lucasversantvoort Reviews

By the Sea (2015)

Too reminiscent of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

[6/10 · 14 December 2015]

I can't be the only one who was baffled by this film's trailer: a relationship drama? With Brangelina? Written and directed by Jolie? I just didn't see it working, especially since I've heard conflicting things about her capabilities as a writer/director. By the Sea, while not an outright bad film, suffers from poor story design, rendering the central dramatic twist--and therefore my reason for caring--emotionally inert.

Roland (Brad Pitt) and Vanessa (Jolie) have been married for 14 years and, for an as of yet unknown reason, have decided to travel the countryside in France. They stop and stay at a coastal hotel. They meet some of the locals, including their recently married neighbors. But all's not well: Roland and Vanessa have drifted apart due to some tragic event and will have to find out whether their relationship can endure.

If the film does something right, it's creating a convincing atmosphere. Jolie opts for a slow pace that allows you, like Roland and Vanessa, to wallow in this little town's dreamy quality and the feeling of being divorced from reality.

The film's central problem, however, is that it's predictable. A vocal, synth-pop orchestral version of Chopin's prelude op.28 no. 4 is tracked over the opening credits. The music was used during Chopin's funeral; that and the music's melancholy quality already told me plenty about what's been plaguing this couple for years on end. This feeling was strengthened by all the things that reminded me of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf with Burton and Taylor. If you've seen that film, you've seen this one.

The problem is that the film treats the dramatic event that shaped Roland and Vanessa's marriage as a mystery. But it's not especially hard to figure out, with all the similarities to Virginia Woolf, so when the big reveal comes, it doesn't feel like the culmination to an emotional journey. Worse, by scripting the film's central issue as a mystery, the script treats Vanessa like a mystery too which undermines our chances to empathize with her troubles, rendering the climactic scene emotionally inert.

Even stranger is how passive Vanessa is in this regard. Roland practically forces her to face her fears and say what really troubles her (though I don't mean to make Roland look like an abusive husband). He's figured it out already, but needs her to say it too. I can't imagine that basically putting words into someone's mouth is the best way to 'let the healing begin'. I thought that someone has to figure it out 'on their own' with the subtle guidance of the expert. So, not only does the climax lack emotional punch, but it doesn't even feel like she had a say in reaching this enlightenment.

By the Sea isn't the trainwreck I might be making it out to be. The Pitt-Jolie interplay does occasionally yield its own rewards, although I'm not sure whether their playing the leads is simply due to their chemistry or that this is supposed to be their Burton/Taylor-moment. In the end though, it's the film's predictable, Virginia Woolf-esque nature that makes it hard to stay invested in the trials and tribulations of this particular couple.

Burnt (I) (2015)

Insert cooking joke here

[5/10 · 14 December 2015]

It's always fun to review films centered on cooking, because it allows for plenty of culinary wordplay. I could make a joke about how Burnt is an appropriate title, but I'm not going to, because I'm better than that. You'd think with all the talent involved in this production, the end result would've been something to see, but it's not.

Adam Jones used to be a great chef. Then he got hooked on liquor, drugs, what have you and he lost it all. Then he started to atone for his sins by shucking a million oysters in a restaurant. Eventually though, he decides to go back to London and help a restaurant attain a third Michelin star.

The big problem with Burnt is that it doesn't render Adam as a particularly likable character in its first act. How do you have a character seeking redemption, played by Bradley Cooper no less, and make him so unlikeable as to render you inert to his inevitable character development? That's the kind of achievement that deserves a Michelin star all on its own...if that star was a picture of Gordon Ramsey flipping you off. You've got the basics like the main character falling from culinary grace through sex, drugs--and everything in between--and then trying to get his life back in order. I get that the script has to therefore make Adam unlikable in the beginning, but it's too much and irrevocably harms the way you view the rest of the film. All the references to his dramatic past that are never fully explained don't help things in the likability department either. When Adam has one of his temper tantrums in the kitchen, you just want to smack him instead of empathizing with his feelings of frustration.

The other downside is the amount of well-known actors. Usually, this strengthens a film, but here it just makes the film feel clogged, like an overly stuffed chicken. The presence of familiar faces automatically makes you assume these will be well-developed at some point, but they never do, though Sienna Miller carries herself well as usual.

It's frustrating to watch all the talent involved and see the final product go to waste. From the unlikable protagonist to the bevy of underdeveloped supporting characters, this is a chapter in the history of film we'd better just all forget asap.

The Good Dinosaur (2015)

Bambi + The Lion King

[7/10 · 14 December 2015]

Remember when the Coen brothers released Burn After Reading right after No Country for Old Men? Remember how Burn After Reading subsequently didn't become the hit people were hoping for? I believe the word 'overshadowed' was used. This is what's happened with Pixar, which has decided to release Inside Out and then serve up The Good Dinosaur, which unfairly--but inevitably--comes across as the dessert to Inside Out's main dish, albeit a very fine dessert whose only faults lie with predictability, a feeling of been there, done that.

The film opens with the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, except here it barely misses Earth. We're introduced to a couple of dinosaurs that own a farm near a looming mountain range. They have three babies, including the tiny Arlo who's a bit of a scaredy-cat. They grow up and do their chores. Dad makes a make-shift silo to store the food and tells the kids that if they work hard, they can literally make their mark on the silo (i.e. putting a muddy footprint on it). Eventually, Arlo is the only one who hasn't made his mark due to his anxiety issues. Dad tries to encourage him, but tragedy inevitably strikes and Arlo is swept along the river and wakes up in a place unknown to him. So begins his journey to maturity.

This is the first Pixar film where I was reminded more than a few times of other Disney films, particularly Bambi and The Lion King. If you've seen those, you've seen The Good Dinosaur. When a herd of longhorns come running, it can only remind one of the famous bull charge in The Lion King. But the similarities extend beyond a few winks and nods. The entire nature of the story, Arlo's maturation, is right out of the book according to Bambi. All that's missing is a 'circle of life' metaphor.

That being said, The Good Dinosaur is really well made. It takes a while to set things up, but it's quite engrossing once it really gets going. It's quite dramatic at times, though Pixar is careful to avoid showing any explicit deaths (despite the 'survival of the fittest' theme).

One of the film's greatest achievements is the mute human boy, Spot, who Arlo ends up befriending. The keyword here is 'mute'. Pixar manage to fully realize this character, convey his thoughts and emotions, solely through facial expressions and movement, like they did in the first act of Wall-E.

This single character made me wonder how impressive the film would've been had there been exactly zero dialogue. Pixar obviously knows how to tell a story and convey emotions in purely visual terms. In fact, some of the most gripping scenes here have no dialogue. A story about a dinosaur having to learn to survive and be responsible lends itself so well to visual storytelling and would reaffirm the power of animation. But I guess it would make Arlo's tale even more dramatic and we don't want to scare away the kids now do we...? The Good Dinosaur is a well-crafted play on familiar themes. Overall, it's pretty clichéd and predictable, but effectively told. It's got some creative humor and even though you see it coming, it still tugs at your heartstrings. Not one for the ages, but The Good Dinosaur definitely makes true on the 'good' part.

Pawn Sacrifice (2014)

The Cold War on a chessboard

[7/10 · 14 December 2015]

First Bridge of Spies, now Pawn Sacrifice? Apparently, the East vs West theme is back in full force again. Pawn Sacrifice details the rise and fall of Bobby Fischer, chess player extraordinaire.

The film chronicles Fischer's childhood all the way to his tragic end, though his later years (aka his life after winning the World Championships in '72) are thankfully left as a credits message. The focus lies on his match(es) with Russian master chess player Boris Spassky. After some early childhood scenes, we see Fischer participating in a tournament in which he ends up quitting, claiming the Russians were cheating so he'd lose on points. Not only does he quit the tournament, he quits chess altogether. Sometime later, he meets a lawyer, Paul Marshall, who considers himself a patriot. Being a patriot, he would very much like to see Fischer pick up chess once again and beat the Russians. Fischer also encounters a priest who once beat Spassky when they were young. Together they start the long climb to that fateful showdown with Spassky which would take place in Iceland. And along the way, Fischer would sink further and further into neurotic and paranoid delusions, from anti-Semitic remarks to believing the Russians might transmit rays to his brain through his dental fillings.

