Steve Jobs – Review

“Computers aren’t supposed to have human flaws. I’m not going to build one with yours.”

Ambition and hubris flawed a man considered often among our greatest innovators.

The same can be said about the latest film based on him.

Aaron Sorkin‘s vision in attempting to create a portrait of a man basically within a three act play is admirable, but it stunts the range this film could have reached.

Steve Jobs is always on a deadline and that doesn’t allow for any room to breath.

The collection of talent is right. Sorkin’s dialogue is a quick and sharp as ever, Danny Boyle brings enough trademark vibrancy to endless corridors and backstage hide always.

Michael Fassbender is terrific and Kate Winslet goes with him stride for stride, but if this film shows anything, talent doesn’t equal perfection.

Split into three acts, focusing on the launch of the Macintosh in 1984, the Black Cube in 1988 and the iMac in 1998, Steve Jobs deals with the constant interruptions the title character (Fassbender) has to deal with before stepping on stage, or as Jobs puts it “five minutes before every launch, everyone seems to get drunk and tell me what they really think”.

This would be a great concept if the acts were aided by some exposition.

At times, Steve Jobs feels like an episode of Sorkin’s The West Wing, where characters are already in their groove and decide to solve some problems by saying smart and humorous things.

That’s not a totally bad thing. The West Wing is one of televisions greatest shows and Steve Jobs carries that same confidence and gravitas, but unlike a seven season series, the characters need some movement within two hours.

Jobs is forced to jump around from total cold dick to warmed up dick without much background, aside from some enjoyable montages.

The reasoning for Jobs’ desperate need for control is explained briefly in conversations with mentor/father figure/executioner John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) but not enacted in anything other than arguments with Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogan) and his demeanor.

Unlike Sorkin’s previous troubled genius triumph, The Social Network, the key scenes in Steve Jobs don’t carry the same pay offs as a MacBook being smashed.

All of this isn’t to say that Steve Jobs is a bad film, it just gets stuck in its own head.

Perhaps it’s a deliberate ploy to reflect the titular character.

What’s with the categories? Find out here.

Direction/cinematorgraphy

In similar fashion to 127 Hours, Boyle finds himself trapped.

The corridors and back rooms of opera houses allow for more interesting visuals than James Franco with his hand under a rock, but the consistent artificial lighting and dull colours force some inventiveness from the director.

This pays off in montages between the three acts to catch the audience up on what has occurred between launches and Boyle’s need to show the audience filing into whatever auditorium the launch is in.

There isn’t really much else that Boyle can achieve within the verbal-heavy script, but he does the best he can and it certainly helps break up the tension of the constant talking.

1.7/2

Writing

The big flaw and the best part of Steve Jobs is the script.

Attempting tho show the variances of a man within three scenes is as Sorkin as walk and talks and sarcastic dialogue.

Sorkin often makes things harder than they need to be with flashbacks and multi-dimensional conversations. It worked mostly in The Social Network, it didn’t really come off in The Newsroom, but the three scene gimmick here limits character development.

I guess the father-daughter relationship between Jobs and the ever aging Lisa is supposed to be the heart of the film, but really it’s about a man so singularly driven in his belief that his way is right that in one way or another he had to change the world.

Sorkin relays that well, particularly in the three scenes with Wozniak that vary from what he actually does and why he needs to do it and that should be the center of things.

Instead, with other characters bringing in other themes (trust – Sculley, fatherhood – Lisa, self-identity – Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg)) the focus of the film is never truly established.

Steve Jobs is so Sorkin it might have well been meta.

It’s great, but it’s also too much.

1.2/2

Acting

Fassbender is perfect to play an egomanical, rage-fueled control freak.

Maybe it’s because I’m not sure he can be nice on screen, but Fassbender is just excellent at “playing the orchestra”.

He’s quickly becoming a forgotten treasure of the film industry, much like Stuhlbarg who is terrific in everything.

Winslet is good as the warmth to Jobs’ ice and nails her seemingly unnecessary emotional scene.

Rogan is also well cast as the off center Wozniak, allowing him to yell in Rogan ways, but also in a Rogan way be the only one who tells the truth that Jobs will really listen to.

1.8/2

Re-watchability

The broken up nature of the film allows for easily dropping in for a third, but also makes it easier to drop out after a third.

It’s a pretty even film in respect for the thirds and which is better, so it’s easier to get hooked rather than drop out after a certain launch.

