over a specific domain: Reality, Time, Space, Soul, Mind and Power. Anyone holding all six has the power to reshape the entire universe to their will. It's safe to say they're pretty desirable, not least to power-mad alien warlords (SUCH AS THANOS WHO APPEARED AT THE END OF THE AVENGERS) Ahem. 

It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is representing them in a slightly more practical manner than the comics. The Tesseract clearly represents the Space Stone, which gives the holder power to travel great distances and warp space. The Aether appears to be the Power Stone, which gives the holder access to unimaginable energy.

But where is this going?

If I had to speculate I'd have a guess at it all going down in The Avengers 3; a battle royale crossover bringing together the Avengers, the Guardians, and anyone else that Marvel Studios can scrape together, fighting Thanos for control of the Infinity Gauntlet. 

My thoughts, step by step: 

• Six gems - time, space, soul, mind, reality and power. 
• Time and Space are now a cosmic cube? 
• Power has turned up in Thor 2 as the aether. 
• Gem 3 is bound to be in Guardians of the Galaxy 
• Gem 4 will be the soul gem, courtesy of the much anticipated Doctor Strange film
• And gem 5 will be the gem that draws Thanos out in the third Avengers film. 

Jesus Christ, and I thought Marvel were thinking ahead in the post-credits for Iron-Man!

Marvel, always ten steps ahead of the competition! An Infinity Gauntlet adaptation will be a truly epic undertaking, having all the characters on screen and making sure all of them don't get short changed will be tough, but who better than Whedon?  

The Rise and Fall of Tim Burton

Tim Burton, also known as the Prince of Darkness, broke into the industry with unbelievably good luck - but it's his talent and originality that have kept him at the top of the Hollywood tree. His first film, Pee-wee's Big Adventure was released in 1985 and it was a surprise box office hit. He then introduced himself as one of Hollywood's most inventive directors with films such as Beetlejuice, Batman and Edward Scissorhands. However, as he became Hollywood's go to man for quirky and gothic films, his films became higher budget and more mainstream, but much less memorable and critically acclaimed. 

One of his bigger earlier films, Edward Scissorhand, really brought Tim Burton and his leading man, Johnny Depp to the top of the Hollywood tree.  The film is co-written by Burton (along with Caroline Thompson). The idea for the film came from a drawing by Burton when he was a child. Edward Scissorhands is a relatively low-budget film, that ended up grossing $56,362,3524 at the box-office. Burton had full creative control of the film and it was self- produced by Burton which the end product shows. The film has Burton’s visual style and panache and the characters are typically Burtonesque. Also, the film received critical acclaim, receiving Saturn, Hugo and BAFTA awards and garnering a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Peter Travers Rolling Stone magazine   If you compare this with the other films I'm going to look at, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland - which both had much bigger budgets and pressure from major studios - I think the results are clear to see.

So why is Edward Scissorhand so popular? Many critics loved it because it was a modern fairy-tale story, that was so visually stunning and original. Film4 said it was “Visually, stylistically and emotionally stunning.” While The New York Times said “Mr. Burton invests awe-inspiring ingenuity into the process of reinventing something very small.” In conclusion, the film did well because it was a quirky, bold and gothic tale from a new and exciting director.

His form quickly changed. 

Charlie and  the Chocolate Factory is, in my opinion, where Tim Burton started to decline. As a man who defends Planet of the Apes, this says a lot. The film has no determined style. Where is the style that made Edward Scissorhands a modern classic? Also Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as you know, is a remake and it’s adapted from a children’s book. This is hardly the Tim Burton of the past who declined making a Batman sequel and Beetlejuice sequel because he wanted to make Edward Scissorhands. The difference in this film and Edward Scissorhands also shows in the reviews. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory received mediocre reviews. Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post criticized Depp's acting, saying: "The cumulative effect isn't pretty. Nor is it kooky, funny, eccentric or even mildly interesting.” Depp, in particular receieved poor reviews. Depp has worked with Tim Burton several times and I believe that when you work with someone you know and are friends with you're work begins to decline and I think that's the case witrh both Burton and Depp. However, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory made a gross of over $470 million. Has Burton sold out?

Alice in Wonderland, for me, highlights everything that is wrong with modern Tim Burton. Burton makes another multi-million pound production on another remake that’s been adapted from the book. The film stars everyone he's ever worked with whether they fit the role or not.  The film cost an estimate of $150-$200 million dollars and made a staggering amount of over one billion dollars. It was, once again, critically panned. Jason Best of Movie Talk said “Storytelling has never been Burton's strong suit and his weakness is here compounded by a desire to somehow squeeze Carroll's topsy-turvy, logical-illogical tales into a teen-friendly, Disney-approved, big-screen adventure.” This tells me that Tim Burton has changed his film making style just for a big pay check from Disney. A user reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes said: “A bland adventure fantasy, Alice in Wonderland may be pretty to look at, yet offers nothing more than Tim Burton's now generic and uninspired brand of filmmaking.” I couldn't have put it better myself. 

To conclude, I believe that Tim Burton is a talented and innovative director. However, he can only achieve this potential when he’s working on a smaller budget, is passionate about the project and has full creative control. If he’s working with big Hollywood producers, I think he loses his love of filmmaking and finds the process boring. When Burton is working under these producers, he has more money to play with, but they become formulaic and unoriginal. Also, when he’s working for a big producer, it’s clear to see, that his films are not as well received as they are when he’s working on a small film such as Edward Scissorhands – or Beetlejuice, Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow. 