If anything, I thought the casting of Tobey Maguire was pretty inspired. Although I'm still on the fence in terms of his acting chops, he does come across as a bit of an outsider, the odd one out, which befits the film's portrayal of the paranoid, neurotic Fischer. I also can't fail to mention Liev Schreiber who portrays Spassky. Although the film's focus lies primarily with Fischer, Schreiber does manage to inject a subtle gravitas into the character. Bonus points for the fact he had to learn Russian for the part.

Director Zwick also manages to inject a film where people are pretty much standing in rooms talking with excitement and tension. In fact, the film gets better as it goes on. The chess matches in particular need a smart director who's able to turn two guys sitting at a table into a monumental battle of wills. You really get a sense of how high the stakes are, what losing (and winning) would mean for these two.

The film's not without its flaws however. It falls headfirst into the trap of feeling the need to show Fischer's childhood, since this is, you know, a biopic. While attempting to seek the source of Fischer's anti-Semitism and anti-communism in his childhood is understandable, these scenes feel rushed': let's quickly establish the political proclivities of his mother, his talent for chess, his need for peace and quiet, then quickly show a fight between him and his mom to show how they drifted apart, etc. All this information could've been inserted into the present fairly easily. What's worse, it doesn't have the emotional impact it should. The acting of teenage Fischer doesn't help either...

There's also the matter of the implication of the title. The film makes the case that Fischer's mental problems were ignored so that he could represent America in its 'fight' against the Russians. While the film's convincing insofar as it concerns lawyer Paul Marshall's role in Fischer's life, the film's not as successful in implicating others. With Marshall it makes sense, because he had intimate knowledge of Fischer's mental health, but other people, up to the President? To suggest they all willfully sacrificed this pawn seems a bit of stretch. The metaphor works in a general sense, however, that Fischer was in the wrong place (America) at the wrong time (the Cold War), a time when wars were fought in unconventional locations, like chess boards. In this sense, his participation has a tragic inevitability to it.

I guess that's the tragedy of the film. Despite all the factual correctness, it still has to suggest so much. All these unanswered questions. I guess I can't really blame the filmmakers for not providing some clear answers regarding Fischer when psychologists are still debating these issues. The film's directed and acted well enough though to warrant your interest.

Steve Jobs (2015)

Thrilling from beginning to end

[9/10 · 14 December 2015]

I missed the previous Steve Jobs film featuring Ashton Kutcher, but somehow I'm getting the feeling I didn't miss much. When another Jobs film was announced with a script by Aaron Sorkin, my interest was piqued. Apparently, Sorkin's going through a phase where he likes innovative assholes; first with Zuckerberg and now with Jobs. But hey, The Social Network turned out pretty great, so of course I looked forward to Steve Jobs. And despite the fact I know very little about Steve Jobs, the resulting film is very impressive, as in the experience alone leaves a lasting impression.

Just like Sorkin said he would early in production, the film's divided into three parts: each one taking place right before one of Jobs's iconic presentations. It's in these half hours where Jobs isn't just trying to get every single detail of his presentations right, but where he finds himself confronted by colleagues, his ex and the girl who's most likely (as in 94.1%) his daughter. His ex--and Jobs's marketing executive Joanna Hoffman--agree that he should take parental responsibility, but Steve won't have any of it, besides agreeing to make some money available to his ex. In terms of colleagues, the most important are CEO John Sculley, engineer and programmer Steve Wozniak and computer scientist Andy Hertzfeld, all crucial to Apple's success. Over the course of these three radically differing time periods, we find them interacting and profoundly influencing each other's lives.

Sorkin's script is the key to this film's success by far. I know very little about Apple and Steve Jobs, so the learning curve was daunting to me. This made things particularly confusing during an intense argument between Jobs and Sculley which is crosscut with another argument between the two from many years ago. Information overload! Information overload! But even so, it was riveting to see a film made of 100% talking be so exciting from beginning to end. This film goes from argument to argument and never lets up. The fact that there's deadlines just around the corner adds to the constant sense of urgency. Sorkin also adds cute little details, like using computational terms to describe human behavior as seen when Wozniak tells Jobs he can be a genius and decent at the same time; it doesn't have to be binary.

Director Danny Boyle's primary task was to bring Sorkin's script to life. If the director was someone like, say, George Lucas, we'd be getting shot, reverse-shots constantly to 'enhance' the drama. But Boyle's got a grasp, knows how to keep things moving. He gets a few opportunities to inject some exciting visuals into the proceedings, but ultimately his task is to enhance the conversations. The characters might be walking through halls to meet someone while also discussing things amongst themselves. When two characters are talking in a room, Boyle uses changing camera angles and has the actors move around occasionally to make things dynamic. Sometimes this is used to great effect: after Wozniak scolds Jobs for being a nasty person and walks away, the screen behind Jobs says 'Think different'.

And let's not forget Fassbender who brings out multiple facets of Jobs's personality. Again, I have never seen any footage of Jobs, so I couldn't comment on whether he gets all the mannerisms right., but what I do know is that the performance is stellar. The same goes for Jeff Daniels (Sculley) who seems to have become the go-to guy for bosses (see also The Martian). Michael Stuhlbarg as Hertzfeld and Seth Rogen as Wozniak also convey a sense of having known Jobs for years, but never really having shed the uncomfortableness when being around him. Last but not least, there's Kate Winslet as Joanna who seems to be the only one who really knows Jobs and is easily capable of standing up to him.

I can't judge the film's historical accuracy, but I do know it's absolutely thrilling. A sense of disappointment washed over me as I realized things were wrapping up. I wanted to see more, more of these characters talking, discussing technology, arguing amongst each other. It's an experience more than anything and one of those films I wanted to see a second time and I rarely get that feeling after going to the movies.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Horror-Comedy 101

[8/10 · 14 December 2015]

You know that feeling when, after dragging yourself through the dregs of modern comedies, you find yourself asking where all the good comedies are? Well, today I realized just how many crappy comedies I'd seen lately and so decided to watch one which I knew was good, but (to my shame) had never seen before: Shaun of the Dead. Much to my delight, it was every bit as good as I'd heard.

Shaun (Simon Pegg) lives together with his best friend, the fat/overweight Ed (Nick Frost). Ed works as an assistant in an electronics store not one block away from his house and Ed...well, Ed sells pot every now and then. They also share the house with Pete, a businessman (of course) who can't tolerate Ed's uselessness. Shaun is having relationship troubles with not only his girlfriend Liz, but also his mom and step-dad. Then the zombie apocalypse breaks out and Shaun will find himself on a journey, not just to survive, but also to repair said relationships. It's fun for the whole family, really.

What's so refreshing about Shaun of the Dead are the amount of visual jokes. Nary a minute goes by without there being a visual gag. So many comedies are reliant on verbal punchlines that it's nice to see a film that's aware of the possibilities of its own medium. The way it repeats these jokes is also brilliant. Shaun walking to work is a classic example: first, he gives a homeless guy some change and the next day, when the homeless guy's zombified, the absent-minded Shaun doesn't notice the difference, so apologizes for the fact he has no change. The way jokes are told purely through framing and editing is also fantastic, like the way it's slowly revealed in the opening scene that Shaun and Liz aren't the only ones sitting at the table.

I do have to say I found the drama a tad overbearing, particularly towards the end. I get that you need a story to prevent the film from becoming an aimless string of jokes, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was watching a great comedy? All of a sudden, everyone and their mothers are dying and it's all a bit too dramatic for my tastes. It's not that these bits are poorly directed or acted; that's not it at all. Rather, it just feels a bit too out of place given the all the great gags that came before.

I also think director/writer Edgar Wright and co-writer Simon Pegg could've done a bit more with the jump-scares. There's a handful of jump-scares that are just...there. Jumpscares are one of the biggest clichés in horror, so it's a pity they didn't find a way to parody them or subvert them in some way.

In the end, the amount of terrific jokes and visual gags are so great in number, any complaints are quickly rendered superfluous. Hot Fuzz, here I come!

A Family Affair (II) (2015)

The Transgenerational Impact of Child-Parent Relationships

[8/10 · 14 December 2015]

Tom Fassaert, photographer and documentary maker, one day receives an invitation from his 95 year-old grandmother who lives in South Africa. All he knows about her are the misery-filled tales told by his father, her son. Tom visits her and films all their conversations. The result is a mind-boggling portrait of this family and its many ills.