Steve Jobs is a film that will get better in memory and certain slower sections can be forgotten, even when re-watched.

1.2/2

Zeitgeist

Sorkin is genuinely building a collection of underrated films.

The complex and brilliant nature of Moneyball is easy to forget, The Social Network is one of the best films of the past decade and A Few Good Men is only remembered for one scene rather than a brilliant all-round drama.

For that reason, Steve Jobs is likely to be pushed back into the shadows as a smart, yet flawed film.

But hey, at least it doesn’t star Ashton Kutcher.

1.1/2

Steve Jobs – 6.8 out of 10

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

Brooklyn – Review

“I’d imagined a different life for myself.”

There is nothing profoundly special about Brooklyn.

It’s one of many movies that comes out in limited release in December, followed by a wide release in the new year, a movie that is a period piece, based on a book about a heroine who jets off to a new land and has to battle her way through love and life and make a home.

There really is nothing new going on in Brooklyn, yet it works.

It works through the force of will of Saoirse Ronan and her outrageous eyes and the crucially funny one liners that supporting players chip in with.

Brooklyn goes along that simple premise, Eilis (Ronan) is given a chance to leave Ireland thanks to a priest (Jim Broadbent), hops on a boat to the United States and ends up in Brooklyn, meets an interesting Italian man named Tony (Emory Cohen).

When her sister (Fiona Glascott) passes away, Eilis has to go check in with her mother (Jane Brennan), which kind of ruins her honeymoon after she and Tony get hitched at City Hall. Things get difficult for Eilis when she meets Jim Farrell (Domhnall Gleeson) and has to decide whether her home is in Ireland or Brooklyn.

That’s about it. The pacing is certainly off, the turns are at times ridiculous and some characters don’t seem to make sense, but Brooklyn is kind of just good.

It brings through enough characters – particularly scene stealers in youngster James DiGiacomo and veteran Julie Walters – to keep things funny and light around Eilis’s sadness and confusion and whatever else she has going on.

While that is a positive, it is also a drain as Eilis’ story and arc isn’t as interesting as it could be. She doesn’t have any fascinating personality traits, and she spends a good solid 20 minutes crying.

But hey, Brooklyn brings enough fun and enough warm feeling to be a good, enjoyable movie.

What’s with the categories? Find out here.

Direction/cinematography

John Crowley – who hasn’t done anything I’ve seen except a couple of those dreadful True Detective season two episodes – helms Brooklyn and he misses a chance to make the film truly memorable.

Between Ireland and New York there are some great chances to capture the beauty that Eilis encounters and is drawn into as she battles to find a home and leave her old ones.

Cinematographer Yves Bélanger doesn’t set scenes for Crowley to take advantage of and further use particularly of the period-style Brooklyn would have been interesting.

Alas, there is nothing truly memorable about the look of the film, it’s probably admirable that the classic Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island shots weren’t included as Eilis arrives in America, but really, that’s what those scenes should be for.

1/2

Writing

The pacing of Brooklyn is a major flaw.

I’m all for movies to be kept under two hours, far too many films, particularly those released in awards season aim to be 150 minutes long and cover too many bases.

Yet, Brooklyn doesn’t fully cover enough.

Eilis and Tony’s relationship is noticeably rushed and strange. Tony comes across as a nervous weirdo who is only loved by Eilis because he is the only one willing to ask her to dance.

He’s vulnerable around his family, but they only get two scenes and then he kind of forces Eilis into marriage, yet there is never any problems for him except that he likes baseball.

This bleeds into Eilis’ problems. She’s written almost as foolish, which can be blamed as entering a world she doesn’t understand, but she rarely gets a chance to show off her smarts or any other positive features that are often mentioned.

Jim comes into the film too late to be acknowledged as a real threat to Tony, yet after three scenes he is sort of thrown up as a threat, only to be knocked back because Eilis wants to prove somebody wrong.

There is a lot of snappy dialogue in Nick Hornby’s take on Colm Tóibín‘s novel, so that’s good.

0.8/2

Acting

Since her stunning performance in Atonement, Ronan has been consistently excellent for near on ten years now.

She is fully in control in Brooklyn and carries things perfectly, leading to her deserved second Oscar nomination. Her frailty and talent makes Eilis a credible lead, despite her lack of interesting traits.

Gleeson is as good as always as the everyman nice guy, Broadbent hits typical genial notes and the aforementioned Walters and DiGiacomo are hilarious in their smallish roles.

