Best Original Screenplay Preview – 2016 Oscars

Full disclosure: Despite the urging of my inner child, I am yet to see Inside Out, so that section of the preview will focus on the awards buzz around it rather than the actual screenplay itself.

Only two of the movies in the category this year are true originals, but that is the way this category works.

An original screenplay is any that isn’t directly lifted from another source.

So, it doesn’t matter that Straight Outta Compton, Bridge of Spies and Spotlight are based around events and characters that happened and existed.

While we’re on about rules, in general terms an ampersand (&) is used when two or more writers have worked directly together on a project, while an ‘and’ is used when parties work separately on a project (for example, with Bridge of Spies, Joel & Ethan Coen worked together and Matt Charman worked separately).

Not many characters or happenings were actually invented or original for those movies, but this category is here to avoid lopping films together with others that copied and pasted direct dialogue and twists from other sources.

Traditionally, these categories are used to either award a true original (Her, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), or make up for films that are going to miss out on winning the big prize (Fargo, Pulp Fiction).

This year it looks like it will be the latter.

Who else could have been nominated?

Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight was the only original screenplay to miss out here after being nominated in the Golden Globes (Aaron Sorkin won that award for Steve Jobs and wasn’t nominated in the adapted section).

Among the Writers Guild Awards nominees, Sicario by Taylor Sheridan and Trainwreck by Amy Schumer were cast aside in these nominees for Inside Out and Ex Machina.

Elsewhere, David O. Russell is a perennial nominee who couldn’t fit in this year for Joy and the many heads behind The Revenant couldn’t get it a writing nomination despite it’s likely Best Picture win.

Who as nominated?

Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen for Bridge of Spies

Alex Garland for Ex Machina

Pete Doctor, Meg LaFauve & Josh Cooley (screenplay by); Pete Doctor & Ronnie del Carmen (original story by) for Inside Out

Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for Spotlight

Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff (screenplay by); S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff (story by) for Straight Outta Compton

The nominees:

Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen for Bridge of Spies

Why they will win: Bridge of Spies succeeds in bringing together an aged world, while making morals and judgements universal. Drawing sympathy for an admitted spy, a lawyer who is putting his family through hell and Germans who are doing smart business is hard, and Bridge of Spies pulls it off, while maintaining sharp humour.
Why they wont win: Bridge of Spies is just happy to be there and have an excuse to put Tom Hanks on stage presenting an award. While it is an excellent film, it hasn’t won anything of note and wont on the big night.

Alex Garland for Ex Machina

Why he will win: Garland created the most complete film of the bunch with the most articulate questions asked. Garland’s exploration of humanity and technology is excellent and wrapping it up in such a thrilling way was inspired and makes this the best screenplay in this category.
Why he wont win: Yet, Ex Machina has made no impression on the awards season. It couldn’t get Alicia Vikander a supporting actress nomination and it hasn’t won anything of note. This looks like a runner up, but who really cares when you can just go ahead and tear up the fucking dance floor, dude?

Pete Doctor, Meg LaFauve & Josh Cooley (screenplay by); Pete Doctor & Ronnie del Carmen (original story by) for Inside Out

Why they will win: Inside Out continues a tradition – started by Toy Story – of animated films sneaking into nominations in this category. The sheer amount of children pulling on their parents/grandparents sleeves to vote for this movie has to get something right?
Why they wont win: No animated film has ever won, so it probably wont get something. Inside Out would have been chuffed to get this nomination and will have focused its awards campaign on the Animated Feature category instead of this one.

Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for Spotlight

Why they will win: The Writers Guild Award may have just sown this category up. But Spotlight certainly deserves consideration, with their ability to make a film without any real character development, any romance or any real action into a thrilling and enthralling Singer & McCarthy managed to craft a classic.
Why they wont win: Spotlight’s favoritism in the Best Picture category may have turned voters to other films so they get recognised. But I’m really clutching at straws here.

Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff (screenplay by); S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff (story by) for Straight Outta Compton

Why they will win: If this category was centered around half of a film rather than a full one, Straight Outta Compton might just pull it off. Maybe voters turned off the film halfway through and circled it on their ballots. The groundswell of support for Compton has to count for something, with the only film to really represent colour in the entire ceremony, it could pick up some serious ground.
Why they wont win: As nice as that montage before the credits was, Compton really trails off in the second half and that is the result of a disappointing third act in the script. Compton quickly faded from awards consideration and it’s unlikely it could pull something out here.

Who should win: Alex Garland
Who could win: Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff; S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff
Who will win: Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy

Spotlight – Review

“Knowledge is one thing but faith, faith is another.”

There is nothing extraordinary about Spotlight, yet there is something incredible in the way it falls into place.

This is a movie that is clearly much more than the sum of its parts.

Said parts and exactly bad, the acting is solidly great all-round, the direction is good and the writing is excellent, but together it makes for an engrossing, tense film.

Centered around the investigation made by the Spotlight team at the Boston Globe into the cover up of children molestation within the Catholic Church, Spotlight builds and builds.

The team, Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams), Matt Carrol (Brian d’Arcy James) and their editor/team leader ‘Robby’ Robinson (Michael Keaton) are put onto the case by new paper editor Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber).

It’s slow moving plot, but like a good puzzle, the pieces begin to fall together as more evidence is collected and more sources are revealed.