A Family Affair becomes a meditation on childhood trauma's and how these are carried by its victims their entire lives unless both parties are willing to get together and have a sit-down. Usually, however, the things that need to be said remain unsaid. The tragedy here, which Fassaert shows with utmost clarity, is that Marianne is just unable to do so due to how self-absorbed and narcissistic she is. This is a woman who, being a single mom, put her three year-old sons in an orphanage for (if I remember correctly) the sake of her fashion career, but when told that this was a traumatic experience for them, can't even begin to understand how such an experience might be traumatic. This is someone who when meeting her oldest son (Fassaert's uncle), who ended up in a psychiatric institute in his teens due to his toxic relationship with her, for the first time in years can only seem to speak of her fancy house and backyard back in South Africa. This is someone who falls in love with Fassaert, her grandson mind you, and has to be told by an acquaintance that such a thing could never be before she seems to accept this. This is someone who is unable to, or perhaps emotionally can't afford to, accept the harm she's caused her children and seems to prefer living in the past, when she was a diva and still had her youth.

Nevertheless, Fassaert doesn't fail in drawing out some painful memories from Marianne as well. In a pivotal scene, she reveals to Tom (for the first time in history, she claims) lots of things about her childhood, how she sensed her father appreciated her only because of her looks, how she had to put money on the table as a single mom through modeling, etc. You quickly get a sense of where she's coming from and the transgenerational impact of child-parent relationships and trauma's.

The crux of the matter, however, is that the tears she sheds during this conversation aren't shed for her sons, but for herself. She never truly atones for the pain she's caused her children nor does she seem really aware of it. And that's the real tragedy: these children (in the sense that they are still 'children') are essentially waiting their entire lives for the Big Talk with their mother, where they all lay their cards on the table, so that they can let the healing can begin. However, Marianne, damaged as she is in her own way, will never be able to meet those demands.

Fassaert presents all this and more in a wonderfully natural documentary that never devolves into melodrama. It couldn't have been easy, spending five years making this documentary, having been warned by his father to not let himself be fooled by Marianne, this 'expert manipulator'. But the end result isn't just some family melodrama, but a universal cautionary tale to all families, to not let the unspoken remain unspoken.

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Definitely not a bridge too far

[8/10 · 14 December 2015]

Spielberg's been more and more interested in 'true stories' lately, what with him directing War Horse, Lincoln and so on. The same goes for Bridge of Spies, the story of how one insurance lawyer managed to negotiate the exchange between a Soviet spy and an American army pilot in East Berlin during the Cold War. Spielberg, armed with a script co-written by--of all people--the Coen brothers (oh ya betcha, yaaa!), manages to bring this piece of history to life, as a film about history should.

1957. A Russian spy, Abel (Mark Rylance), is arrested in New York. James Donovan (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer is brought on to defend him. But, he is told, it's basically a farce, since everyone and their mother wants to see this guy hang. The trial is merely to show the world he was treated fairly. Donovan takes his duties seriously, however, and defends Abel to the best of his abilities, to the dismay of pretty much the entire populace. During this time, his relationship with Abel seems to develop into a strange friendship, a sort of mutual understanding despite their differences. The judge presiding over the case wants to see Abel found guilty as much as anyone, but Donovan manages to persuade him to sentence him to jail rather than the chair. At this point, the film's second half begins. An American pilot on a top-secret mission is shot down and captured by the Russians and the CIA asks for Donovan's help in arranging the exchange: Abel for the pilot. Donovan travels to East Berlin, around the time the Berlin Wall was being built, to meet with the Russians, to have the conversations their governments can't.

What I found most appealing is something that is ironically also probably the source of that Spielberg-ian sense of Americana: James Donovan's sense of honor. James and Abel find each other in a way. They value each other's sense of honor and duty. Donovan argues in court that America should behave according to its own well-established rules, even during wartime, otherwise you're also dismissing the Constitution and how could you possibly represent American and all it stands for if you do that? Spielberg must have felt Donovan's message was relevant today. Then again, whenever we see Abel being fairly treated in prison (the way Donovan would've wanted), it's immediately contrasted with how the American pilot is harshly interrogated in Russia, so there's also a righteous America vs brutal Russia undertone, perhaps referring to how the Russia of today is fairing under Putin. Maybe both meanings apply simultaneously, with Spielberg urging humane behavior from both world powers.

If there's one thing the film doesn't sell well, it's the family scenes. Amy Ryan gets the unfortunate role of the nagging wife. That's selling her a bit short, but every time we see her, she's worried about Donovan, the family, the way society perceives them. That's her primary emotion: worry. And what about the son? There was not a single scene where I believed I was watching a father-son relationship. I get that he symbolizes the poisonous influence of those prepare-yourself-against-the-Russians video's from the fifties, but how am I supposed to take him seriously when their house is fired upon and they first thing this kid does is eagerly say he followed the correct procedure in case the Russians attacked them? If they wanted to increase the emotional stakes with the family scenes, well, they failed miserably.

Another (minor) complaint is the build-up to Francis Gary Powers' plane crash. It's just technical stuff we learn here. We're not becoming emotionally attached to Francis at all. Therefore, the only tense part of his inevitable capture is the CGI-ridden crash itself. You introduced the student only minutes before his capture, so why does the pilot deserve all this endless build-up? Either do a build-up like this right, or let it end up on the cutting room floor. The film's long enough as it is.

Overall though, the film's quite good. The drama is never overbearing, the film manages to infuse the proceedings with a sense of humor that essentially ridicules this strange part of history (perhaps à la Strangelove) and, even with what I consider some superfluous scenes, it's wonderfully paced. Definitely not a bridge too far.

Regression (I) (2015)

Failed attempt at a thinking man's horror film

[5/10 · 14 December 2015]

Being a nineties kid, I didn't experience the supposed social panic surrounding satanic cults in the eighties, which is where Regression draws its inspiration, claiming to be inspired (not even 'based on') by true events. Both Regression's success and failure can be linked back to its final plot twist, a twist that--while surprising--undoes all that comes before.

John Gray is accused by his own daughter, Angela (Emma Watson) of sexual abuse. There's only one problem: he doesn't remember it at all. Detective Bruce Kenner (Ethan Hawke) takes an interest in the case. As he digs deeper and deeper together with a psychologist, he becomes convinced that a satanic cult are operating behind the scenes. Needless to say, his tireless pursuit of the truth starts to take its toll on his own mental health.

Any and all discussion of Regression starts and ends with the final plot twist. Spoilers ahead. All I can say is that it changes everything, but not in a good way. This is where the setting and the obsession with satanic cults comes into play. It turns out that Angela made everything up just to get away from her family. (The film makes it sound slightly more plausible.) This throws the entire satanic cult theme straight into the trash. I guess Regression tried to do a reverse Rosemary's Baby by there not being a cult at all. However, the film seems bent on pointing the finger at you and shaming you for believing it. The fact that you went along with it, the film seems to suggest, is proof how easily this kind of collective hysteria could exist. I get that and it's a decent concept, but...that's real life; this is film. We've seen stranger stuff than this. You can't dangle satanic cults in front of the audience for ninety percent of the film, do a 180 and then mock the audience for even buying it for a second.

Also, the twist undoes all that has come before. What we're left with is a sociopathic girl and a bunch of nightmare sequences. Now that there's no cult, all the twists and reveals start to feel a little too convenient. The film tries to explain it away with regression therapy inducing false memories and the effects (nightmares, etc.) of social panic, but it feels thin and certainly doesn't make for gripping storytelling.

Regression tries to be something more than just a generic horror flick. You can tell simply by the fact that the jump-scares are kept to a minimum. Also, when you consider the director's previous efforts, it feels like the end result should've been something like a thinking man's horror film, but it just never gets there and not even the actors' best efforts can save it.

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)

A film of zombies, by zombies and for zombies

[4/10 · 14 December 2015]

More like the Scouts Guide to Crappy Filmmaking. Look, nobody's going into this film with high expectations, but is it too much ask for at least a handful of well-deserved laughs? Scouts Guide could only have been made today. Zombies are all the rage these days (for reasons I can't explain) and there's always room for teen comedies with lots of gross-out humor and sex jokes. You'd think combining both genres into one movie would make sense, but--despite the actors' efforts--Scouts Guide just stumbles from one scene to the next, begging you to care.