Emily Bett Rickards and Eve Macklin get some great screen time to play off each other as a couple of giddish mentor types for Eilis.

Cohen is interesting in his role, as his body movements and actions always give him a threatening look, yet he is playing a quiet, nice guy here.

He plays well as someone who is unsure how to treat beautiful women and his wife, with his strange, unlikable gait, yet may be more interesting as a catalyst for Eilis when he is off screen.

With Ronan leading the way, the cast bounce off her very well most of the time.

1.8/2

Re-watchability

The score in this section is helped by the clearly defined acts in Brooklyn, of Eilis’ first time in Ireland, her discovery of Brooklyn and Tony and her return to Ireland with Jim.

This makes things far easier to tune in for 20 minutes as Eilis is hanging out in her dorm house and making her first steps in her life with Tony, and dropping back in later.

There are some memorable scenes to try and tune in on – a Christmas dinner in a homeless shelter, Eilis’ journey to Coney Island – that make Brooklyn definitely part watchable.

Yet, I can’t see myself choosing to sit through the whole film again or sticking with it if i drop in half-way through.

1.6/2

Zeitgeist

Your mother will go and see this movie and watch it whenever it is on TV and Brooklyn will have a long life in the memory of your parents.

That’s probably about it. It’s not going to win any awards at the Oscars despite three nominations, but it should experience solid DVD sales, because old people still buy them.

1.3/2

Brooklyn – 6.5 out of 10

Room – Review

“This is the story that you get”

There is a fine line about how far entertainment can push a certain emotion and stay within the boundaries of entertainment.

Comedy can just be funny over and over and get away with it, but when the audience leaves a great big hole opens up that they’ve been duped into mindless laughter.

Drama carries a different burden. It has to remain flexible and shift gears and where it makes a conscious choice to not be humorous, it has to have something to say.

12 Years A Slave managed to carry an incredibly dark story and move through the outstanding Fassbender rage and uplifting finale to be worthwhile.

Making A Murderer, despite obvious faults, manages to take a dreary tale and say something about society and the justice system.

The Revenant takes it’s consistently painful plot and adds in enough action and faith philosophy to remain fascinating.

Room doesn’t bring in enough outside influences to keep it entertaining and anything other than a monotonous, slow moving affair.

It’s not fair to expect Room to be hilarious or overly action packed, but the lack of intrigue and worthwhile discussion coming off the premise is a blatent missing factor.

That premise – a mother (Brie Larson) and her young son Jack (Jacob Tremblay) are trapped in a garden shed by a kidnapper named Old Nick (Sean Bridgers) and upon their escape they are forced to discover and experience the outside world – isn’t one for gags.

The outside world is one for fascination and excitement however.

To have a five year old boy enter the world for the first time and not include any real expression of wonder or amusement or shock is bizarre.

Characters come in and out of the film and – particularly with William H. Macy – just about open their mouth to say something before being ushered off camera.

It’s not that Room completely shies away from the subjects that could have elevated it beyond average, but PTSD and life-worth are mentioned but never properly explored.

Room is a perfectly okayish movie, but it is a wasted chance to expand on a fascinating premise and dig deeper into the themes it has at hand.

Perfectly okayish movies aren’t really worth it though.

What’s with the categories? Find out here.

Direction/cinematorgraphy

Lenny Abrahamson lands himself on the map with his first Oscar nomination for Room and he does a steady job.

The shame with the look of the film is how dreary things get, but within the titular environment, Abrahamson and Danny Cohen do a great job of keeping the visuals intriguing in an extremely dull environment.

Once the camera leaves the room though, the inescapable winter outside draws back from what should be an exciting time. There is never any sun and as a result there is never any brightness, which I guess suits the script.

1.5/2

Writing

Emma Donoghue adapts her own novel of the same name and by now I think you know my thoughts on how it worked out.

Some positives: the escape scene is a standout with Stephen Rennicks’ excellent score propelling a scene that feels like it is kick starting the rest of the film and a TV interview brings up some interesting and personal subjects but feels too short.

Aside from that, Larson’s Ma’s struggles happen off-screen a pivotal time, Jack grates consistently and Ma’s parents Nancy (Joan Allen) and Robert (Macy) are never fully given a chance to say what they feel.

The second half feels like a mess where it should be the triumphant section of the film.

.5/2

Acting

Larson is excellent in her role, one that at this stage looks like it will win her an Oscar.

