Spotlight!

So when I reviewed Beasts of No Nation recently I commented on how it would be hard to be funny whilst reviewing it, and I was right, it was. This was because it was about child soldiers, and there is pretty much no way you can make a joke whilst talking about that. So anyway, I am going to talk about a film which bases its story on the historic sexual abuse of children associated with the Catholic church, so, yeah....

Sexual abuse by priests and church members seems kind of like old news these days. Its almost as if its expected and no longer a surprise when we hear about it. Make of that what you will, but there was a time when it was perhaps the biggest news story in the world and The Boston Globe in the United States were at the forefront of this discovery. Specifically the ''Spotlight'' team which are as far as I can tell a special in depth investigative team who produce scandalous stories after a long period of research and evidence gathering. This is what the film is about, rather than dealing directly with the abuse of children, instead the plot focuses on a small group of journalists who work their collective arses off the find out the horrible truth, and find out they do. It is discovered initially that at least 13 priests were known to have abused children, however further snooping reveals the numbers are in the thousands.

This film is therefore hard to categorise for me. Its described as a drama - which it is - but I always feel that this is too broad. Its not a thriller, though it is thrilling. I suppose the best way to describe it, is as a investigative thriller, character driven drama (yes Andrew because that's a really good way to describe a film). Anyway, that's the best I can do.

But did I like it?

Yes...

Spotlight is a quite excellent film. From start to finish it draws you into the investigation and keeps you there, wondering what will happen next and what piece of evidence will rear its head. Its not action packed, but its not that type of film anyway. The main thing that really works is that this is a small group of people taking on a large and powerful organisation, i.e. the Catholic Church. I believe its quite common for audiences to root for the little guy and in this case the little guy is a group of 6 people against an institution that wields considerable power. The suspense is dealt with expertly, every time it looks like the Spotlight team have hit a wall, a new bit of information comes to light, or a new witness agrees to share what they know. This is never overly convenient and you don't feel as if they are lucky. Instead you see just how hard these people worked and just how good they were at their jobs. Another thing you feel is utter contempt and shock at the actions of the church. There was an audible gasp in the cinema at one point when I was watching it and you certainly feel that way considering the subject matter.

As for the acting, that is spot on. I recently criticised the ensemble cast of The Hateful Eight as I felt it weakened the film, not in this case though. Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams are the stand out performers, though the rest of the cast are just as good in their roles. The film flips between each character and their respective investigations and ties them together nicely to create the case against the church and create a voice for the victims.

Ruffalo is particularly good in my opinion.It's obvious he has gone full method in this role, right down to the way he clearly imitates the way the real Michael Rezendes (his character) stands and walks. Some may find it a little off putting, but I felt once you really got into the film it was no longer an issue.

There is a lot of buzz around this film, and it has been a near constant on the awards circuit. I don't think it will win any of the big ones - by which I mean the Oscars -  but its not just there to make up the numbers. Serious thought has gone into this movie, and the result is a very tight and compelling piece of cinema, its well worth a watch.


Jeez, I couldn't even manage one humorous observation, I guess my standards are slipping. What I need is a really crap film to review so I can rant, maybe I'll watch Grimsby.

Room - No not that one!

For those of you slightly confused by the title of this post. I am of course making a reference to Tommy Wiseau's 'The Room' the best terrible film ever made. It obviously has nothing to do Lenny Abrahamson's film, but I just wanted to reference Wiseau either way because I'm slightly obsessed with him. Anyway, lets talk about Room.

Spoilers ahead!


Set largely in one room (hence the title) the film deals with a young woman called Joy (Brie Larson) - though she is mostly referred to as ''Ma'' by her 5 year old song Jack (Jacob Tremblay), both of whom live in a tiny space referred to simply as ''room''. It soon becomes clear that they are in fact being kept prisoner by a mysterious man called Old Nick (Sean Bridgers) who kidnapped Joy 7 years earlier and fathered Jack through the numerous rapes he commits. Despite some close calls both Joy and Jack are able to escape and we witness their struggles to adapt to the real world, one which Jack has never seen.

