Whiplash, Ex Machina, American Sniper & Wild – Richards Reckons Reviews

A drummer, a robot, a sniper and, er, Reese Witherspoon. It’s like a dream A-Team lineup. But it is not a dream A-Team lineup; nay, it is a Richards Reckons post. Let the reckoning commence!

Let’s start with Whiplash.

No no, not that one, THIS one.

Whiplash tells the tale of Andrew Neiman (Miles “Bank” Teller), a young up and coming jazz drummer studying at (the rather confusingly named) Shaffer Conservatory; the best music school in the US. He doesn’t have any friends and is utterly dedicated to (and isolated by) his desire to become “one of the greats”, like his idols Buddy Rich or Charlie Parker. He gets noticed by Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), an esteemed conductor at Shaffer who has his own core band. Andrew gets invited into the group, but quickly discovers Fletcher’s tyrannical, almost sadistic method of pushing his students, and proceeds to be treated horrendously by Fletcher. But will his methods push him to greatness, or over the edge?

The film is an Oscar contender, and it’s not hard to see why. Even though it’s dancing around the subject of music, Whiplash is more tense, exhilarating and electrifying than most action thriller films based around violence. This is a movie that contains blood, sweat and tears in its very bones; mainly from Miles, admittedly, but all three trickle through the film like blood in its veins (its veins and its bones… wait, this metaphor/simile combo has confused even me). Its tense and utterly gripping feel is down to its basic question; how far should you push somebody in order to achieve greatness? It’s a question that is framed by music here but is applicable throughout most endeavours, and that’s why it resonates so highly with everybody who witnesses it.

While Miles Teller plays Neiman very well as a cagey, defensive and determined prodigy whose aggression and determination mounts over the course of the film, this is really J.K. Simmons’ show. Every single movement he makes as Fletcher, whether it’s folding his arms or grabbing the air to indicate he wants silence, is utterly mesmerizing – he electrifies the screen whenever he is on it, in a terrifying way. When he gets, as the kids say, right up in Neiman’s ‘bidness’, it’s as scary for us as it is for him – his booming voice and craggy face dominating and commanding the frame. For all his fiery anger, when Fletcher needs to show some kind of sadness Simmons shows real depth without giving the facade away. If that supporting actor Oscar isn’t his, then the Oscars should be branded a joke (especially in conjunction with The LEGO Movie debacle – it still angers me, even now. I may need to have a lie down).

Damien Chazelle directs the film magnificently, creating the perfect marriage between thunderous sound and vision; it’s also incredibly well edited, especially at the film’s thrilling crescendo; it feels like there’s a cut at every snare hit, and not in a disorientating way. Whiplash is a chair-throwing, hand-bleeding, sweat-leaking force of nature to be reckoned with, and you’ll never see another film quite like it. It’s genuinely brilliant.

From E-notes to E-lectronics now (sorry), it’s time for Ex Machina.

Ex Machina is a science fiction film following Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a young programmer who works for the largest search engine in the world, ‘Bluebook’. He wins a lottery in his workplace to go and meet his mysterious CEO employer Nathan (Oscar Isaac) in his very, very remote island home. But after signing a document which forbids him from ever speaking about what he is going to see while he is there, Caleb catches on that something bigger is perhaps happening here; and that’s when he meets Ava (Alicia Vikander), a walking, talking new kind of AI. Nathan wants Caleb to find out whether or not this new form of AI has its own consciousness or not – leading to a particularly sinister series of events.

This is Alex Garland’s directorial debut after writing screenplays and novels, including for Danny Boyle features 28 Days Later, The Beach & Sunshine. There’s certainly a Boyle flavour to this film; it’s very stylish and focussed on character, but still retains a high concept while being clever about it. It’s a small film primarily with three people set in one location – at times, it almost plays like a play. While it perhaps isn’t an action packed science fiction adventure, it is never boring – there are lots of deep, philosophical conversations going on about life itself and what makes someone, or something, alive, and the moral implications of that.