Two lawyers, Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) and Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup) provide intermittent help, but it’s when the victims speak that Spotlight really begins to move.

Three in particular, Joe Crowley (Michael Cyril Creighton), Patrick McSorely (Jimmy LeBlanc) and Phil Saviano (Neal Huff) for the reporters and the movie into gear and from their interviews, Spotlight begins it’s battle to convey the truth.

Each new revelation brings with it anger and confusion and the script from Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer does a great job of providing enough difficulty to keep the investigation difficult and keeping each reveal different and not letting them slip into a list of facts.

Spotlight gathers a string of chill-inducing moments and lines them up into a terrific, memorable film.

There is nothing flashy here, just a painstaking retelling of a harrowing story and how it was written.

What’s with the categories? Find out here.

Direction/cinematography

McCarthy, who was best known to me as the slimy reporter from the final season of The Wire, doesn’t do anything spectacular behind the camera here.

He adopts a fly on the wall style during scenes within the Boston Globe offices, but during outside scenes McCarthy works hard to employ wide lenses to pick up the Boston scenery.

This is particularly notable during one particular montage as reporters knock on doors, with Boston’s intimidating cathedrals looming in the background.

This speaks of some hard from from Masanobu Takayanagi as the cinematographer, scouting some crucial locations to make ensure this is a story about Boston and its deep connection to the church.

1.5/2

Writing

Movies about newspaper reporting have to be well written to have any credibility and Spotlight is excellent in this regard.

Seemingly every scene includes a memorable line: “How do you say no to God, right?”; “If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.”; “It’s like everybody knows the story…” “Yeah, except us.”.

The pacing invokes David Fincher’s great Zodiac in it’s unraveling, slow burning style.

There are enough sprinklings of humour to keep it from drawing yawns, with Keaton’s Robinson adding wit often to a dire scenario.

One scene where Rezendes explodes in rage seems like an unnecessary addition, and an extra dive into the villains of the story would have been nice, but this script is truly excellent.

2/2

Acting

Ruffalo stands out as Rezendes, bringing a specific physicality to his role that helps create his character.

The real people depicted in the film were around set often, and their opinions of the portrayals have been almost universally positive, in particular Keaton’s father figure as Robinson.

Tucci is excellent as a dismissive lawyer who has been put through the ringer of constant victims without justice and Len Cariou does a great job as the cardinal who is at all times both threatening and warm.

Spotlight took out the SAG Award for best ensemble and that was due to an even and terrific portrayal.

2/2

Re-watchability

The subject matter isn’t all the fun, but the sprinklings of key moments means Spotlight is worth revisiting.

It’s one of those movies that ends with goosebumps and it takes a couple of minutes for you to stand up and go to the toilet because there is so much to process.

Some sections may be worth fast forwarding through, notably a 9/11 hold off, but Spotlight is worth taking in multiple times.

1.6/2

Zeitgeist

Spotlight immediately joins Frost/Nixon, Zodiac, Good Night and Good Luck and Anchorman as the top films about journalism in this century.

For that, it earns a place in the realms of popular culture.

It is also among the front runners for Best Picture at the Oscars at the time of writing and a win there will obviously catapult it from a lesser seen film to a must watch.

But it is a lesser seen film without any legitimate movie superstars in front or behind the camera, so without a win it could quickly be forgotten by the masses.

1.4/2

Spotlight – 8.6 out of 10

The Revenant – Review

“My heart bleeds…but revenge is in the creator’s hands”

Despite the now infamously near impossible shoot, despite the isolated and slow moving story line, despite the almost unrelatable timeline and despite the confusing beards, The Revenant is a triumph.

So much could have gone wrong in the creation of this film, yet somehow Alejandro González Iñárritu crafts a near masterpiece, a breathtaking visual delight with enough character building and great performances to keep things ticking.

Encapsulating the wilderness with incredible artistic flair and some clever choices, Iñárritu confirms his status as an A-grade filmmaker, blending a revenge fantasy with a self-reflecting conversation about faith.

It’s in his direction that Iñárritu truly succeeds. While his previous work, Birdman, was innovating, it’s with The Revenant that he shows a clear maturation as a director and performs even better.

The single-take style in Birdman was cool and fun and all of that, but with time it felt like a bit of a gimmick and entering The Revenant I held some fears that Iñárritu would overreach and try to capture a survival/revenge film in one take.

There are one take scenes but they are kept to a handful of action scenes, leaving the result truly breathtaking when they are brought out.

The opening sequence – a scene-setting battle between Native Americans and pioneering Americans who are out to harvest/steal pelts (which from what I can gather means animal fur) – is astonishing.

On par with Saving Private Ryan‘s incredible opener, the first 12 minutes don’t take time to draw breath and produce the most remarkable fight.

Iñárritu inhales this scene with sensational decision making and the way his camera follows and also create the action is something completely unique to his personal style.

The audience seems to travel all at once from spot fire to spot fire as fighting crashes between guns and bow and arrow to fistfighting to knife on knife.

While the movie is certainly not dull from then on, it’s in the first 12 minutes that The Revenant makes its mark in the memory.

Of course there is more to proceedings, as Leonardo DiCaprio’s troop of Americans, reduced in number by that opening battle, escape and begin to plan their way out of this predicament.

DiCaprio’s protagonist Hugh Glass, traveling with his mixed race son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) following the death of Hawk’s mother (Grace Dove), is the nature expert and charged with leading the expedition back to base.