The first thing I thought when reading about this was that this was a hard subject matter to cover in a film. Everyone has heard of the Josef Fritzl case in Austria and although its an interesting story, you would think that a film would be in poor taste. Room isn't based on that story, but the similarities are clear and the film deals with it admirably. This is never a gratuitous in any way, and in actual fact that main motivation of the story is the relationship between Joy and her son and how they each cope with their existence. Joy has experience of the real world and knows what she is missing, but still tries to raise her son the best she can. Whereas Jack lives in a fantasy world that his mother concocted in order for him to at least have some pleasure in life. It really is a fascinating insight into how people cope with adversity and abuse, and the juxtaposition of the ages of the characters provides a really interesting back and forth.

That back and forth is truly what pushes the film and makes it so good.This is a movie that is all about the performance of its two lead actors and let me tell you, they are two of the best acting performances I have ever seen. Brie Larson really showcases her considerable range of acting talents, it appears that she is equally confident in comedies and dramas and she deserves the Oscar this year in my opinion. She tackles a really difficult subject matter with grace and confidence and you spend the whole film rooting for her and hoping that she gets what she needs to move on with her life.

Beside her is Jacob Tremblay who puts in a quite amazing performance for an 8 year old child, and in actual fact you could argue that he is the lead in the whole story. The fate of all the characters relies on what he does and how he approaches life. It is he who saves his mothers life by escaping ''room'' and getting help, and he later saves her life when she attempts suicide by showing her that they can be strong together. That's one hell of an in depth character for such a young man to take on and he is pretty much faultless.

So yeah, Room really is worth the hype that its been given because its fantastic. Its not an easy film to watch and there are some uncomfortable moments, but given the subject matter that's to be expected and as I've said its dealt with well. And even though normally I will question the traditional Hollywood happy ending, I was totally OK with it in this case. The ending is so hopeful that you cant help but smile, and sometimes you really need that, especially when you look at the events in the film that preceded it.

Go watch it innit

Beasts of No Nation

Its going to be hard to be funny and irreverent about this film as its about African civil war, child soldiers, rape and murder. I am obviously a comedy genius, but I think I will struggle to make that shit funny, so maybe I'll just review it and you can laugh at my attempts to be serious, deal? OK!

I'll get the plot out of the way first. In an unnamed African country a war begins in which government troops fight with guerrilla forces set up by locals who hope to stop them enforcing the will of an unnamed military junta on countries many small villages. Much like in real life, this leads to the recruitment of a number of child soldiers, who are turned into killing machines from a young age.

Beasts of No Nation is a film that achieved considerable attention in 2015/16 for a multitude of reasons. One of which is that critics were pretty universally positive about the film, it currently has a score of 91% on Rotten Tomatoes and there has been particular praise for the performances of the actors. Idris Elba has drawn a lot of attention because of his performance as the character simply known as Commandant. Now, a lot of the attention recently has been because he did not receive an Oscar nomination for the role, and this has then been tied in with the argument that the Oscars are universally biased towards white people. Now I wont get into that debate, but I will say that I don't think his performance really warrants a nomination. Nothing to do with him being black, but I just think as far as performances go, the awards should go to Abraham Attah who plays the films lead Agu. This kid is seriously good in this movie in which he plays a child soldier whose life is turned on its head when he is forced to separate from his mother, only to see his father and older brother killed by government forces. Attah completely stole the show for me and gave an utterly captivating and chilling performance of a child forced into actions that no child should have to undertake.
Unfortunately in all the arguments about race (rightfully so) people have seemingly missed a really wonderful performance from a teenager in what must have been an intensely difficult role and that's quite sad.

Nevertheless, that's one of the best things about Beast of No Nation, the performances. It is known that writer/director Cary Joji Fukunaga used real victims and ex soldiers of war in his cast and it shows, at points you do get lost in the performances and you really feel like you are in a war zone where anybody could die at any moment. This is the films biggest strength as I feel it covers up pretty well its most obvious flaws.