Isaac plays his strange hideaway genius with a glazed look in his eye and a strange rock’n’roll swagger like a mix between a rockstar and Mark Zuckerberg; Gleeson shows the genius of his character sparingly while retaining the warmth he is known for; Vikander plays her android Ava surprisingly quite fluidly (in comparison to the normal “I am a robot” impression some others do), with a strange level of curiosity and seduction – indeed, she looks bizarrely beautiful thanks to the impeccable CG work on her body. The three main (and pretty much only) players perform their roles with gusto, adding credibility to the admittedly high concept. The slick writing does this too, with surprisingly funny riffs on modern computer culture and its capabilities, as well as a couple of “oh well I did [this clever thing] BEFORE you did [this clever thing]” twists in there for good measure.

Ex Machina is a clever, brainy slice of science fiction that’s elevated by a clever script and some good performances from some of Hollywood’s rising stars. If you like your sci-fi and brainy debates about artificial intelligence then seek it out; it’s soon to be a cult classic.

Next up, American Sniper.

American Sniper, stay away from mee-heeeeee. It’s unfortunately not an adaptation of the song American Woman by The Guess Who, but instead it follows the true life story of the deadliest marksman in US military history – Chris Kyle, played by Bradley “Rocket Raccoon” Cooper. It follows some of his life from when he was a young boy up until his adulthood when he decides to join the military, and is subsequently deployed to Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. It follows his relationship with his wife (Sienna Miller) as well as his subsequent four tours of Iraq and his various firefights with Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban.

The film is directed by Clint Eastwood, after originally being optioned by Steven Spielberg. The film and its team surrounding it have been nominated for Oscars including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Actor…

And I have absolutely no idea why.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad film. It’s for the most part a well shot, well orchestrated war movie. I just don’t feel it’s anywhere near special enough to warrant so many accolades; it feels incredibly generic, in some respects. It’s also (and judging by the internet I don’t think this was just me) uncomfortably jingoistic and patriotic at times – to the point that I was surprised he wasn’t given Captain America’s shield. The characters in the film gleefully describe all Iraqi people as “savages”; in some respects at times it genuinely feels like an extremely old fashioned Western film in which the entire Iraqi people (not just the Taliban insurgents) are in place of the “Indians”. It’s interesting that Spielberg was going to focus on the Iraqi people’s point of view as it could have perhaps avoided this issue altogether.

That said, there are some thrilling aspects to the film, including the tension from the trailer and the mile-long shot towards the climax of the film. It perhaps does not focus on Kyle’s PTSD/addiction to war as much as it could have (including some relationship ultimatums that are made and then broken), or indeed should have to humanise him a bit more. Bradley Cooper does the best that he can in the role, playing it very understated with a low Texan drawl, but there are not any glimpses of his trademark charisma – this is because he is portraying a real life person, perhaps, and wished to remain respectful, but even so. It also has the most fake baby in the history of cinema.

As I said, American Sniper is not a bad film. It has some areas of tension that most action films would beg for. The problem is that at times it feels a bit too bland to be deserving all the praise that is layered upon it. Eastwood doesn’t bring anything that is distinctly his to the table here, either – it feels like it could have been directed by anybody. Apparently it has been heralded in America and it’s not hard to see why as it’s so ardent in its patriotism – but for everywhere else, it may be a tough swallow.

Finally, let’s get Wild.

Wild tells the real life story of Cheryl Strayed (Reese “She Eats” Witherspoon) who hikes the Pacific Crest Trail (1000+ miles) as her way of dealing with the death of her mother (Laura Dern), as well as years of destructive behaviour. She reflects on her life as she comes across other ramblers and through the trials and tribulations of rambling alone.