Do I even need to explain the story? Three scouts and a stripper, I mean cocktail waitress, join forces to survive the zombie apocalypse. One of them, Ben, is in love with some girl named Kendall and I'm sure they will absolutely not end up together in the end... Honestly, need I say more? Zombie apocalypse, lame jokes, running zombies, running from zombies; the list goes on.

Also, is it too much to ask for the film to stick to its own rules? I know what kind of film we're dealing with here, but the lack of consistency is just annoying, especially when the film tries to generate some actual tension in its action scenes. One moment, the zombies unleash their inner Usain Bolt and in the next, they're standing quietly behind someone, waiting to unleash a cheap jump-scare. And how did this apocalypse even get started to begin with? There's something cool about a zombie movie not wasting time with pointless techno-babble and just trying to be funny, but there was an opportunity here for some ridiculously funny explanation.

And that's Scouts Guide in a nutshell: wasted potential. It's a parody that fails at being a parody. There were countless opportunities for the film to really take apart the zombie genre, to embrace it and mock it simultaneously, but it never rises to the occasion.

The Salvation (2014)

Irresistible, no-nonsense western

[7/10 · 14 December 2015]

It seems the planets must have aligned perfectly, since we've been blessed with a new western, a Danish one no less. I would call westerns a dying breed, but save for the occasional one, it seems they've been dead for the longest time. The Salvation is not without its flaws, but it's wonderfully violent and takes no prisoners.

It's the 1870s. Jon (Mads Mikkelsen) awaits his wife and ten-year-old son's return at the train station. They arrive and get on a coach to Jon's house, but two drunk guys interrupt the happy reunion and after a tussle, toss Jon out of the carriage. Jon runs after them, finds his son and wife dead. As you can imagine, he kills those responsible without the slightest hesitation. It turns out, however, that one of them was the brother of Delarue, a gang leader. Delarue terrorizes the town and the people are forced to essentially betray Jon, who finds himself almost alone in facing Delarue. But the widow to Delarue's brother, the mute Madelaine (Eva Green) will also play a part in all this.

If anything, The Salvation won't signal the return of westerns. There's no denying we've all seen these types of Westerns before. The first film that springs to mind about a lone hero is High Noon. (There's a few other westerns The Salvation also tips its hat to.) But The Salvation explores some darker territory. It's more interested in the tragic cycle of violence and revenge than the idea of a lonesome hero. As such, the film is filled to the brim with violence and tragedy, sometimes to the film's detriment. While the sparse storytelling enhances the immediacy of these themes, it can make the amount of violence feel like an endurance test. While the cycle of revenge and violence are themes that come across loud and clear, less successful are other themes like the corrupting nature of oil and money. These aspects of the story tend to linger in the background.

Despite all that, The Salvation is graced with some stellar acting and cinematography. Daytime scenes are bathed in that golden sheen whereas nighttime scenes are filtered to look almost black-and-white. The gunfights are also wonderfully shot. Director Levring thankfully prefers clearly choreographed action that doesn't hide behind rapid editing to 'enhance' the action. And who could forget Mads Mikkelsen, the man who can convey so much with so little. Eva Green is wonderfully cast as well. Her lack of dialogue allows her to convey everything with those dramatic eyes of hers.

It's a bit of a pickle. The sparse storytelling and the lack of needless melodrama give The Salvation a rawness that I find really compelling in westerns. Then again, this same sparseness does tend to undermine the story's main themes and, to a lesser extent, its emotional impact. Like I said, it's not perfect, but in the end there's something about a hardcore, no-nonsense western like this that's irresistible.

A Childhood (2015)

A bit too plodding, but quite good

[7/10 · 18 November 2015]

The title immediately makes it clear what kind of film this is going to be: a French-styled glance at the daily life of a teenage boy. A film like this doesn't depend on action, but on careful observation and Une Enfance comes close to reaching the same heights as director Claudel's Il y a longtemps que je t'aime.

Jimmy, thirteen years old, lives with his mother and stepdad in a small town in Eastern France. He practically takes care of the house alone: his mother's addicted to smack as well as his drunk stepdad who plays the ol' abusive dad role: whining about politics and The Man on the one hand and sitting on his ass all day on the other. He's the kind of guy that'll monologue relentlessly about oppression before threatening Jimmy with a punch in the mouth if he so much suggests rebellious behavior. Yeah, zero points for consistency, slick. Jimmy is the one who has to take care of his little brother, Kévin, making sure he's dressed, fed and ready for school. This is our starting point and from here, we see the situation both gradually change, yet stay the same.

The film's strength is obviously Claudel's gift for observation and psychology. I already mentioned the dual nature of Jimmy's stepdad, but the same applies to his mother who obviously, when she isn't doped up, wants to provide for Jimmy, but is frankly unable to do so on a consistent basis, especially when dear old dad is always nearby. One of the more interesting recurring scenes are those where the mom hugs Jimmy. Jimmy doesn't really enjoy it, because the mom usually spaces out on his shoulder and you soon realize that the motherly hug isn't to comfort Jimmy, but to comfort her. It's these psychological nuances that are littered throughout Une Enfance and add to the experience. If this kind of film relies primarily on observational skills, then Une Enface is worth a watch.

The acting, as expected, is also of a pretty high standard. Jimmy, despite only smiling in the final scene which also functions as a homage to Truffaut's film, carries the film on his shoulders. The mother and stepdad are also played well, though you can imagine they don't exactly exhibit the most character development you've ever seen. Also noteworthy is the kid who plays the little brother. He's only in it for half the film, but displays all the right emotions. I particularly remember the scene where Jimmy and all the school kids performed a high school play and are all standing on stage, facing their proud parents. Predictably, Jimmy's mom and stepdad aren't present, but little Kévin is, wearing the brightest smile you'll ever witness.

The film isn't perfect, however. Parts of the story are just too predictable. Jimmy secretly takes care of a stray cat. We soon find out that his stepdad hates cats. Hmm, I'm sure nothing bad could possibly come out of this... The crappy state of affairs in Jimmy's family also ensures that there's just too little character development. It's precisely the point, of course, to show the damage the mom and stepdad inflict on Jimmy, but these characters just don't change that much, so it can be tiring to watch a dysfunctional family for over an hour and a half. Another gripe has to do with several non-functional scenes, where Jimmy watches fireworks alone, rides on his bicycle alone, etc. You know the intention is to show Jimmy's daily life in all its detail, but sometimes these scenes can feel a bit like padding, especially when they're accompanied by those tiresome, hazy-voiced ballads. What's worse is that one of these scenes show Jimmy being infatuated with a pretty girl, only to find that this potential subplot is abandoned for pretty much the entire film, save for one scene towards the end.

Nevertheless, Claudel's attention to detail stands tall in the end. Whether it's the portrayal of Jimmy's relationship with Kévin, him taking care of the house, him shortly meeting his real father, him dreaming about his future, these psychological details triumph in the face of any (valid) criticisms and makes Une Enfance worth your time.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

Christopher McQuarrie to the rescue

[8/10 · 18 November 2015]

The Mission Impossible franchise has been going strong for quite a while now. After the first film in 1996, sequels have been made every five years or so. I have yet to see the first three, but I did see Ghost Protocol, although I can't seem to remember much of what happened. I do remember watching Tom Cruise swinging on the side of a building and wondering what Jeremy Renner was doing in that film. Rogue Nation on the other hand is a different story...

After a rather dull opening action scene, the film begins proper. The central story revolves around a shadowy group known as the Syndicate. Ethan Hunt is determined its existence to the CIA, but he is captured by one of its members, Janik Vinter. He escapes and decides to get his revenge, though he'll have to do it behind the government's back. He slowly teams up with his usual merry band of misfits and together they start figuring out ways to eradicate the Syndicate before they are themselves eradicated. They're aided by one of Janik's accomplices, Ilsa Faust, who gets to play double agent.

Written and directed by Usual Suspects and Edge of Tomorrow-alumnus Christopher McQuarrie, this film benefits from a tighter and better flowing experience. Aside from a rather uninteresting opening, the rest of the film is tightly paced, consistently interesting and entertaining.