Yes, despite its glowing reviews, there are some flaws.

I am loathe to criticise a story that highlights a serious subject, but I just felt that the storyline was a bit slow and thin, despite plenty happening. Though that might sound like a contradiction I just mean that although plenty happens to the characters, its just the same thing over and over again. They move from one area to the next, you think they are going to improve their lives and end the war they are fighting, but the Commandant ruins this. This is at points gripping and at other points boring, there is a slight lack of balance of what the characters are doing and it lets the film down slightly.

As for the other glaring flaw and I cant believe I have to keep saying this, its too long! At 137 minutes long Beasts of No Nation simply does not have enough to warrant such a bloated running time. This could have easily been much shorter and I think with that the repetition of scenes problem would have been eradicated. Directors and studios really need to realise that if a film is going to be 2 hours or over it better have a bloody good reason to do it, this unfortunately didn't have that reason.

Despite the attention and ratings the film has received recently, I don't think it will stand the test of time with regards to movies made about subject of child soldiers and African civil war. I haven't seen hundreds of movies with that as a theme, but I would personally recommend films such as Johnny Mad Dog and Blood Diamond over Beasts of No Nation.

It is by no means a terrible film, and its worth a watch just for the performance of Abraham Attah, but it didn't live up the the expectations I had before I watched it. Obviously I am just one man and I am sure there are many out there who would totally disagree with me, but that's what movie reviewing is all about folks, please put away the pitch forks, I have told you about that before.

Sayonora


Bonus fact: I am listening to J Pop/Metal crossover music as I write this, weird right?

Marvel Finally Pull Their Finger Out and Find Deadpool

So I am finally going to review a Marvel movie, you might be wondering where I have been?Well, I have been writing my autobiography 'My Journey, My Struggle: The Struggle of My Journey.' 

There is also the fact that up until now the Marvel movies have bored me close to death. With the exception of perhaps the Avengers movies (Happy Valentines Joss Whedon xxxxxxx) I have been pretty unimpressed. They aren't necessarily terrible movies, its just that considering the money and attention around them I expected them to at least be a bit interesting.

You will be glad to know that FINALLY an interesting and all around entertaining movie has been made and its called Deadpool!

I am not going to give an awful lot of the plot, because in actual fact, its kinda generic, it is after all a love story. But in short, Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) a debt collector of sorts meets a girl, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) and they fall in love. Wade is then diagnosed with cancer and decides to leave Vanessa as he doesn't want her to see him slowly die. However Ajax (Ed Skrein) offers to help cure Wade's illness whilst simultaneously making him into a superhero. Which technically works, but turns Wade into a Freddie Kruger type nightmare on the outside. Wade then assumes the identity of Deadpool and seeks his revenge.

Its almost as if the writers of this movie have listened to me directly and made the appropriate changes. For instance, I am so bored of origin stories, I get they are necessary for those who haven't read the appropriate comics, but please don't spend too much of  movie on it (I'm looking at you Iron Man). Deadpool uses a non - linear storyline to deal with this and even then the origins don't take that long. I also don't like the ratio of comedy to explaining mythology and history and all that boring nonsense (Thor...) in others, and Deadpool is all about the funny. Then there is the CGI in the other Marvel movies, oh god the CGI, its almost as if nobody could be bothered to act so they just played a computer game and filmed it for a lot of the franchise films. Though Deadpool does use CGI, its at a minimum and never managed to annoy me.

Above all else though I loved Deadpool because it was funny, really funny. Obviously with Ryan Reynolds in the lead role you can expect some laughs, but I didn't expect as many as I got. The script was basically one liners and jokes throughout and never stopped to be too serious, there was even a little homage to Monty Python in there!