Things get tricky when this group of men are together taking verbal shots at each other, as all aside from Hawk and the young James Bridger (a mature and sharp Will Poulter) wear beards, long hair and look scruffy.

Four or five of these men are unrecognisable and are left in the background. That’s fine because they aren’t really essential characters, but it get’s grating when it is so hard to tell who is who and where they stand regarding Glass.

It’s clear where the dastardly John Fitzgerald stands. Portrayed by Tom Hardy, Fitzgerald is a villain from the top shelf – clear with motives, genuinely dark and evil, yet making decisions that really aren’t that silly.

Hardy nails it, again and outshines DiCaprio. Forget him being the next James Bond, Hardy is the next great Bond villain. Him in the Sean Bean–GoldenEye role is the best possible outcome in terms of Hardy in the 007 universe.

In the wilderness, money driven Fitzgerald pokes at the merits of carrying a teen aged Hawk with the group, to the chagrin of Glass and the semi-annoyance of group leader Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson, who has quietly put together an exceptional run, with Ex Machina, The Force Awakens and Brooklyn alongside The Revenant as an outstanding 2015).

When Glass inexplicably goes for a walk in the woods and gets molested by a bear he lands on the brink of death and becomes dead weight for the limited group of men.

Understandably Fitzgerald doesn’t want to bother lugging Glass up and down icy mountains with Native Americans lurking behind every tree, so in a round-a-bout way he manufactures a way to devoid himself of Glass and make some money.

Of course, if you’re going to leave Leo for dead, make sure he is actually dead, because Glass rises from his grave and begins a trek back to seek revenge.

This middle act, of Glass returning to camp is kept alive by some clever dream sequences that help remove the audience from suffering and cold for brief respites.

One particular sequence, set in a dilapidated church is stunning and the sound work of Bryce Dessner, Carsten Nicolai and the great Ryuichi Sakamoto plays a big part in keeping the tempo going.

Problems arise with The Revenant as Glass goes through turmoil after turmoil. While he survived the real life version of this, it becomes increasingly hard to hold the suspension of disbelief as he fights more and more battles.

It certainly feels like too much when his horse goes off a cliff and he is left to go to Hotel Luke Skywalker, and time could have been shaved off by removing a couple of those speed bumps and a portion of the mostly unimportant Native American-French subplot.

Things don’t drag on that havily, as Iñárritu’s excellent direction makes sure the film is enthralling and things keep moving.

As the finale lurches to its natural conclusion, and the film goes dark it is clear that The Revenant provides a moving an brilliant experience.

So much could have gone wrong here, yet what is left is a near perfect piece of cinematic art.

If you missed it, I have a new rating style. Read up on it here.

Direction/cinematography

As part of the swirling rumours about the shoot, it is believed that in an effort to capture the natural conditions of the setting, Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki only shot in natural light.

This adds to the beauty of the setting and speaks of the commitment behind capturing a seriously good picture. In that awesome opening sequence, the sun is seen setting and that visual glory makes for an even more beautiful experience.

The camera feels like it is going with the characters and a part of proceedings, not just capturing them, as evidenced during a horseback chase, where the camera is left to hover over the conclusion.

At one point the camera is encapsulated by the breath of DiCaprio and fogs over, leading to a cut showing impending fog. While that sounds a little gimmicky on this screen, the cut is so well put together that is allows the audience to breath a little.

This a perfectly captured film, and I pray that Iñárritu makes a war film soon to display that action nuance that is so glorious.

2/2

Screenplay

It feels wrong to contrast The Revenant with Birdman because they are such separate films, yet in the screenplay it is obvious that The Revenant doesn’t have that same dialogue pop.

That’s ok, this film clearly isn’t about dialogue, yet some lines come out cheesy and forced.

The ideas imparted though, in particular one scene where Glass befriends a traveling Native and is left to ponder his place before God hits hard at religious motifs, particularly as it follows Glass literally walking out of water when he couldn’t walk properly before, hinting at evolution.

This ideas and propositions are kept to a minimum so as not to interfere with the adventure, yet are positioned well enough to leave some deep thinking.

On the other hand, things do go on for a little too long.

1.6/2

Acting

Has there ever been a more contrasting set of back-to-back films from a superstar actor than The Wolf of Wall Street and The Revenant?

From the hilariously fun and brilliant performance in Wolf to switch lanes into a deep, slow burning, pain-ridden role in The Revenant is an achievement unto its own.

DiCaprio doesn’t hit the same must-watch heights of performance in The Revenant as he did in his previous film, but he doesn’t really have the chance.

Because of the situation of the film he is left to spend a good 90 minutes grunting, wheezing and straining through pain and physical obstacles, almost in a long version of the Lemmons scene.

DiCaprio is good though, in a way that only he can be with such engaging presence.

Hardy bests him, mostly because he has more to do. He really is just great in everything, good on you Tom.

Gleeson and Poulter provide strong supporting roles, and Poulter is particularly impressive in a mature turn. His role could easily have slipped into petulance but he holds firm.

1.8/2

Re-watchability

This a tricky one in so much that sitting through the entire film is a bit of a battle.

Don’t get me wrong, The Revenant is plenty engaging, but at a certain point the bodily harm against Glass makes it difficult to slug through.