She has been a star since popping up on United States of Tara and conveys a mature talent in Room by somehow holding onto her protagonist role despite the constant screaming.

Larson handles her breakdown post-room well and it is a real shame that the film shifts from her just as she is going through her toughest and most interesting time.

In the other corner, Tremblay has been drawing a lot of love for his role and is making the most of his time in the spotlight, but his performance isn’t that great.

His persistent high pitched whaling is understandable considering his upbringing but it gets wholly annoying.

Sure the character should have troubles and all, but gosh, I just can’t stand him.

Screen treasures in Allen and Macy do well in their minimal time and Tom McCamus adds some fun as Leo.

1.3/2

Re-watchability

It’s just such a slog to get through Room despite a running time just under two hours.

That previously mentioned escape scene adds some excitement but around it is an hour and a half of dull sadness that doesn’t really go anywhere.

.3/2

Zeitgeist

Four Oscar nominations in key categories – direction, acting, writing and best picture – and a likely win for Larson will help the DVD cover.

And your parents will be hanging out for it to come onto Foxtel so they can watch it and pretend it was really good.

Apart from that, expect Room to fade into the background very quickly.

1/2

Room – 4.6 out of 10

Mad Max: Fury Road – Review

“My world is fire and blood.”

The concept is fundamentally ridiculous.

A resurrected franchise form a director who hasn’t done anything aside from Happy Feet films in 17 years.

A two hour car chase about something we never really understand, led by a titular character who mumbles only a handful of lines.

The outcome is ridiculous.

And what a ridiculous triumph it is.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a collection of ideas blended up with dust into a truly marvelous visual delight, it really is a lovely day in the wasteland.

Things happen that can’t be fully explained and the entire plot escapes me at this point, but it doesn’t matter.

What George Miller gives us is an exhilarating ride through the desert, a ride full of crashes, explosions, guitar-inspired fireballs and feminist victories.

Tom Hardy fills the once big shoes of Mel Gibson as the titular character, in a great bit of casting.

Max is captured early in the piece by the followers of the mental Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and strung onto the front of a car by Nux (Nicholas Hoult) and driven out into the desert.

One of Joe’s top soldiers, Furiosa (Charlize Theron) is out there driving a truck, but also planning an escape with the rig and Joe’s five wives, because you know, I wouldn’t be so keen on being selected for breeding by a disgusting man either.

Once Joe realises that his wives have veered off for mythical greener pastures, all engines are fired up to begin a pursuit, which includes Nux, which in turn includes Max.

That’s about all I can tell you about the plot, not because of spoiler fears, but more because there isn’t much else.

Furiosa and Max team up to help the wives, and shove is up the men. Joe gets angry, that guitar guy keeps playing fire emojis.

It doesn’t really matter, although it is great to have the blokes get beat, because Fury Road is an attack on the senses.

It doesn’t necessarily look beautiful, rather things just happen that look crazy and sound crazy and are crazy.

That’s probably because Fury Road is just crazy. But in a great way. It’s constantly entertaining and enthralling and it really is just a wild chase for two hours before your brain catches up to what is going on.

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

Direction/cinematography

The sets and vehicles may have been, but Miller certainly wasn’t rusty.

Coming back into big budget action really out of nowhere, Miller brings the energy required to what is essentially a 120-minute set piece.

With John Seale keeping things suitably desolate and raw and Margaret Sixel‘s editing outstanding, Fury Road keeps things suitably chaotic.

But through Miller’s guidance, it’s still easy to keep up with what and who we are following most of the time, and where we are going.

It’s a crucial steady hand and with Miller saying he wont be back to direct further sequels, whoever takes the role will have a big task.

1.8/2

Writing

As mentioned above, there isn’t much of a script to follow and there isn’t exactly a twisting and turning plot.

Some decisions made in the simple plot though are outstanding in the screenplay from Miller and Brendan McCarthy and Nick Lathouris.

Max may be the title character but he isn’t the main one, and making Furiosa the key character to the plot is a genius move that allows Max to remain gruffled and quiet.

Fury Road empowers the wives, Furiosa and a couple of extras in trying to throw over the establishment, whatever that is in this desolate version of Australia.

The pining for a place of green amidst a landscape devoid of colour sends a message pretty consistent with the situation of our planet.

But dialogue? Nah, there’s not much to write home about there.

1/2

Acting

Theron really is a treasure of cinema.