Wild is told in a surprisingly avant garde way – though it follows the linear narrative of Cheryl’s walkabout, we jump in and out of parts of her life in a very ethereal way like we’re galloping through a time portal, following her own mindset as she walks on her own. We have touching memories with her mother, her ex-boyfriend and her troubles with drug addiction all coming to her in waves as she makes this massive trek, making us feel like we are inside her head; and what a place it is to be. Reese Witherspoon’s performance is amazingly raw yet defined here; she’s in almost every single frame, so the whole film rides on her essentially. She plays Strayed with strength and occasional vulnerability through physicality; she feels like a flawed inspirational figure the whole way through the film.

Some may feel it is long, but it’s a story about reflecting upon yourself through long periods of time, so it’s almost allowed that. With its non-traditional narrative stylings and flourishes, Wild won’t be for everybody, but people will relish the cinematography and stunning central performances by Reese Witherspoon and the graciously strong Laura Dern, leading to moving moments of triumph on her journey.

No fake baby though…

Mr. Turner, Ouija, Horns & The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman – Richards Reckons Reviews

Some paintings, a board, some horns and Romania. Anybody would have thought that’s a blurb of a novel about a Romanian minotaur living in an art gallery trying to make it as a skateboarder, but alas, it is not (I’ll work on that later though as a stocking filler for 2015).

Let’s kick off with Mr. Turner.

While it sounds like the biopic of a substitute maths teacher, it is not; instead, it’s the Mike Leigh directed biopic of J. M. W. Turner, one of Britain’s most prolific painters in the 19th century. Weirdly, the film doesn’t have a plot as such; it simply follows Turner (Timothy Spall) at the height of his career and final 30 years of his life, as well as his relationships with his father (Paul Jesson), his housemaid (Dorothy Atkinson), the aristocracy, the Royal Academy of Art and Mrs Booth (Marion Bailey).

Rather aptly for a film about one of the best painters in British history, the film itself looks beautiful. Each frame is lovingly crafted and carefully coloured much like a painting; it’s no accident that door frames and window frames are used consistently as borders of the shot, like the frames of a painting (how’s that for meta, eh? A film about art, which in itself is art, looks like art). Cinematographer Dick Pope won an award at Cannes for this film and ruddy rightly so too; the shots are so incredibly classy and rich that it feels like you are in a gallery.

The film also has some staggering performances in it, not least by Timothy Spall. He is absolutely phenomenal as Turner; he inhabits a persona of assured arrogance yet vulnerability; a flawed genius dedicated and passionate about his work, and dealing with criticism and praise in various different ways. He behaves somewhat unusually; saying things by snorting and grunting more than with actual words, and varying between confidently striding or meandering through his life; between visiting brothels and the aristocracy. He is by no means a morally absolute protagonist either – he uses and abuses his landlady for sex when he wants to, while she retains adoration for him regardless of this mistreatment. But shades of grey are interesting, and while it isn’t the most overstated performance, it’s sure to win awards and astonish. There are brilliant turns from Marion Bailey too as the lovely Mrs Booth, the lady that Mr Turner decides to live with incognito (although obviously not THAT incognito seeing as the film knows about it… Just sayin’).

A sure awards contender, the script is also wonderfully crafted, with dialogue fresh from the 19th century without it being too dense. However, if I was being especially critical, I would say that it is a bit too long. It can feel somewhat indulgent at times, with scenes that don’t have any overall effect on the narrative lasting for a very long time (the older lady next to me actually kept falling asleep and snoring aloud, only to be jolted awake again by her tutting cinemagoer friend). The skeleton of the film is very good, as are the occasional bits of fat in there, but there is a bit too much narrative fat that can drag it down.

Potent, beautiful and amazingly well performed, Mr Turner won’t be for everybody’s tastes but is a true awards contender and a brilliant if indulgent look at the life of a unique artistic genius.

Speaking of, er, genius (ahem), let’s talk about Ouija.