One of Rogue Nation's greatest assets is Ilsa Faust. Spy films have often relied on a female agent or a femme fatale. More often than not, these films fall into the trap of relegating her to a supporting (aka useless) role or by turning her into the damsel in distress. Rogue Nation avoids any of these pitfalls by making Ilsa the hero's equal. She saves his life at least twice and doesn't even need rescuing herself. She eventually has a knife fight with this hulking giant and I feared that Ethan would predictably rescue her just as she was about to lose, but no, she takes that guy down with style to spare. Not only is Ilsa written to perfection, she's also played to perfection by Rebecca Ferguson, a natural beauty who also doesn't skimp things in the acting department. And to top it off, she and Ethan ride off into the sunset without actually doing so. She alone rides off, telling Ethan he knows how to find her. The film thus confirms the romance while still allowing her to preserve her independence, but I can easily accept this romance when both characters occupy the same level of badassery and importance to the story. Thank you, McQuarrie, for implying the romance and not succumbing to the 'sex sells' mantra. It's a character you can take seriously. Needless to say, she steals every scene.

All in all, I was incredibly pleased. Ghost Protocol? Please, give me Rogue Nation any day of the week. You're not going to walk away like you feel you've reached enlightenment or anything, but you are going to walk away feeling you've finally seen a really great Mission Impossible film again and isn't that why we're here in the end? I feel like I should give it a 7, but I'll go one step beyond.

Youth (I) (2015)

Too stylized for its intended emotional impact

[6/10 · 18 November 2015]

Director Sorrentino has become somewhat of a household name since his Il Grande Belezza strolled through awards season in 2013. Now, two years later, his new film Youth graces theatre screens everywhere. As the title suggests, it deals with 'youth', though wasted youth is the better term. All the action takes place in and around a luxury resort in the Swiss Alps, as we see two old men coming to grips with their pasts and desires.

Composer Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine) and Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel) are spending their holiday--as always--in this resort. They are not the only residents: Ballinger's daughter and assistant Lena (Rachel Weisz); actor Jimmy Tree, who in Birdman-esque fashion is only remembered for one mediocre role; a couple that never communicates; a young boy who loves Ballinger's violin pieces, etc. They're also told Miss Universe will be arriving soon.

The acting is one of the reasons the film maintains some semblance of momentum. Rachel Weisz and Jane Fonda shine in their short but intense scenes. Michael Caine is also quite good, though I always watch him with a certain emotional distance. Nevertheless, he is very good in the scene where he explains to the Queen's ambassador why he won't conduct his Simple Songs.

Sorrentino deliberately paces the film quite slowly to portray the boredom and routine of the resort, how these people are basically sitting around with only their memories keeping them company. We get variations on these themes: Caine's relationship with his daughter, Keitel's relationship with his son and his desire to make a new film, Dano's fear he'll forever be remembered for something insignificant, a role in which the audience couldn't even see his face (aka who he really is). Sorrentino alternates slow-moving scenes with emotional outbursts, such as the short scene with Jane Fonda and Rachel Weisz's monologue. Because these outbursts are framed by slow-paced scenes, the emotional impact is increased. On the other hand, the stylized nature can slow things down to a crawl. Some of the dialogue can also be as subtle as a brick to the face. When the Dano character completes his character development, he utters the following: "I have to choose, I have to choose what is really worth telling: horror or desire? And I choose desire. You, each one of you, you open my eyes, you made me see that I should not be wasting my time on the senseless fear..." This couldn't be more devoid of subtlety had Michael Bay written it.

My feelings on Youth can be summed up by watching the final scene. I won't say what happens exactly, but it involves an opera singer. She has a wonderful voice, but occasionally employs these hand gestures for added emotional effect, yet it just comes across as mannered. That's this film in a nutshell: there's plenty of content, but the film's stylized nature and deliberately plodding pace tend to undermine the emotional impact. It could've burst to the surface a bit more often.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Neither shaken nor stirred

[6/10 · 18 November 2015]

After Casino Royale made 'Bond' truly relevant again, Quantum of Solace had big shoes to fill...which it didn't. Then, Skyfall upped the ante again and whatever film would come next would have to at least equal its success. The hype's only grown with every film, because the next one was always a direct sequel. Spectre embodies all the typical Bond elements, but that 'certain something' that gave the Craig era its edge is missing.

"The dead are alive". So reads the opening text. We cut to the opening scene featuring a beautiful long shot overlooking Day of the Dead in Mexico City. Bond is there to spy on a secret meeting with a certain Sciarra. He overhears someone mentioning 'The Pale King'. The opening action scene ensues, but the important thing is that he's found his lead: 'the Pale King'. Back in MI6, the new M berates him for his unauthorized 'holiday' and demands to know Bond's reasons. Bond doesn't answer truthfully and is suspended. It's revealed that the previous M left Bond a tape, instructing him to go to Mexico City, kill Sciarra and don't miss the funeral. Despite being suspended, Bond enlists the aid of Moneypenny and Q to secretly go to Rome. It leads him to the place where the organization known as Spectre is meeting and where Bond sees a hauntingly familiar face...

Without spoiling anything, Spectre is the film where the story of Craig's Bond comes full circle. Ever since Casino Royale, it's been obvious that new dramatic territory was being discovered. Gone were the days of cheap thrills and winks and nods. This time, Bond was being taken seriously as a character. This meant, however, that the films had to balance this new dramatic side and the typical Bond elements (girls, cars, martinis, over-the-top villains, one-liners). It's this balance I think is lacking in Spectre. All the elements are present and accounted for, yet it never quite gels. Spectre tries to provide some dramatic character development, but it often conflicts with the overall tone of a Bond film: one moment Bond's confronted with the fact that all he leaves in his wake is death and destruction and in the next he's again causing death and destruction for no other reason than that this is a Bond film and it needs action. Do you see the tension here? I think it's bold for the creators to try turning Bond into a more three-dimensional character (which makes the casting of Craig so excellent), but Spectre is unable to adequately combine it with all the typical things we expect from a Bond film. Casino Royale and Skyfall were much better at providing a seamless experience.

Other annoyances: the comic relief sometimes gets in the way of the action, as seen in the car chase in Rome or when the secondary bad guy bites the dust. Monica Bellucci's character is wasted. The main Bond girl first seems like a tough gal, but quickly suffers from Princess Peach Syndrome. The Waltz villain has a wonderful introduction, but then disappears for about an hour! I get that the filmmakers did this to make you crave his inevitable return, but take too long and you lose momentum.

On the other hand, the action can be impressive. The opening action scene doesn't look as fake as one might expect. Yet despite all the large-scale goings-on, the most badass thing you'll see Bond do is disarm and kill two henchmen while wearing a bag over his head and handcuffs, then removing said handcuffs with a flick of the wrists and only then taking the bag off his head. Also, you can tell a lot of effort was put into making Spectre feel like the logical conclusion to Bond's story. There are references galore to the previous three films, like when M surprises a corrupt official in his office in the same way Bond surprised one in the opening to Casino Royale. Also, Bond and the new serious love interest share a breakthrough in their relationship while talking on a train in the same way Bond met Vesper on a train. All this and more gives Spectre a great sense of structure. Yet not all references feel appropriate: the attempt to tie all the bad guys and events together with Spectre's villain feels forced and undeserved. The opening credits' fragmented shots of the previous villains are infinitely more haunting, because they simply remind you of all that has come before, all that Bond has experienced and overcome, rather than saying they were simply pawns of Waltz's villain who himself doesn't even come close to reaching the heights of those previous villains.

As for Sam Smith's theme song, I'm conflicted. I deliberately held off on listening to it, so I could experience it during the opening credits. For the record, I know absolutely nothing about Smith, so don't expect any rants on how he's not suited for Bond or anything like that. I found Writing's on the Wall to be...listenable. That being said, the song is good mainly because of the opening credits themselves, filled as they are with wonderfully dark and expressive imagery, one of them being a shot of the villain's shadowy silhouette as octopus tentacles emerge from his back. Simply being in the presence of such imagery, any song would be elevated from 'meh' to 'good'. Credit also has to go to orchestrator J.A.C. Redford who--just like with Skyfall--manages to enrich the song with his sumptuous orchestral stylings. It's his orchestration that truly turns it into a Bond theme.

When it's at its best, Spectre feels like the logical conclusion to Craig's Bond. At worst, it feels like a normal action flick that jumps from one scene to the next without rhyme or reason. It doesn't reach the heights of Casino Royale and Skyfall, but it also doesn't fall on its ass like Quantum of Solace.