Tuning into the opening and closing sections of the film would be a better option, and it does have memorable bookends making it definitely re-watchable.

1.5/2

Zeitgeist

It’s hard to peg this one as well.

So much of how this film will be remembered hinges on awards, where a major couple of wins will make this film instantly recognisable for years.

It’s not DiCaprio’s finest performance, but it fits into a genre that is rarely mined with quality films.

The Revenant is probably the most memorable survival flick in years, particularly considering Everest came and went very quickly.

If Iñárritu continues to make quality pictures The Revenant will be given a boost as part of the must-watch directors collection, so there are high hopes.

1.7/2

The Revenant – 8.6/10

Joy – Review

David O. Russell drank the cool-aid.

After his renaissance began with The Fighter in 2010, Russell created his own niche in writing/directing interesting films filled with quirky characters.

The characters at times got weird (see: Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle and Chris Tucker in Silver Linings Playbook), but they seemed useful in films that were fascinating snapshots of American life.

Joy is no such snapshot.

It is not fascinating and the weird characters seem to be there so somebody other than Lawrence speaks.

Joy feels long, poorly paced and mostly just boring.

Based around the titular character who is apparently destined for greatness because she created a really basic paper farm and a dog leash, Joy is the story of a woman who invents a mop despite her pathetic and infuriating family.

And that is about it.

Joy has to break out of her crippling and clingy family, go on TV so people buy her mop, meet Bradley Cooper and pull off a Grease-style transformation.

To get to all of that, Russell forces the audience to sit through a half hour introduction that really should have been cut in half.

Joy’s grandmother Mimi – played with a good loving reverence by Diane Ladd – preaches endlessly about the importance of letting creativity fly and nourishing gifts.

It’s a nice message, but it gets shoved down the throat as Mimi fights off everyone of Joy’s dysfunctional family.

And it is that family that is the real problem with this film.

It’s not that the performances are bad, Ladd, Robert De Niro, as Joy’s father Rudy and Édgar Ramírez as her basement dwelling ex-husband Tony all are excellent in their roles. What is bad is their characters.

Joy aside, every character in this film is a one dimensional shade.

There’s the anti-Joy group: Rudy, his girlfriend Trudy (Isabella Rossellini in a truly awful performance), Joy’s mother Terry (Virginia Madsen) and her half-sister Peggy (Elisabeth Röhm). A set of jealous or just stupid family members who want part of Joy’s apparent empire, despite there being no empire and them being so obvious with their motives.

The pro-Joy group of Mimi, Tony and Joy’s best friend Jackie (Dascha Polanco) are actually useful in terms of helping Joy but spend the rest of the 124 minutes standing in shadows with sad looks.

Tony and Jackie’s continued presence around Joy need further explanation other than one narrated line of they were better friends than as husband and wife and we’ve been best friends since grade school.

Bradley Cooper enters the film at about the half-way point, as Neil Walker, a producer in the fledgling industry of infomercials and is clearly the second most interesting character of the film.

Caught between his motivation as a producer to move product and his obvious affection for Joy, the best scenes in the film involve Neil and his studio.

While she is excellent throughout the film, particularly when she grits her teeth and moves into business mode, Lawrence is outstanding on the stage selling to the screen.

As Bradley Cooper does Bradley Cooper things behind the camera, Russell settles into the film and allows things to move along at a pace that is never matched throughout the rest of the film.

The time shift at the end of the film is an annoying payoff after that slow start, yet this film really is all for Lawrence.

She carries it well, even if she can’t bring anybody to her level as they remain weighed down by their uninteresting personalities.

If you missed it, I have a new rating style. Read up on it here.

Direction/cinematography

Possibly as a result of the dull screenplay, Russell gets more interesting with his direction than in previous work.

He uses silhouettes consistently (perhaps a homage to OPS) and tries to keep things visually entertaining.

The film only really has a handful of settings, so Russell has to keep things interesting, and the cinematography of Linus Sandgren makes good use of some angles.

The lighting is consistently dark and that aids to the contrast of the bright lights on stage when Joy is in front of the camera and the sunshine of her victorious scene.

1.5/2

Screenplay

While Annie Mumolo gets a story credit, the screenplay is all on Russell and it is clearly the weakest part of the film.

While his previous film – American Hustle – had plenty of flaws, the highlight was the management of a range of characters who seemed to have their own story to tell.

Russell’s ability to deliver character driven dramedy didn’t come together here.

The dialogue isn’t anywhere near as snappy as usual, the narration is unnecessary, and the pacing is all wrong.

Lawrence get’s a couple of good lines. Rudy and Terry are humorous at times. But that is about it.

0.2/2

Acting

This film is definitely a showcase for Lawrence and she nails it.

She shifts gears from anxious and worn down, to excited and determined smoothly and while her final You Are The One I Want scene isn’t very inspiring, she really delivers.

De Niro and Cooper both dilligently perform up to expectations, but Rossellini is dour.

1.5/2

Rewatchability

If you skipped down to this section I have some news: this film is barely semi-entertaining.

If Joy comes on on FOXTEL, it’s being skipped over.

0/2

Zeitgeist

Unless Jennifer Lawrence pulls out a couple of awards, Joy is soon to be forgotten I’m afraid.

It’s not going to come to mind when thinking about Russell, De Niro or Cooper. So unless Lawrence pulls something out – as of the time of writing she has a Golden Globe nomination and should earn an Oscar nom – it’s not going to come to mind quickly when thinking about her either.