Consistently good in everything, even when the actual film isn’t, Theron can just cover every base.

She carries Fury Road, particularly in the middle when the action slows a little with a quiet rage and determination.

The five wives – Zoë Kravitz, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton – get varying roles but mostly pull off their timid, distressed roles.

Hardy does the grizzled, quiet Max a service and his ability to just become characters is on display yet again.

Hardy willingly slips into he background and performs his duties admirably, althought he doesn’t really have much of a range to go through.

Hoult is another highlight, bringing a strange vulnerability to his role as a redemptive chrome sniffer.

The raging antagonists flyring across the flats all do a lot of yelling, so that’s cool.

1.7/2

Re-watchability

Second time around, I’d skip the first 15 minutes or so as it is pretty forgettable once the engines start roaring, but once they do it’s thrilling stuff.

There are so many sequences that require second looks just to catch up with everything that is going on on the screen that Fury Road has to be re-watched again and again just to catch up with everything.

To try and figure out what is going on with the chrome spray, what’s with that guy’s face and that goddamn guitar guy, Fury Road must be re-watched.

And it’s really fun too.

1.9/2

Zeitgeist

At least in Australia, Fury Road is like of the biggest film ever, so that has to boost the home grown zeitgeist.

Elsewhere, 10 Oscar nominations, a multitude of awards across the season including the AFI Film of the year, Fury Road clearly has the prestige angle covered.

But in terms of a film that is just so memorable, so bat-shit crazy and ready to spawn more sequels, Fury Road has to land high in the zeitgeist.

1.9/2

Mad Max: Fury Road – 8.3 out of 10

The Martian – Review

“I don’t want to come across as arrogant here, but I’m the greatest botanist on the planet”

When a movie is made just as it is supposed to it can be an engrossing ride that takes audiences out of their own lives for a couple of hours and stays with them forever.

The Martian literally takes the audience into a completely different world and is just ridiculously entertaining.

Coercing a long, all star cast led by Matt Damon, the film manages to take a serious sci-fi premise and keep things light and fun throughout.

A lot of that is due to the sharp script from Drew Goddard and a terrifically charismatic performance from Damon, who perfects his public image as the cool guy you want to hang out with in this film.

Ridley Scott helms things smartly and crisply and the film does well to balance the juxtapositions of its settings, from Mars to NASA headquarters and that other NASA place.

Mars is a setting because a manned mission there goes wrong due to a freak storm. Melissa Lews (Jessica Chastain) has no choice but to liftoff in the middle of the storm as botanist Mark Watney (Damon) has gone missing and is assumed dead.

Surprisingly to everyone, Watney wakes up in the red dirt and is forced to survive on a lifeless planet with nothing but his brain.

Meanwhile on Earth, Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) declares Watney dead until he can phone home, wherein Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) attempts to figure out a way to bring him home.

Where The Martian succeeds most is the way it manages to balance so many characters, with role players including Kristen Wiig, Michael Peña, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Mackenzie Davis, Donald Glover and Benedict Wong the way The Martian manages to give them all separate personalities and traits is exceptional. They all get their chance to crack a gag and also help out.

It’s not all rosy, having Ejiofor play Kapoor (Irrfan Khan was the original choice), clearly written as Indian and Davis playing Mindy Park – a Korean – is definitely a mistake.

There is also an unnecessary subplot involving the Chinese space administration lending a hand, but if you can do anything to sell a movie to China you may as well.

But The Martian is just one of those movies where when the light comes on there is a pause in the audience, an exhale and then a consensus round of smiles.

Sometimes movies are made just as they should, to be entertaining and fun.

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

Direction/cinematography

Scott doesn’t try too hard with his direction here, taking a back seat as the action unfolds.

He relies a lot on setting visuals through cameras that are in scene – through video diaries, cameras on buggies – as a way of allowing Damon to talk directly to the audience.

It’s a smart idea, but at times it feels robotic and mechanical.

Dariusz Wolski looks after the cinematography and in conjunction with Scott they present a desolate planet sharply.

At times, because of the technological point of view and the disappearance of scope on Mars it seems like Watney isn’t really in much danger, but actions scenes are controlled perfectly and bring that concern back immediately.

1.6/2

Writing

Taken from Andy Weir‘s novel of the same name, Goddard does a terrific job at bringing a range of characters to life.

The Martian never gets bogged down in the serious nature of the premise, as every scene seems to have a gag in there somewhere.