Boomerang (I) (2015)

The problem is not the story, but the telling of it

[6/10 · 18 November 2015]

Every once in a while, you see a drama that is so well-intentioned, but so...'normal' (for lack of a better word) that you're left unable to decide whether it was bad or good. Boomerang is one of those films.

The story mainly revolves around Antoine's unhealthy obsession with what he perceives to be a mystery regarding the death of his mother. Whenever he asks about it, he's given the silent treatment. His sister, Agathe, has her own daily life problems and quickly gets sick of Antoine always hammering on about little details that just don't add up. Nevertheless, as Antoine keeps digging, he finds answers and more questions. This results in a film about the long-term harm family secrets can cause.

The basic problem with Boomerang (besides the painfully symbolic title) is that it's really hard to care about these characters, particularly the main character. Antoine is immediately suspicious about the perceived silence on his mother's death. We don't get to see him slowly become suspicious, so we can share his anxieties. The result is that, instead of rooting for Antoine, we tend to agree with Agathe and others who want him to stop whining. I mean, get this: early in the film, Antoine crashes his car, out of anger or some subconscious desire to re-enact the death of his mother (which also involved a car), causing Agathe to be hospitalized. The next day, Antoine's whining to someone about how he doesn't understand Agathe's reticence to talk about their mother's death and his suspicions! This is our protagonist, ladies and gentlemen. The only character I liked was the biker chick who's tragic past shared some similarities with Antoine's, so it was nice to see these two troubled souls getting together.

But yeah, every problem Boomerang has can be traced back to its dreadful first act. Here, the film should have made us root for Antoine, but it doesn't, which causes us to lose interest in the mystery. A mystery by the way, that doesn't turn out to be as interesting as I hoped. It's predictable in that, you already know it couldn't have been a murder due to the film's overall feel, so there's only one other option: social scandal. The film is obviously well-intentioned and its themes of transgenerational family secrets and the grief enforced silences can cause come through loud and clear, but the film doesn't render these themes in an emotionally fulfilling fashion.

The End of the Tour (2015)

Great acting, great dialogue, great film

[8/10 · 18 November 2015]

I must confess the name David Foster Wallace didn't really ring a bell nor did the title of his breakthrough book Infinite Jest. Nevertheless, knowing all this is not required at all to be enthralled by this fascinating film.

The film opens with Rolling Stone writer David Lipsky sitting on his couch in his New York apartment. He's played by Jesse Eisenberg and he's on his laptop, so already I'm getting The Social Network flashbacks. He's got a Golden Retriever next to him, however, so we know he's a good guy. He soon comes across a review of Infinite Jest and is determined to dislike it. After reading it, however, he discovers (a bit to his dismay) that he absolutely loves it. He practically begs his superiors for a chance to interview Wallace which they agree to, stipulating that there 'better be a story here'. Lipsky makes the long trip to Wallace's house where he finds he doesn't look at all like he imagined. Instead, as Lipsky parks his car in the driveway, through the front door comes a rather tired looking man with long, dry hair and a bandana; a hippie only without the drugs. They kick off with some small talk and over the course of several days their relationship will evolve quite a bit, though this applies more to Lipsky who has to balance his respect for Wallace and his job as an interviewer. Another underlying source of frustration for Lipsky is that he's bothered by the fact that this shabby looking guy--who he respects--is a superior writer.

The interviews, more like regular conversations, are easily the best parts. I wouldn't be surprised if most if not all of the lines were taken from the actual interview. There's a wonderful lack of 'theatre' in the way Wallace speaks that is totally endearing. A script by a Chayefsky (Network) or a Sorkin (The Social Network) would have ruined this film as this film's intended impact relies almost entirely on natural dialogue. The film is equal parts showing the dynamic between Lipsky and Wallace and doing justice to Wallace's philosophizing and way of life.

You can imagine that with this natural way of speaking, it's not exactly hard to care about these characters. The performances by Eisenberg and especially Jason Segel help tremendously. The director wisely opts for a natural 'light' approach; one that doesn't undersell the drama, but actually enhances it with its fly-on-the-wall effect. It's refreshing to see a film that allows its drama to unfold in a natural way without any scenes that reek of Oscar-bait. When the two Davids stumble upon a few bumps in their relationship, it's told in a natural, believable way.

All in all, it's 1 hour and 45 minutes that fly by really quick. I can't judge if the man himself is represented honestly, but I can say that The End of the Tour is utterly compelling.

The Gift (VI) (2015)

Impressive debut from Edgerton who relies more on slow build-ups than jumpscares

[6/10 · 18 November 2015]

Joel Edgerton has been an actor for quite some time now, but it's with The Gift, his directorial debut, and his portrayal of a corrupt FBI agent in Black Mass that he seems to have 'burst onto the scene' as they call it. The Gift is his attempt at a psychological thriller. The film features a nice and slow build-up which is to be commended, but the final act isn't worthy of it.

Simon (Jason Bateman) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall) have recently moved to L.A. as Simon recently got a new job there. One day when they're out shopping, a rather shabby looking man named Gordo (Joel Edgerton) approaches Simon, claiming to recognize him from high school. Eventually, Simon recognizes him too and he and Robyn have him over for dinner. Usually, this would end with both parties saying they're looking forward to the next time they'll meet, even though they both know they're not interested. But Gordo keeps showing up at their doorstep and doesn't seem willing to stay out of their lives. This kicks off a series of events where, to use that familiar phrase, not everyone's who they seem to be.

The Gift is part thriller, part horror and so there's a tendency to fall into the trap of saturating your film with jumpscares. Besides a jumpscare or two, the film's mostly about building suspense and generating a feeling of paranoia, something that requires a bit more directorial know-how.

Edgerton succeeds in unsettling us with themes of social anxiety and paranoia, but the final act--though featuring a deliciously evil and ambiguous twist--lays things on a little thick in comparison to the subtlety of what came before. Edgerton's also a little too obvious with his sprinkling of clues in the first act. Early on, Simon's fear of monkeys is mentioned and during dinner, Gordo makes a passing remark on how governments listen in on its citizens' conversations. How much do you want to bet wiretapping and monkeys will be part of plot twists later on? One other thing: the jumpscares. They are so few in number, I honestly feel The Gift would've been better had they been left out. Edgerton spends all this time and effort in subtly unsettling us with Gordo as the unwelcome guest. To then revert to cheap jumpscares to jumpstart your film is disappointing.

Nevertheless, it's a pretty well set-up thriller. I'm always pleased to see thrillers that are a cut above the usual jumpscare-heavy fare. Had the final act been more subtle and human, The Gift could've been something special. As it is, it's just a good thriller.

The Last Witch Hunter (2015)

Wasted potential

[5/10 · 18 November 2015]

The Last Witch Hunter is a classic case of wasted potential. As I was watching it, I was blown away by how many interesting stories could have been told. As it is now, it's a regular action flick...but I guess that was apparent with the name Vin Diesel splayed on the poster.

It's the year....actually I don't know when we are, but there's a bunch of Vikings talking about killing a witch queen, so we at least know what's going on...sort of. Vin Diesel kills the witch queen, but she senses his tragic past involving his dead wife and child and before she dies condemns him to live forever. Cut to present day New York where Diesel is part of a covenant dedicated to locking up witches. He has an old adviser, played by Michael Caine (who seems to be trying to usurp Morgan Freeman's position as the King of Narrators), called a *sigh* Dolan (yes, seriously) who one evening discusses with Diesel his loneliness. Diesel's lived so long, he says, but there's a difference between living and 'living', you see. The next day, Caine turns up dead. A new Dolan played by Elijah Wood (who seems cursed to play creepy roles which I think might be due to his haircut) is inaugurated. They find out black magic was involved and so together they start looking for the one responsible. This leads them to discover that the dead witch queen might not be as dead as they thought.

The main source of tension here is the presence of lots of world-building without actually making good on any of it. You've got Vikings vs witches, modern-day witch hunters and the reference to how Diesel's immortality made him witness the likes of Napoleon and Stalin. Can you imagine Vin Diesel battling witches in those time periods? Instead, the filmmakers felt the need to bring the concept of witches and witch hunters to the present. The film throws all these rules and words at us, but they don't mean anything; they're just that, words. And deep down we know the film doesn't care either. Watching Ygritte, I mean Rose Leslie, talk about 'snowdonia's' with a straight face is something else. All this world-building just ends up being frustrating, because you start wondering what the film would look like had any of it actually been relevant in the end.