0.5/2

Joy – 4.2 out of 10

Film Review: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

“You changed your hair…”
“Same jacket.”

This review will not contain any major spoilers, however there will be information in here that may be unknown to you from the trailers. Don’t fear, this wont ruin anything.

I have never been in a completely packed cinema and felt the thrill of an audience burst into applause at the beginning of the closing credits.

Sure, it wasn’t a Sundance winner standing ovation, or an Oscars tender moment elongated eruption, but the applause was spontaneous, acceptable and warranted.

This is what The Force Awakens has brought to a new generation of fans.

A burst of pure exhilaration, of connection and joy. The Force Awakens is the film anyone from Generation X onward has craved: a genuinely good Star Wars to share with each other.

Yes, we had the prequels (which weren’t so bad, just crushed under jealousy), as we now have the unique ability to watch the originals in bed whenever we choose, but there is no applause in bed and there were no shrieks of joy when Jar Jar Binks electrocuted himself on a pod racer.

The Force Awakens brings with it relatable characters, exciting battle scenes, surprising twists and so, so much humour. The exact combination our parents got a hold of back in the dark ages before the internet.

J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan, who reworked Michael Arndt’s original script clearly cottoned on to what made Star Wars so special, bringing back the space opera.

Mingled characters with similar backgrounds and shared history crossing paths is a formula that has kept storytelling going from the first fire to Neighbours (the final shots are very Bold and the Beautiful)and the same applies here.

Things definitely feel rehashed from the original (like, really rehashed), and some twists are painfully obvious and uninspired.

It is clear that we are being ushered towards a new generation of characters and being pushed into a frenzy of sequels.

The basic characters are returned. A charismatic pilot; a cute, somehow funny droid; an unsure and slightly less dweeby lead male; a head strong female who is clearly smarter than the others; a dark, ominous, masked bad guy; a looming, power hungry super-bad.

But this is what we wanted, a wonderfully creative, basically outrageous, unquestionably exotic fantasy based around interesting and genuine characters.

This is our Star Wars and we are going to cherish it.

If you missed it, I have a new rating style. Read up on it here.

Direction/cinematography.

What Abrams and director of photography Daniel Mindel clearly went to pains to achieve is the original look of Star Wars.

Star Wars generally contains some fundamental shots and physical ques such as scene swipes, quick long to medium to cockpit shots during battle, establishing shots of environments.

What was crucial to the beauty of The Force Awakens is the insistence of the camera to be active, from panning to zooming, Abrams keeps the audience involved and close to whatever is going on.

To match this, The Force Awakens feels so much more physical than the prequels.

Not just in the battles, where genuine bodies seem to be exploding and real environments being broken down, but in the lived in quality of sets.

Each interior looks like it has gathered dust, has been bumped and scraped and been alive. No more so than the joyous time we spend in the Millennium Falcon.

And lens flares are kept to a minimum.

1.6/2

Screenplay.

It would be fascinating to see Arndt’s original script.

How many of the connections and characters were kept, and how many were reworked.

What hopefully was there all along was the humour. The Force Awakens is just so damn fun.

Nostalgia makes a big play, noted by Han Solo and Chewbacca’s exchanges, the introductions of a couple of characters – notably C3PO – and the interplay of the other leads making this movie just a joy to watch.

There are still some of the clunky Star Wars lines. Max von Sydow unfortunately gets stuck with a small and poorly written role. Oscar Isaac’s brilliant sense of adventure as Poe Dameron can’t outlive his stinky early lines. Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) is at times speaking in Star Wars cliche. Leia (Carrie Fisher) kind of gets shoved into a bad role.

As mentioned above, the film seems to run along expected lines and the big twist is heavily foreshadowed.

But the humour makes up for most of it.

1.4/2

Acting.

Look, I have to say it, Harrison Ford looks like a constipated, nightmare of himself.

Shia LeBouf’s demise has sort of overshadowed how slow and stodgy Ford had become in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and while he has some great moments (mostly because he gets so many bullets to fire), he’s clearly running out of gas.

That’s fine though, because concerning youngsters Daisy Ridley (who plays Rey) and John Boyega (Finn) are both excellent.

Their byplay with each other is a highlight and keeps the film humming in the opening third.

Isaac is excellent when he is allowed the chance, and as the veteran of this young core he plays to his value very well.

Adam Driver makes a couple of crucial pouting mistakes. I didn’t understand the funn around Driver in Girls and I don’t understand it still.

Domhall Gleeson is a bit of a surprise in his role, playing outside his comfort zone seemingly, yet pulling it off excellently, while Lupita Nyong’o, all in mo-cap has a fantastic role.

1.6/2

Re-watchability.

Ding ding ding.

If you’re a news producer looking for a colour story to fill five minutes, go to a theater in about three weeks and you will find some super-fan claiming to have seen The Force Awakens over 30 times.

Probably about 40% of people who walked out of the theatre considered going back to the box office to buy tickets for the next day.

On the car ride home, all of my mates and I ran through specific moments of greatness that will inspire us to re-watch this in the future.

2/2

Zeitgeist.

This is my first review using this system and I am going to have to break the rules.

This film isn’t just going to be at the top of popular culture, it is going to run popular culture for months.