Plus like I said, its almost as if Marvel listened to me personally because they addressed all the things that had annoyed me previously in the dialogue, the amount of fourth wall breaking and self referential jokes about Marvel's stranglehold on the movie business is unlike anything I have seen before. Its as if Marvel have gone so far up their own arses that they came out the other side past the sparrow prince and katata fish with a pretty great movie.

So there we have it, like I said the plot is nothing particularly new, but to me that didn't really matter because the film itself was really quite charming and funny. I could probably understand why people might hate it because the jokes really are constant and could potentially get on someones nerves. Plus there is an air of smugness to it, as if Marvel are making fun of their audiences, whilst simultaneously taking their money, but all in all these factors didn't occur to me whilst watching it and I just enjoyed the experience. It's definitely worth a watch and Marvel have finally managed to impress me.

However as a final note I will just say, please PLEASE!!! do not make a sequel because you will inevitably f**k it up and I don't want to see that happen to what is probably the best Marvel character I have seen.

Of course they will make it, but hey, at least I can say I told you so.

Bye bye!

Tarantino does cludeo and calls it 'The Hateful Eight'

 Actual Photo.


So where to start with this then? I have been a fan of Tarantino for ages, ever since I first saw Pulp Fiction many years ago, so you would think that every time he releases a new movie that I would be super excited to see it. That wasn't really the case with the Hateful Eight. Its not that I saw trailers and thought oh well that looks terrible, it was more that Tarantino's standards have somewhat dropped since his early days. He is a fine filmmaker and they are still enjoyable, but his most memorable films for me came in the 90s, though admittedly I enjoy the hell out of Inglorious Basterds.

But thats neither here nor there, so anyway, the Hateful Eight!

So the plot like any Tarantino film is quite episodic and told in non linear stages. But in short it concerns the fate of a murderer and gang member by the name of Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who is being escorted to the town of Red Rock by bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell). However due to a fierce storm, Ruth is forced to stay inside a wood cabin with 6 others including Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson - because obviously) and Chris Mannix (Walter Goggins) - the soon to be sheriff of Red Rock. The obstacle being that none of the men can trust each other as Ruth is sure that somewhere someone will try to free Daisy.I wont go through the twists and character interactions, because if you want that, then watch the film, but the majority of the action takes place in this one setting.

So what do I think?

Well... I wont say I was overwhelmed by this film, but I enjoyed it to a degree. Like I said, Tarantino remains a skilled man and this film is no exception. Its visually very creative, shot well and the soundtrack from Morricone is encapsulating as always. In many ways this film represents something of a throwback for Tarantino as like Reservoir Dogs the film largely takes place in one room and the interaction of the characters are the driving force behind the plot. This is what Tarantino does best - dialogue. If you are  a fan of Tarantino then this will satisfy you in that regard. Its punchy, its funny and clever.

However, I cant help but feel there was something missing and having waited a week before reviewing it, I think I know what it is, the cast. Though its an ensemble cast and that usually means you can get away with not having 'great' actors, I really felt that nobody in this movie stood out. Jennifer Jason Leigh has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance and I cant really see why. She isn't bad, but Oscar worthy? I don't think so. Kurt Russell is another who really does nothing for me, he plays the character well, but again its nothing more than OK. As for Samuel L Jackson, he has always been a bit hit and miss for me, he was great in Pulp Fiction and pretty good in Django Unchained, and to be fair is probably the stand out performer in this, however I just feel that the casting stalled the film slightly. Tim Roth and Michael Madsen are somewhat wasted and in the end I felt a tad let down by them all.

This isn't helped by the fact that the film is three hours long and so there is a lot of waiting around and even I as a complete idiot could see scenes that didn't need to be there. At least with the run time of Reservoir Dogs (99 minutes) you got a much better paced film that gave you what you wanted quickly and more easily. This film could probably have been 2 hours and who knows, maybe that would have made a big difference.

I just cant help but feel that Tarantino was stifled by the fact that he had to do certain re-writes when the script was leaked. I could sense that maybe some of the writing was rushed or compromised because it had to be changed.