Damon gets the best lines, making light of his predicament consistently in the video diaries.

As mentioned, the Chinese sub-plot is a little unnecessary and the jabs at disco music quickly lose their humour.

But Goddard does a fantastic job keeping the science at the forefront of the film, but also not letting it overwhelm the dialogue and action. What Watney and the NASA folk are doing is always explained, but also allowed to occur without over-explanation.

1.7/2

Acting

Damon gets a chance to shine here and nails it, playing the charismatic role he has kind of avoided.

Perhaps only in stages during The Departed, Saving Private Ryan and Good Will Hunting has Damon ever showed the same level of fun, relatable performance he puts in here during the entire movie.

His public image as the nice, family man out of the Affleck/Damon couple has never really been reflected in his roles, but in The Martian, Damon is afforded that chance and is just about perfect for the role.

Behind Damon, Chastain and Peña are the standouts in their crew.

Chastain has the strong, leading type nailed down, while Peña’s quick talking gags are always a delight.

Ejiofor and Davis perform the best out of the NASA crew, despite their poor casting, with Ejiofor’s joyful presence jumping off the screen whenever he appears (another name to throw into the next-James-Bond hat) and Davis carrying a calming curiosity to her character.

None of the other role players get as much time as they deserve – in particular Wiig – but with a cast this deep that is they way it is going to go.

1.8/2

Re-watchability

An action movie set in space directed by Ridley Scott that is also pretty funny? Yeah, that’s re-watchable.

2/2

Zeitgeist

As two prestigious sci-fi flicks released in quick succession involving an abandoned Matt Damon, The Martian will constantly be in competition with Interstellar as the best stand alone space move of the time (no chance either can out-zeitgeist The Force Awakens).

From where I stand, Interstellar is the better all-round movie, but with two Golden Globes behind it, and a better re-watchability stand point, The Martian will probably sneak ahead.

What does that mean in terms of a zeitgeist score? Well, The Martian has fought through an incredible year in cinema to sit right near the top of the pile.

1.8/2

The Martian – 8.9 out of 10

New Review Style

I’ve put together a few reviews in my time here at Couch Opinions, and I’m sure you’ve read all of them extensively.

So after my time putting reviews together, it’s time for a shake up and to put a decent definition and reasoning behind the scores each movie gets.

I’ve decided to break things down to keep with the out of ten ratings all movies have received on this blog, but make things appear more scientific (when they are clearly still subjective) via further rating systems.

Each category garners a rating out of two, which when put together leaves an overall score out of ten.

Here are the categories:

• Direction/cinematography: Obviously a rating of the work the director and the director of photography, this is a measure of the look of the film, the movements of the camera and how that improved/ruined a film.
• Writing: While film is still a directors medium, there is no doubt scripting is as vital as ever when putting together a film. This section will rate the script: the dialogue, the characters, the twists.
• Acting: Pretty clear this one, if the film has Jake Gyllenhaal in it, it’s going to get two out of two. Unless it has Rita Ora in it.
• Re-watch-ability: If the film is on TV tomorrow night how much of it will you have to watch? For example, if you’re flicking channels and you see The Dark Knight is on, you’re going to get stuck watching it for the 30th time. This rating changes drastically, if a film has two or three memorable scenes it will score a one, if it’s too long to actually be able to watch without setting aside an evening beforehand it’s going to score low, if it’s like The Wolf of Wall Street and full of scenes you remember once you start watching, forcing you to stay on the channel, it’s going to score well.
• Zeitgeist: Where does this film fall in the zeitgeist? Will anybody actually remember this movie in 15 years or will it be forgotten? Basically a rating of whether this film will make it into the ‘known for’ section of anybodies IMDb page.

There are your categories, now I need to go watch some movies so I can start this. Keep an eye on Couch Opinions as the year winds down, which as we all know means the award films are coming back out so things will get busy.

The Grand Budapest Hotel – Review

A typical Wes Anderson movie, The Grand Budapest Hotel covers periods between the world wars in ways that only Anderson can. With his trademark humour and wide, wide collection of wacky characters, Budapest has a dark tone that shows itself through the brilliance.

Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) is a concierge at the famous Grand Budapest Hotel. A lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori) becomes his most trusted friend as Gustave H. attempts to recover a fortune he is owed in the will of an old ally. The two fall into a series of misadventures as the continent begins to change with World War II approaching.