2015 has been a year where Jurassic World, The Martian, Fast and Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Spectre, the last Hunger Games, Mad Max: Fury Road, Straight Outta Compton have all been released, yet The Force Awakens is going to blow them all out of the water in terms of remembrance.

This has to score higher than two.

2.5/2

Total: 9.1 out of 10.

American Sniper – Review

“Fuck this place”

American Sniper may just be the perfect movie to present a debate about what cinema should be. A film that presents itself as a biographical drama but doesn’t provide any actual drama, and the biographical aspect is iffy at best. Sniper isn’t that bad on the battle field, but off it, it is a train wreck.

A Texas cowboy, Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) finds himself searching for a purpose. He decides to serve his country, and through his training shows a brilliant ability with a sniper rifle. He meets Taya (Sienna Miller) and pursues a relationship whilst he trains for the military. Following the 9/11 attacks, Kyle is shipped out. On the battle field he becomes a legend and becomes the deadliest sniper in American military history, but back home he struggles to deal with what he has done and seen.

As Kyle says during the film “I’m better when it’s breathing”, and Sniper is much better when it is breathing through war scenes. The problem is that Sniper doesn’t set itself as a action film, it wants to be more than that but doesn’t get close to pulling it off. Director Clint Eastwood nails some of those war scenes, a couple of them are truly exhilarating and the tension of Cooper behind his rifle is palpable.

What truth is presented is debatable, Kyle is presented as a hero, despite having maybe three scenes where he is not 100% a good guy. He is determined to beat the bad guys, and in this film they are all bad. The non-American characters are all the same, all evil and all just waiting to be slain by the far superior Americans. About 30 minutes into the film there is a semi-montage of Kyle shooting enemies. Who they are or why he shot them doesn’t matter, he did it for his country, I guess. American soldiers come and go by the handful, apparently Kyle gets upset when some of them get hurt, but there are so many faces that come and go it seems ridiculous he would even know their names. The only real relationship that makes sense is between Cooper and his facial hair.

The romantic plot begins solidly enough, Taya says she isn’t interested in Navy SEALS, only to turn around five minutes later and ask Kyle to stay with her at the bar. Sure, she says he isn’t going home with her on the first night, but two scenes later she is telling him to buy an engagement ring. Miller tries her hardest, but only in that brief first scene does Taya have anything to do other than be pissed off or cry. There’s only so many unbelievable phone calls during battles and obviously fake babies she can handle.

Cooper is actually quite good, somehow. This is the first time I can remember him playing someone other than Bradley Cooper. He doesn’t talk quickly, he doesn’t act cool, he shows restraint and is clever with his choices. He keeps Kyle rigid and robotic in scenes outside of the war, but opens up more around his fellow soldiers, which tells more about Kyle’s one-of-the-boys mentality than Jason Hall‘s screenplay does. Taya is a walking contradiction, and Cooper has no other characters to bounce off during home scenes. Kyle’s father (Ben Reed) only gets one scene, he appears interesting in shaping the young Kyle, but doesn’t get anything other than one speech to work with.

Halfway through the film, I was convinced Sniper was happy being an action film. After Kyle returns home however, it tries to fall into a discussion about PTSD, but Kyle meets one group of returned soldiers and is absolutely fine in the next scene. In the end (SPOILER) Kyle is murdered by a veteran whom he is trying to help. Yet there is no vision, no explanation, just a parade of American flags. It’s such an awful cop-out of an ending – the murder could have been a gripping scene, or at least had an explanation – that it almost makes a mockery of the crime.

It’s kind of easy to understand how Sniper took hold with the box office. It is quite good if you switch off your brain, and presents some nice pro-war feelings. But really, it is not a good movie.

American Sniper

3.5 out of 10 – Bad

American Sniper doesn’t deliver on a drama stand point and doesn’t present any historical facts with context. Despite a good effort from Bradley Cooper, the film fails to gain any traction emotionally or logically.

Selma – Film Review

“To Selma it is”

Covering a truly monumental topic, Selma is a sensible picture that covers all its bases but never truly soars. It takes itself very seriously, with reason, but falls short on being truly great.

In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr (David Oyelowo) is working to remove the difficulty black persons are having when registering to vote in the United States. After butting heads with President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson), King heads to Selma, Alabama where he and his group put together a plan to march from Selma to nearby Montgomery. Government, ranging from local to the state governor (Tim Roth) hinder the plan, leading to violent attacks from local law enforcement. While leading an entire race, King also deals with problems in his marriage to Coretta (Carmen Ejogo).

There is nothing totally wrong with Selma as a film. Aside from placing Johnson in a villainous role, when history suggests he wasn’t a villain, and a strange credit montage, basically made up of on set still pictures, Selma delivers an enjoyable, thought provoking ride. The issues with the script are clear, certain characters (particularly a priest from Boston) are written in ways where it is clear exactly what will happen to their character from their initial appearance. The marriage problems are addressed but never seem like real problems and there isn’t any background as to why the negative characters are against the blacks.

Oyelowo is good as King, but not spectacular as he could have been. The film is at its best when King is making speeches and Oyelowo certainly owns those scenes. It’s an admirable performance. His supporting players are good with the material they have. André Holland is typically strong, while Oprah Winfrey puts in a solid performance with an uneven amount of screen time. Rising star Keith Stanfield has a memorable couple of moments as well. As Coretta, Ejogo is great, but she doesn’t really have much to do.
Juggling the antagonistic parts, Wilkinson and Roth both ply well. Wilkinson gives Johnson just enough humanity to last, and Roth is his standard untrustworthy self. Martin Sheen and Cuba Gooding Jr both have brief roles, that really seem unnecessarily filled by a couple of reasonably big names.