Tim Burton of old - please come back!

Behind the Candelabra Review

In 1989 Steven Soderbergh made his film debut with Sex, Lies and Videotape. The film was daring, unnervingly original and made on a budget of just over one million dollars. Its domestic gross of nearly twenty-five million dollars in return heralded a new wave of independent films throughout the 1990s. Twenty-four years later, Soderbergh will retire from filmmaking with Behind the Candelabra, a biopic of pianist Liberace, which, in ways, is the perfect film to go out on. 

It is, of course, well crafted by Steven Soderbergh, a veteran director who I would expect nothing less from. However, it is Soderbergh who takes a backseat to Ellen Mirojnick, whose flamboyant costumes really add to the film, and Howard Cummings, whose outrageous interiors take that film that much further. 

Two of Hollywood's big-name alpha males – Michael Douglas and Matt Damon – play the lead roles delivering strong and convincing performances. Liberace is played by Michael Douglas in one of the bravest roles of his career. It would have been easy to portray the over-the-top flamboyance of Liberace in high camp theatricality. But not here. Douglas is restrained, measured, and deliberate. His Liberace straddles both sides of the male persona. Douglas goes from being tender lover and father-protector to the excessive, power-hungry controlling tyrant driven to an addiction for acquisition: homes, jewelry, dogs, new lovers, and all things Louis Quinze. 

Matt Damon characterises Scott as an increasingly self-conscious and insecure young man, whose relationship with Liberace grows through two kinds of comfort: materialism and emotional cushioning. Liberace's mansion is an intimidating but irresistible prospect compared to the drab and shadowy form of Scott's adopted home. The mansion achieves its own Biblical connotations, stunningly realised through sparkling glassware and high contrast lighting. Liberace also manipulates Scott's loneliness, saying that he could adopt him. "Maybe I'm your real family," he teases. One of the few dramatic peaks in Richard LaGravenese's script is when comfort reveals itself to be personal possession. Liberace seeks to preserve his legacy, not simply by adopting Scott, but by convincing him to undergo surgery so that the two will look more alike.

There are problems, however. The otherwise excellent screenplay by Richard LaGravanese starts a bit rope and loses a little steam around two-thirds of the way through, but recovers to give a genuinely touching conclusion. I was also a little disappointed that Soderbergh decided to leave out most of the musical side of Liberace. The movie is bookended by his stage performances, but there's very little music or stage bravado in this movie. The director is happy to close the doors of Liberace's mansion and watch the man soak in a hot tub or lounge on the couch, but we miss the music, the garish and gaudy glitter-and-rhinestone stage show that made the man such a legend.

On stage – and in front of the candelabra – Liberace lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams. But behind the glitz and the glamour, we glimpse the flawed, all-too-human and imperfect every man who is uncomfortable in his skin, seeking miracles from plastic surgery and sexual hedonism. He is not a hero or anti-hero; victim or victimizer; predator or prey. He is all and neither. Liberace's life is heroic because he was able to achieve much despite the odds. But his real life was lived in darkness cast by the shadow of the lights behind the candelabra.

A truly outstanding film. It's simply baffling that this film wasn't picked up by a major studio. 

8/10 

Chloe Grace-Moretz: An Appreciation

She's worked under Scorsese, Burton and Matthew Vaughn. She's worked with Johnny Depp, Julianne Moore, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jim Carrey. (A love for the letter J, perhaps?). And yet, Chloe Grace-Moretz is only sixteen.

Sometimes I think Chloe Grace-Moretz chooses films based on my likes and dislikes. Let's look at the films she's been in. 

• Kick-Ass 1&2. She originally played Hit-Girl when she was only 11 and she stole the show. She stole the show alongside McLovin from Superbad, Nicolas Cage from every so bad it's good action film in the 90's and a guy who has played John Lennon on screen. Pretty impressive if you ask me - and I haven't even mentioned that Kick-Ass is my favourite modern action film.
• (500) Days of Summer: (500) Days of Summer is my favourite rom-com. CGM only has a little part in it, but she still has some kick ass lines (no pun intented).

1) Rachel Hansen: Better that you find this out now before you come home and find her in bed with Lars from Norway. 
Tom: Who's Lars from Norway? 
Rachel Hansen: Just some guy she met at the gym with Brad Pitt's face and Jesus' abs.

2) Rachel Hansen: Quit being a pussy. 

3) Rachel Hansen: PMS? 

Tom: What do you know about PMS? 
Rachel Hansen: More than you, Tom. 

Enough said, really. 

• Hugo. Her character epitomizes what Scorsese was going for her. She brings so much warmth and love to her character and plays off Asa Butterfield terrifically.  

She can go from playing a character like Hit-Girl to playing Darby from the Winnie the Pooh series. She can go from playing a vampire to playing Rachel Hansen in (500) Days of Summer. 

Not to mention that she has the remake of Carrie coming up, along with playing the lead in one of my favourite books as a child, If I Stay. 

She's been in 18 films and she's only sixteen. I'm seventeen and have been in none. 

She truly is a great talent, and ridiculously hot too!