The character development is lackluster and it's not just because Diesel's not exactly a character actor, though he compensates with likability (and that gravelly voice that theatre speakers make more booming every day). The story tries to make his curse, his immortality, seem so dramatic, but Diesel doesn't seem too upset about it and neither does the film seem anxious to pursue this dramatic angle. Can you imagine how interesting it would be had the film focused on this notion of living forever? How it would influence the way you see the world and so on? Ugh, there's so much I could critique story-wise, but I don't want to be here all night. Rose Leslie plays the sexy redhead witch who ends up being Diesel's love interest which I can't see happening in any kind of reality. The Big Bad witch complains about how humans are the intruders, the real villains and so on. Imagine if this was turned into the real story, where humans and witches realize they both see each other as the invaders and so on. Maybe, in the end, they'd realize they're not so differ--Ha! Who am I kidding? Just blow their heads off with a shotgun.

To its credit, the film is occasionally pretty to look at, though this argument tends to feel more like a fail-safe nice guy comment: 'the movie sucks, but hey, at least it looks nice'. I can't in all honesty recommend The Last Witch Hunter. Though it has a consistent tone and few dumb jokes, the amount of wasted potential is very frustrating. Maybe its inevitable sequel will improve on what's wrong with it (aka everything), but I wouldn't hold your breath.

A Perfect Day (I) (2015)

Failed attempt at blending realism and absurdist humor

[5/10 · 18 November 2015]

Well, I called it. As soon as I saw the trailer, the only word I could think of was 'aimless'. And sure enough, the ironically titled A Perfect Day, turns out to be a not so perfect day at the theatre. The film tries desperately to combine road trip elements with social commentary on warfare and aid workers in Balkan conflict zones, but the end result is boring and pointless, an unbalanced mess of ideas. Road trip? More like road tripe.

Mambrú (Benicio del Toro) is overseeing the removal of a fat corpse from a well 'somewhere in the Balkans' as the film puts it. The rotting corpse doesn't exactly help things on the sanitary front, as you can imagine. Like my patience, the rope is wearing thin and rope snaps. So begins a trip across the countryside to secure some new rope. He is joined by his rather eccentric partner, B (Tim Robbins, who's sporting the biggest, most unnatural looking set of pearly whites I've ever seen), new blood Sophie, a translator, and an old flame, Katya (Olga Kurylenko). Along the way, they'll meet people, bump into the U.N., etc. I can't sum it up much better than that.

I'll get right down to it: this movie is so terribly balanced I'd almost say it suffers from bipolar disorder. I get that it tries to combine the appeal of a road trip movie with some serious storytelling, but it just never works. You jump from a zany scene to a sad one, all the while questioning how you're supposed to take any of it seriously. A perfect example: early on, when the new girl Sophie sees the body in the well, she freaks out in a way that feels like it should elicit laughter: 'haha, that's cute, she's not used to bodies yet.' Mambrú and B's reactions seem to confirm this. Later, Mambrú and Sophie are in a ruined house looking for rope. Sophie opens a door, but doesn't notice a body hanging behind her. Mambrú tries to spare her the trauma, but Sophie of course sees the body and freaks out. She freaks out in the same way again, but this time it's supposed to be taken seriously. But how can I take it seriously when the film was using her reaction for laughs earlier? Other examples include the gang driving through the mountains as rock music plays, when suddenly we get a scene where they have to drive away from soldiers rounding up people to be shot; A major subplot involves Mambrú and Katya who used to be lovers. Mambrú's surprised by her appearance and they have some conversations where they dance around the issue. Despite seeing someone else, he still has feelings for her, although he wouldn't admit to this. The same goes for her. Watching their banter is about as interesting as you'd expect, but in the end it doesn't contribute anything to the plot nor does B contribute anything except a few laughs. Sophie goes from oblivious newbie to 'having learned the ways of the world', but it's not the focus of the film, so why should I care? Needless to say, the acting, while decent, cannot save this walking identity crisis. Not even Tim Robbins and his great white teeth can save it. It's not a case of the actors failing the movie, but the movie failing the actors. It's the kind of experience where, instead of being absorbed by the *clears throat* 'drama', you're trying to peek inside the actors' heads and wonder what's really going through their minds.

I can see what the filmmakers were going for, but the few scenes that bordered on interesting just made me wish they didn't waste their time with boring romances and botched attempts at road trippy humor and instead took things a little more seriously. There are poignant scenes, like the one where Mambrú struggles with his own uselessness when attempting to help others. Here, notions of helping others on a large or small scale, bureaucracy, usefulness, etc. are all touched upon, but the film's all-over-the-place attitude prevents you from taking it as seriously as you'd want to. Right when the credits started rolling, there were high school kids in the front row clapping. Pray for them, dear reader. Pray for them.

The Brand New Testament (2015)

Great comedy with poetic overtones

[8/10 · 18 November 2015]

If director Jaco van Dormael is to be believed, God is not some incorporeal being floating in the clouds, but a sadistic man living in an apartment in Brussels with his weak-willed wife and 10-year-old daughter Ea. Even worse, it's The Old Testament God full of fire and brimstone who spends his days creating new universal laws intended to annoy people. Ea is fed up, releases everyone's dates of death and flees to the real world to find new apostles and write her own brand new testament. Yet the film contains more than just a few laughs and ends up being quite profound in a delightfully non-patronizing way.

The film is basically split into several segments, each one devoted to one of the six new apostles Ea finds. Finding them seems to be the story's main drive, but in the end it becomes about each of their stories. They all represent certain recognizable facets of human behavior: there's the businessman who, after discovering when he'll die, realizes he's been living a lie.

The film's filled to the brim with visual flair: when Man is created and wandering the Earth, his groin is censored. The man notices this and tries to get rid of this black bar covering his manhood, but to no avail. There's also a beautiful scene involving a severed hand dancing on a table as one of the apostles, a woman with a prosthetic arm watches (trust me, it works).

There's great comedy strewn about this film, but some of the funniest bits involve God having trouble getting used to life on Earth. After spending so long creating sadistic rules, it's hilarious to see him get a taste of his own medicine. Funnier still is when he protests, stating that he's God which everyone dismisses as the ranting of a raving lunatic. When he's being manhandled, he hilariously says threatens that he'll give his attackers psoriasis, warts or inflict them with a permanent case of premature ejaculation.

Not every skit holds up: the ones involving a guy tempting fate by falling off of great heights to see if he'll survive or a romance involving a gorilla wear out their welcome, but hey, when you've got a beautiful shot of someone literally embracing his own reflection, I can easily forgive. In the end, it's the film's ability to subtly convey its poetic undertones that separate it from the pack.

Son of Saul (2015)

Welcome to Auschwitz

[9/10 · 18 November 2015]

Another year, another Holocaust drama...but what a Holocaust drama it is! This film takes all narrative and cinematographic clichés one usually finds in films of this sort and dumps them straight into the trash. When you think about it, it's quite surprising that a subjective trip through Holocaust hell of this kind has taken so long to be made.

The story can be summed up rather quickly: Saul, a Sonderkommando (Jews who were forced to help the Nazi's in the concentration camps), tries to bury his son while his fellow Sonderkommando's are planning an escape. The opening scenes already set the tone as we see Saul being forced to help the Nazi's get the new batch of Jews undressed and into the gas chambers. As the ruckus what's happening behind the 'shower' doors gets louder and louder, the film cuts to a black screen with the film's title. Immediately, this film surpasses Schindler's List with its cop-out of a gas chamber scene. List, while a great piece of cinema in many ways, is in the end a story about a white man growing a conscience. Shoah, it is not. I imagine Spielberg wanted to recreate the Holocaust with a morally decent central narrative to not completely alienate his audience. Son of Saul has a similarly morally decent storyline (Saul trying to properly bury his son), but unlike List puts you smack-dab in the middle of Auschwitz for the duration of the film.

The true genius lies in the complete lack of cinematic manipulation. True, film is by its very nature a manipulative medium, but director Nemes presents this most horrific of horrors as authentically as possible. Ninety percent of the film consists of long shots where the camera sticks to Saul as if magnetically drawn to him, while the horrors taking place in the background tend to be out of focus. If Saul isn't looking at it, it's out of focus. The result is a highly subjective journey through Auschwitz. Nemes is also aware of what he can and cannot show: he doesn't pull any punches, but he also doesn't take us into the gas chambers, because he knows it there are some things that must not be seen. There are no typical cinematic tricks here: no establishing shots, no 'artsy' camera angles or filters, no music. It's a refreshing change of pace from how the Holocaust is usually presented.