It’s not that Selma is a bad movie, it’s just a little underwhelming. The key scenes are great, including the set piece around a failed march and subsequent explosion of violence. But the film is just forgettable. There are too many supporting characters who are inconsequential, and others who appear to be important but don’t really do anything. It’s a solid retelling of a pivotal moment in American history, but Selma isn’t a masterpiece.

Selma

6.3 out of 10 – Good

A solid, but not spectacular film, Selma covers an important moment in history quite well.

Whiplash – Film Review

“There are no two words in the English language more harmful than good job”

A young writer/director with a love of jazz music, Damien Chazelle created an engrossing world in Whiplash. A character piece that is placed together with a certain focus that builds the experience and constricts the narrative at the same time, Whiplash is held together by the relationship between two characters and two actors.

A driven young man, Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) has only one goal in his life: to be a truly great drummer. When he does enough to earn a spot as an alternate in Schaffer University’s lead jazz band, conducted by the infamous and intimidating Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Andrew clashes with his father (Paul Reiser) and attempts to begin a relationship with Nicole (Melissa Benoist), but his true focus is to impress Fletcher and begin a path to success, despite Fletcher’s manipulative and aggressive teaching style.

The biggest strength of Whiplash is it’s ability to create a world solely based around jazz band music, but make it so enjoyable and interesting for those who know barely anything about that world (particularly this reviewer). Chazelle does this through his call backs of famous drummers and the sheer intensity of the drumming scenes. Chazelle builds huge tension that pays off in several key scenes around the drum kit that are exhilarating.

This is only possible because of the strength of the performances. Teller continues along his path of becoming the most interesting young actor in Hollywood by playing a introverted character that is unlike the charismatic types that he has played throughout his career. Teller pushes himself to the extreme during some intense scenes and his timid, desperate performance sits perfectly with the character.

What Whiplash will be remembered for however is not Teller’s lead performance, but Simmons’ brilliant supporting role. In Fletcher, Chazelle creates a villain so despicable it’s impossible to not despise him, but in his tender moments, Fletcher has a grounding in reason. This is put together by a truly menacing performance from Simmons who gives Fletcher such a menacing presence I felt almost compelled to sit up straight when he entered a scene.
His combination with Teller allows for the film to grow and have substance, because without this relationship, Whiplash would simply be a dull affair.
Chazzelle writes the dangerous combination so stricly that it’s almost enough to cover for the lack of supporting players. There is a character missing, perhaps Ryan Connolly, inside the band that would allow for Andrew to view his situation through anothers eyes. The Andrew-Nicole union is definitely underwritten it almost removes the problem with Andrew’s asshole behaviour, it feels like he isn’t really giving up that much when he breaks it off with her, despite the reactionary shock.

When Whiplash comes together, on the stage (and at a certain intersection), it is an exciting and sometimes exhausting ride. Scenes behind the drums are brilliantly put together and are very memorable. The finale is a brilliant closing take and definitely left me on the edge, not wanting more, but not ready to give it up either.

Whiplash

7.7 out of 10 – Very Good

Held together by a strong lead performance from Miles Teller and a show stealer from J.K. Simmons, Damien Chazzelle’s  is a music thrill ride that is at it’s best behind the drum set.

The Summer of the Baggy Green

This article was also published on upstart, you can find that version here.

With Australia’s miraculous and unnerving victory over South Africa in Cape Town the summer tests concluded, albeit in March. The greatest single summer of cricket in living memory for Australia, one that four months ago was seemingly impossible. One directed by Michael Clarke and a team of misfits who have played right on the edge between joyful celebration and egotistical rage. Even on that last evening, with the time working against his team Clarke launched one more verbal assault on the opposition. Aside from the seventh test in Port Elizabeth, there has been an undecipherable inevitability about Australia’s dominance. Wickets seemed certain to fall whenever Mitchell Johnson bowled, Dave Warner became more and more invincible. This summer was something else.

Impossible to think, but when the squad for the first Ashes test was announced, Twitter sighed with anguish at the inclusion of Johnson. Another go for a wasted talent. Warner was still there, and despite promising performances, the public still saw him as having a bigger mouth and ability to open against the red ball. Brad Haddin was old, despite a good tour of England, Steve Smith was wild and unreliable, Chris Rogers was a fill in, Ryan Harris was a delivery away from retirement (and still is) and Nathan Lyon was the best of a poor bunch. When Clarke was bounced out by Broad on the first day the Ashes felt further away than ever.

A win in Brisbane, on the back of a home ground fortress and reliance on Haddin felt big, but not that big. But when Johnson went through England at the Adelaide Oval the series was suddenly over. The sheer desperation, intimidation and ridiculous skill of Australia had ripped England apart. Just as Shane Warne laughingly ripped England’s hearts out at the same venue in 2006, Johnson had finished off the enemy mentally and physically. Every player had a moment (even George Bailey) and Australia looked untouchable. Their side wasn’t complete but it was enough. A thumping against England was treated with trepidation when looking forward to touring South Africa. England had folded, their team in disarray and players dropping like flies. The world’s best team wouldn’t be like this, surely.