Budapest is notable for, amongst many things, it’s brilliant style and it’s loaded cast. Anderson has gathered an impressive batch of regular players, and they all make appearances. Some, like Jude Law, F. Murray Abraham, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe and Saoirise Ronan make great impacts in their roles and make their characters memorable. Others, like Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Edward Norton (jarring accent) and Jason Schwartzman appear almost unnecessarily and stand as a distraction.

Don’t let the bloated cast take away from the leads though. Fiennes hasn’t been better suited to a role since Quiz Show. His subtle British charm is on overload here, and he swaggers through the role with a glorious humour that it feels like only Fiennes could do. He’s quietly become one of the great character actors of his generation, who else could portray the generation’s greatest villain in Voldemort with such menace and be so brilliantly charming in this film?

Revolori acts as his counterpart in this film, and he is excellent. He understands that he is not the main show and plays himself almost silently, trying to fall into the background. It’s effective and impressive, I haven’t seen Revolori in anything before, but it’s the kind of performance that will make me interested whenever I see him next.

The true star though is Anderson. Budapest has gained more traction with the public than almost all his other movies, yet it isn’t because he toned down his fanciful indie style. There is a scene where Gustave and Zero are on the run from Dafoe’s menacing Jopling that jumps in various styles, yet instead of feeling jarring it feels fun and interesting. The action and dialogue as always seems wild, but there is an ominous war feeling behind everything that happens. Anderson’s Nazi’s feel well mannered but monstrous and it creates a whimsical danger. Gustave hiding behind cupcakes as Nazi’s attack it s glorious juxtaposition.

There is a dark story to tell with Budapest, and while it might get snagged along the way trying to juggle characters, it is an incredibly involving story.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

8.5 out of 10 – Excellent

With surprising depth, Wes Anderson brings his whimsical style and a brilliant Ralph Fiennes along in an entertaining adventure in The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The Theory of Everything – Review

“It’s all been rather extraordinary hasn’t it?”

The difficulty in producing a biopic with a story that is well known is covering the parts that aren’t well known. The Theory of Everything has to juggle the tale we all know – Stephen Hawking is given two years to live and proves that completely wrong – with the far less publicised love story. It succeeds, but not totally, the romance plods up and down, but provides enough interest to keep the film moving.

Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne), a brilliant but lazy scientist meets Arts student Jane (Felicity Jones) at a party. The two talk all night and begin a romance. However, while working on his PhD, Stephen collapses and is told by a doctor (an excellent Adam Godley) he has motor neuron disease and he has only two years to live. Jane refuses to leave Stephen as he continues his work before his time runs out.

The story of the Hawkings is incredible, there is no doubting that, but their romance in this film at times feels labored. Their magical love-at-first-sight introduction is never explained. I’m not sure how Stephen, obviously played out to be awkward and bumbling, managed to keep Jane riveted through hours of scientific conversation at their party, yet alone, have that conversation be the basis for her virtually unwavering love for the next decade or so. They do have a lovely romantic evening at a ball, but it all seems a little contrived and lacking in depth.

The relationship is held together by the strength of the lead performances. Redmayne nails the role, making sure he never slips into parody and never gets to theatrical. Redmayne makes brilliant use out of his eyes later in the film. It’s a stunning performance from a relatively fresh actor, and one that looks like it could cement him as one of the next great character actors. Jone’s Jane is given life that seems like it wasn’t in the script (an overall impressive one by Anthony McCarten). In particular her relationship with a churchman in Jonathon (Charlie Cox) is given a certain emotional gravitas by her hesitant, but desperate performance.

Unfortunately, both characters seem at their best when they are not alone with each other. Stephen is at his best when he is working. Their family becomes incredibly more interesting when Jonathon becomes a third parent, and the marriage is perhaps most intriguing when they are discussing God. Scenes surrounding God – Jane’s firm belief versus Stephen’s logical disbelief – are perhaps the most interesting of the film, but they are rare.

Aside from a charming, fatherly role from David Thewlis, The Theory of Everything  belongs to Jones and Redmayne. They carry it to an entertaining and heart warming place. The reverse montage to close the film is clever and enforces the emotion behind this film, and it is a nice touch from director James Marsh, who does a solid job. The film makes itself more about their marriage than it needs to be, but the Hawkings take the film to the nice place it deserves to be.

The Theory of Everything

7.2 out of 10 – Very Good

Carried by standout performances from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything does just enough to escape the dull background of the main plot.

 

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.