The sound is also crucial to the film's impact. Since much of what we see in the background is out of focus, it's the sound that has to convey the hellhole we find ourselves in. Combined with the long shots, you rapidly become exhausted, so when a quiet scene suddenly appears, it's almost shocking.

In terms of acting, I was surprised how minimalist it was. One would expect there'd be all kinds of Big Emotions on display given the characters' circumstances, but it's precisely these circumstances that feed Géza Röhrig's (Saul) performance. Saul has a one-track mind and trying to survive in Auschwitz would lead you to shut everything out, to block out all emotions. Fully expressing yourself would lead to certain death, so Saul internalizes everything, so to speak. It's a very bold move from Nemes who could've easily included lots of Oscar-bait scenes, but didn't.

Even Claude Lanzmann, creator of the gargantuan Shoah documentary, who stated that depicting the Shoah is beyond film's capabilities has spoken of his great admiration for Son of Saul. I suppose that's the highest praise one can give to a Holocaust drama: Lanzmann liked it.

The Paradise Suite (2015)

It's universal suffering without the 'universal' part

[6/10 · 18 November 2015]

The Paradise Suite is Dutch director/writer Joost van der Ginkel's attempt at mosaic-type storytelling. We've seen this many times before, for example in Iñárritu's Death Trilogy. Yet their continued relevance testifies to their poetic potential. Van der Ginkel succeeds in crafting an excruciating, relentlessly intense tale and yet it's that same relentlessness that makes the film go from 'poetic tale of human suffering' to 'my God, how long will this continue' in the blink of an eye.

We're first introduced to all the characters: the Bulgarian Senya lives in Sofia, but hopes to become a model. She and three others are selected to go to another photoshoot in Amsterdam, but they end up in the Red Light district. One of the kingpins is Ivica, a Serb who is just discovering the pleasures of being a father. Then there's Yaya, an African man, who tries to prevent a mother and two children from being evicted by promising to pay their rent, grieving mother Seka who's obsessed with revenge and a Swedish boy pianist Lukas suffering under his father who mixes up the roles of being a father and a music teacher. Whether by force or a mere glance, some of these people's paths will cross.

These mosaic-films depend on emotional force and thematic unity. There's plenty of the former to go around, of the blunt force trauma kind. Nary a scene goes by without something unsettling happening, whether it's Lukas being bullied at school, his being unable to control his bladder, the mother in Yaya's apartment complex telling how she has been 'paying' the rent, Jenya 'working' in the Red Light district; the list goes on. Believe me, it does. Then again, I did like that certain characters embodied variations on a certain theme. For example, the notion of parenthood is shared by several characters.

The film's true strength is acting. It's very much a multicultural cast, yet there's not one weak link, one weakly acted moment. The same cannot be said for the music, however, which tends to drone on and on. It's the kind of droning that's supposed to get you into the characters' heads, but ends up making you aware of the aches in your own.

But in the end, it's the constant misfortune experienced by these characters that prevents The Paradise Suite from reaching the upper echelons of mosaic films. There's happy endings for some of them, but the film's overall negativity makes you leave the theatre not lost in poetic thoughts on universal suffering and how we're all one, but like you've just endured a brutal beatdown. In other words, the drama is definitely presented--and acted out--in a realistic fashion, but it never rises to a higher plane of existence, so to speak. It's universal suffering without the 'universal'.

The Lobster (2015)

No complaints in the originality department

[7/10 · 18 November 2015]

As he sat in his theatre seat, he didn't know what to expect. He'd seen the trailer a few times, but it hadn't really told him enough to know what The Lobster was about besides that it featured a hotel for lonely people who'd be turned into animals if they didn't find a partner in time. He figured it'd be a satire on relationships and it turned out it was. He'd also find out The Lobster would be one of those films he'd never want to see again for the rest of his life.

The film started with a woman driving along the countryside in the rain. She pulled over and shot a donkey, then drove away, leaving the other donkey baffled and slowly waddling over to the dead donkey. At first, he thought that it looked very realistic and anticipated a credits message that said no animals were harmed during the making of this picture. Then he got to thinking about the film's theme--people turning into animals--and he realized the donkey must've been her unfaithful husband or something. We then cut to David (Colin Farrell) entering The Hotel with his brother who stayed at the same hotel, but didn't find a partner and was turned into the animal of his choice. When asked what kind of animal he'd like to be, David replied, 'a lobster'. David is told how The Hotel works and so began his life there, searching for love.

After the film had concluded, he was left with a dilemma: he knew on the one hand this was quite a smart film, but also that the strength of its satire was also the source of its lack of likability and lack of replay value. He knew the film was at its satirical best when it played with language. The characters would say what they meant and meant what they'd say, but the bluntness, straightforwardness and 'dry' way of conversing made it quite funny. It was all meant to parody every aspect of relationships, from conversational subjects to how we view each other, from how people select a suitable partner to the first flirtations. This film is almost merciless, he thought, merciless in how it dissects people and relationships.

Yet, he thought, this type of satire comes at a price. Not only does it make the film come across as unlikable and lacking in replay value, this is exacerbated by the film's length which is too long for the film's subject matter and style. It's obvious the film's promoting healthy relationships (and all that entails) with its parodies, but you still have to sit through all of the director's Variations on a Theme, so to speak. And that ending. Ah, that nauseating ending. Regarding the ending, he thought to himself, 'you know, I remember a time when 'love hurts' referred to 'mental hurt', not physical hurt, but that's just me'.

He didn't regret seeing The Lobster. At least, he thought he didn't. He had always valued honesty and authenticity above all else and that's what the film was going for in the end. By exaggerating and parodying the negative (e.g. unhealthy relationships), you emphasize the positive (e.g. healthy relationships). It's just that the film's repeating the same point over and over occasionally made the film a bit of a drag.

ps: if you're wondering about the writing style, then you obviously haven't seen The Lobster.

The Intern (I) (2015)

Flawed, of course, but very likable

[7/10 · 18 November 2015]

We've all been there: going to see a comedy and praying fervently that it won't be a complete waste of time. 'Please movie, don't take a hard right at Lame Jokes Avenue.' You hope that a feel-good movie would finally just do as advertised. Fortunately for us, Nancy Meyer's first film in six years does just that.

Ben Whitaker (Robert De Niro) is a 70-year-old widower who bluntly states that retirement has gotten way too boring. Even vacations aren't a solution, because the final destination, home, always reminds him of his wife. He realizes he has to stay active, do something...anything. He applies for a job at a fashion company that's looking for senior citizens (as a way to reach out to the community). The company's led by Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway) who's so busy that she's persuaded to scour for a new CEO. The investors are concerned that the company could potentially crumble under the weight of its own rapid success, so someone with 'experience' is recommended. Jules agrees to interview several candidates. Meanwhile, Ben, being an intern to Jules, doesn't have a lot to do, but soon finds himself becoming a mentor and a friend of sorts to Jules and aids her in overcoming not just the crises at work, but those at home as well.

I can't emphasize enough how crucial De Niro and Hathaway's acting is to the success of The Intern. Sure, De Niro's not venturing out of his comfort zone at all here, but he's believable and likable. Same goes for Hathaway. The supporting cast are a surprisingly likable bunch as well. Usually, comedies tend to suffer from characters who desperately try to be funny, but none of that awkwardness is to be found here. And that's what I found pleasantly surprising on the whole: just the complete lack of awkwardness, both in terms of acting and writing.

The film's flaws can all be traced back to the fact that, at the end of the day, it's very much a lightweight affair. You could argue for hours about how De Niro's father-knows-best role undermines the film's feminist side, that the role of the massage therapist is underwritten, yada yada. You could make a case that the film doesn't treat its topics with the dramatic weight they deserve and you'd be right--I personally felt that the 'cheating' could've been handled differently--but then again, the film never tries to be something it's not. The scenes featuring dramatic content are played out in such a way so as not to derail the film's overall happy-go-lucky mood and flow.

The critic in me thinks I should be harsher, but I can't deny that I had a swell time.