It was like that, at least for two thirds of the series. Australia waltzed into South Africa and defeated the best team in the world, dominating them twice out of three. More victims were won, Jacques Kallis got out of the oncoming train before it got to the station, Graeme Smith got off when it did. Aside from the indomitable AB de Villiers, Australia was on top of the whole team. Warner ensured the best bowlers on the planet looked worthless and Johnson kept bowling fast and straight. Two of the most divisive figures in the side are now national heroes, Johnson has gone from wasted talent to the “once in a generatino bowler” Dennis Lillee famously talked about. Warner has gone from a big mouth with no control, to a big mouth who makes runs. His sledging suddenly unnerves the opposition and he is backing it up.

Throughout the summer of domination the test side has played on the edge, the skipper more than any. Clarke’s attacks on James Anderson and Dale Steyn will be seen as bullying bowlers by doubters and typical Australian domination by others. These Australians have lived alongside their nation, never accepting authority and always looking to dominate. While Clarke has admitted to overstepping the line, he has kept a strong tradition of keeping the foot on the throat.

Perhaps nobody has typified this summer of the baggy green like Harris. Like his team, Harris wasn’t expected to string together multiple games of quality. Like his team, Harris strung together two series of absolute quality. Instead of being one delivery away from injury, Harris became one delivery away from glory. He picked the right time to rise again, possibly for the final time. Harris’ unbelievable final over against South Africa has already become the stuff of legend. Bowling through pain and towards victory, Harris will go down as one of the greats in a short and always-ending career. There may never be a summer as complete and as riveting as this one, where domination has become expected and the team has delivered almost out of nowhere. Long may the summer of the baggy green live on.

Film Review – Nebraska

“You watch it, or that’s what you’re gonna turn into”

There may be minor spoilers ahead.

A great mash of nostalgic paternal drama and buddy comedy, Alexander Payne’s Nebraska is a smart film. With a well controlled performance from Bruce Dern and solid support from Will Forte, Nebraska is at its finest when dealing with family issues and showcasing the delightful June Squibb.

When David (Forte) picks up his father, Woody (Dern) from hospital he learns that Woody is planning to walk to Nebraska and pick up one million dollars. Woody’s big cash haul is just a typical mail scam, but David agrees to drive him to Nebraska – against the wishes of David’s mother Kate (Squibb) – as a way to connect with his old man. David and Woody decide to pass through Woody’s old home town, where word of his new cash situation spreads – particularly to Ed (Stacy Keach) – and everybody wants some.

Alright, so let’s get the bad stuff out of the way. Firstly, the black and white of the film seems a little out of place and unnecessary. Black and white works in films like Schindler’s List and Raging Bull, because they are made to be timeless, but Nebraska is distinctly modern in the basic premise of mail order scams and big trucks.
The run time of 116 minutes seems lengthy, and the film does drag on a little. It could have easily been condensed and should have been.
Some motives aren’t explained well enough, Ed’s menacing aggression towards Woody only seems necessary for the sakes of the plot. However on a deeper level, the insecurities of small town people becoming jealous of Woody and wanting a share, maybe because he was able to move away, is understandable.
Woody and David can both be grating, but eventually David’s redemption is enough to make their relationship work and Dern’s performance brings enough humour to save the film from becoming boring.

And Dern is the main attraction of the film and he brings enough genuine emotion to make Woody’s dreary carelessness mean something, particularly when he discusses his marriage (“I’d just end up with somebody else who gives me shit all the time”). Dern certainly gives all of himself to the role and manages to put in a winning performance.
Forte is good, but not extremely memorable as David, and seems married to the same annoyed/confused face. When David works, Forte does as well, noticeable in the ending and a confrontation with Ed.
Squibb was the highlight of the film really, delivering a hilarious performance with her deadpan humour (“you know what I would do with a million dollars? I’d put him in a home”). She certainly gets the best lines of Bob Nelson‘s script, and delivers them with aplomb.
Keach is good as the increasingly villanous Ed, and Bob Odenkirk has a mostly serious role as David’s brother Ross.

Payne keeps things together with numerous long shots and sharp direction, and Nelson’s script is terrific. The combination of humour and depressing realisation is well balanced. A definite highlight is a little exchange between two old timers about the toughness of a car that never stops running until it does. When David is questioning Woody about his life and his choices is when Nebraska soars. The disappointment of a life he didn’t live to the fullest is drawn across Dern’s face, and the avoidance of nostalgia is key to his sad tale. The ending is satisfying and well done, with David finally becoming a loving son.

Oscar Chances
Nebraska is nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture. While a good nominee, Nebraska is not really a chance to win. There was soime early chatter about Dern being in line for Best Actor, but he is in a tough field and wasn’t given enough range to out-do Matthew McConaughey and Leonardo DiCaprio. Squibb might be the best chance for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actress category, but faces stiff opposition from awards darling Jennifer Lawrence and the favourite newcomer Lupita Nyong’o. Payne is nominated for direction, but can’t catch Alfonso Cauron. Nelson is nominated for screenplay and could be a chance, but has to tustle with Spike Jonze’s Her. Nebraska is also nominated for Best Cinematography.

Nebraska

7.3 out of 10 – Good

Led by a sharp script and two good performances from Bruce Dern and June Squibb, Nebraska is a good study of fatherhood and life.