I hate giving number ratings when talking about a film, but for arguments sake, I would put this in the 6/10 category. Its never terrible, but its never groundbreaking either. I have heard that this could be Tarantino's last film, and I really really hope that its not true because this would certainly be something of an anti climax.

God this review sounds bad doesn't it? It sounds like I just flat out hated it. I didn't but I suppose having watched all Tarantino's films I just know he can do better and I do expect him to stay on and do better, I think maybe he needs to get back to gangster films, because that's where he seems most comfortable. He should also use De Niro again so that the man can be saved from making Dirty f**king Grandpa.

Anyway, there's my advice Quentin, see what you think and email me if you have any questions.

Brooklyn - I get a bit excited here, just prior warning.

Brooklyn!


Ok so again I am a little late to the party as Brooklyn has been out for a few months now, but I thought I might as well offer you my thoughts and my thoughts are that this really is a fantastic film. Its just... so beautiful, its not what you would call innovative in terms of its plot, but its still a love story that you can completely connect to and immerse yourself in.

So yeah, as you can see, I quite like this movie, but what's it actually about I don't hear you say because we aren't having an actual conversation and the we in this context is a metaphorical person in my head. Sorry, I got off track there.

Aaaaanyway, Brooklyn is about a young Irish girl called Ellis Lacy (Saoirse Ronan) who senses that her life in Ireland isn't leading anywhere and with the help of her sister and a priest moves to Brooklyn in the United States. Despite initial homesickness Ellis soon begins to love her life in the States and meets a young Italian man called Anthony (Emory Cohen). However tragically for Ellis her sister Rose (Fiona Glasscott) dies and Ellis returns home and struggles to come to terms with whether or not to stay at home with her mother and her admirer Jim (Domhnall Gleeson) or return to Anthony.

And that's that really, its the sort of love story that has been told again and again, and yet this is not at any point a detriment to the film overall. This is down almost and I mean almost entirely to the performance of Ronan who is nothing short of mesmerising in the lead role. She is ably assisted by other cast members including Julie Walters who provides some of the more comedic aspects of the film, but it is Ronan who comes out of this film as the main attraction - for me anyway.

What really surprises me about her is her age, Ronan is only 21 years old - 20 freaking 1!! What's so special about that? Well honestly you wouldn't believe that someone so young could put in such a wonderfully crafted and understated performance. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that she looks older,just that she has a presence on screen that really defies her youth. I seriously cannot praise her performance enough, she makes want to find out what happens to her character, she pushes the film forward at a pace that never stalls and she makes you believe that love really does exist (OK I know that's mushy but honestly its true). I haven't yet seen the films which contain the other actresses nominated for the best performance Oscar, but based on what she did in Brooklyn it would be thoroughly deserved if Ronan was to pick up the award.*

I must also gush about the soundtrack a little bit because its fantastic. The score is subtle and just perfect for the images that appear in front of you and there was even one song that was sung in the Irish language that made me homesick. Please bare in mind that I watched this at home in England and I have no familial attachment to Ireland whatsoever and this song made me homesick. How on earth does that happen seriously?

I just cannot offer enough praise to this film, some readers (I know you exist somewhere) might think I am being over the top, but I am not often over the top when it comes to films and Brooklyn has elicited a response that is quite uncommon for me.

Watch it please!!





*Also, if you want another award, you can marry me Saoirse, not as good as an Oscar obviously, but I promise I will be like suuuuuuper good to you.

Hot Girls Wanted A.K.A sex is awful

German aristocrat Otto Von Bismarck once said 'Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made' - The implication being that if you see behind the scenes of every day things that form part of our lives you will form differing opinions of it. If you see how a sausage is packed with god knows how many different types of meat you wont want to eat it.

Now admittedly the law part of that quote is probably a much less disgusting metaphor, however I think having watched the documentary Hot Girls Wanted I feel like its appropriate.

Sorry, just a little segway here, that intro was clever wasn't it, I mean I used metaphor, I quoted a historical German politician and I feel like I made a pretty apt comparison. Just sit back in awe at my insight.

Done? OK I'll get on with talking about the documentary.

The film itself came out in early 2015 so I am probably a little late to the party, but I didn't actually know it existed until a couple of days ago when someone I know spoke about it.

The actual content of the documentary is fairly straightforward. It follows the lives of some new female porn stars, specifically teenagers between 18 and 19 years old. All of these girls are found through Craigslist by a guy called Riley who simply advertises for 'Hot Girls' - hence the title - by offering them a free flight and a promise of lots of money and good sex. Many of these girls arrive from small town America to pursue a career in something known as pro - amateur porn, which is what it sounds like, professional porn, made to look like it stars amateurs.

Now, to get away from the actual content of the documentary briefly, I will say that I have watched porn before, I am not a prude who thinks its should all be banned and that all these women are being exploited. However returning to my metaphor, after watching this and seeing what these young girls go through, it has managed to make sex look like the most unappealing thing imaginable.

A lot of the girls featured in the documentary were very attractive, they seemed fairly happy with the life they had chosen and they weren't the stereotypical dumb girl that you would probably expect to see.

There is a lot of talk about female empowerment and liberation in the documentary, which is an argument often seen in porn. Its a fair one in my opinion, a persons choice is their own and if a woman -  or anybody for that matter -  chooses to do porn then fair enough, however I felt myself being really challenged by this documentary because despite these girls choosing what they do, it really really reallllllllllllly seemed like pure exploitation. For example, according to the various facts presented in the film, a large part of the porn market is something ill paraphrase as 'abusive porn'. These are films in which a girl is maybe tied down and fucked, or forced to give a guy a blowjob until she vomits and then has to lick it up afterwards.... So yeah, I've honestly never seen something like that, but what the fuck! I mean, in the documentary the girls defend this type of porn by simply saying its acting and if someone wants to pay them for a short amount of discomfort then more fool them. One girl even said, she would rather someone watch her acting as if she is getting assaulted then have them go out and really hurt someone. Again that's a good point I suppose, but I just cannot suspend myself from the fact that these girls are being abused, acting or not. In fact, one girl was speaking after a forced blowjob scene and she comments on how did she didn't vomit because she didn't eat breakfast and so nothing came up. Now, I just cant see how that scenario is OK ever? Seriously, whether the guy really intends to hurt her is surely irrelevant? I don't know, I just found it really fucked up, and this girl was only 18 if I remember right. At 26 I don't think I am old enough to really judge a young person, as I haven't really 'lived' enough, but I felt genuinely concerned for her well being.

That to me is the main aim of the documentary and I am full of praise for the way Jim Bauer and Ronna Gradus (the directors) handle it. The film is never gratuitous, if people who haven't seen it are expecting some free nudity, then you will be disappointed. The focus really is on the girls and their struggle to justify what they do, and I am not talking from a 'moral - all porn is bad' sort of way, but more in the sense that the girls seem to struggle with the fact that they have a 'shelf life'. By the end of the film, 2 of the girls who feature have left the industry after less than a few months of being porn stars, and its indicated throughout that this isn't unusual. Porn really does seem to have a revolving door policy when it comes to women especially and then the girls are just discarded. Fortunately for the girls who leave there is some hope and the audience isn't left completely dejected, but still.

Overall I think Hot Girls Wanted should be seen because if anything it exposes more about these women than any porn scene possibly could. I realise I probably sound like a pretentious twat and maybe it comes across that I am trying to tell women what they should be doing with their bodies, but honestly that couldn't be further from the truth. Like I said, I appreciate that some people will make choices that I or others cant understand, but I don't think that means I am not allowed to talk about those choices if they seem detrimental to seemingly good people.

Anyway, sorry this blog is so long, I could have gone on and on (that probably shows, considering how sloppily this is written) But I just think this is an important documentary on a divisive subject that approaches its material objectively and with care for its participants.

Byesey bye!