Ouija is the heartbreaking true story of Dr John Ouija, a man who dedicated his life to finding a cure for children’s illnesses. Only joking, of course it’s not; it’s a horror film about a haunted house, of course! Best buddies Laine (Olivia Cooke) and Debbie (Shelley Hennig) have known each other all their lives, doing the regular girls do, like playing with ouija boards with one another (apparently they’re toys in America, as evidenced by the fact this film is PRODUCED by Hasbro themselves). In the present day, Debbie has been dabbling with the board again and ends up hanging herself with some fairy lights (a criminal waste, in my opinion). Wanting to talk with her, Laine begs her friends and sister to do a ouija board to try to contact Debbie in the afterlife; but, surprise surprise, it’s a terrible idea and awakens all sorts of spirits in the house…

So, yes, this is exactly what it sounds like; a jumpscare fest and nothing more, really. It does the regular checklist of things that modern horror films do; haunted house, basements, JUMPSCARES, attics, dolls, JUMPSCARES, creepy kids, gore, JUMPSCARES, being dragged away by an invisible force, burning ancient objects… did I mention JUMPSCARES? Nothing really resonates with the audience as being truly creepy or disturbing; it’s just a series of jolts (some of which, admittedly, are quite effective – some of which completely are not).

While it’s adequately short at around 90 minutes, parts of it still do feel boring and run of the mill, with scenes in which you can tell that nobody is in danger. You can tell that the actors, while giving it their all, are a bit bored by the whole affair as well and don’t really put too much into it; there’s a real lack of emotion and clarity to a film that involves so many supposed suicides of teenagers. The writing is also pretty poor and the plot convoluted and illogical; with more plot holes than a swiss cheese block that’s been violently attacked with a Black & Decker implement.

All in all, Ouija doesn’t add anything new to the genre unfortunately and serves a poor example of modern, quiet quiet JUMPSCARE horror cinema.

Now it’s time for Daniel Radcliffe getting horny (ROFLMAOLOL) in Horns.

Daniel “Harry Potter” Radcliffe plays a (frankly amazingly named) man called Ig Perrish, a musician from a small town in America. His beautiful girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple) is horrifically raped and murdered, and Ig is suspect (and therefore public enemy) number 1. During this persecution by the media and townsfolk, he wakes up one day to find horns poking out of his head (don’t you just hate it when that happens?). These horns give him strange powers, such as people revealing every single horrible secret and desire they have to him and the ability to read minds. He uses this ability to try and track down Merrin’s actual killer, clear his name and get revenge.

Horns has been taking a bit of a critical kicking as of late, which I think is slightly undeserved. Horns has its problems of course – one of which is an uneven tone, which swerves between black comedy, sugary romance and full on supernatural and a bit silly. I love it when films contain multiple components and genres, but only when it feels like they gel well; in Horns, however, it feels like they are rustily changing gear rather than smoothly gliding through the scenes like fine narrative silk. There is also the ending, which as well as offering no redemption or explanation for a film that makes you so interested in looking for one, also is silly to ridiculous extremes and almost loses all of its credibility.

Apart from these aspects, though, there is a blackly fun film to be found, with some dark laughs and insight into the dark human condition and its impulses. The performances of Daniel Radcliffe and Juno Temple are particularly fantastic too; with Radcliffe’s accent being flawless and convincing, and his character portraying both desperation to full on badass anger effectively. It’s just a shame that the ending and its tonal confusion is letting it down.

Horns does not deserve the critical kicking it’s getting, as it can be darkly fun in areas, but it is far from perfect. A flawed slice of dark fun.

And finally, it’s time for The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman (the film, not the absolutely fundamental demise of a man named Charlie Countryman).

So the plot behind this necessary death is this; Charlie Countryman (Shia LaBeouf) witnesses the death of his mother in hospital, and is visited by an apparition of her almost straight away afterwards (convenient, eh?). She tells him to go to Bucharest, because it “sounds specific” (which is, you know, reason enough? I guess?). So he catches a plane to Bucharest and meets a man, who promptly dies next to him. He tracks down her daughter Gabi (Evan Rachel Wood) at the airport, who he almost instantly falls for. But she has a dangerous ex-husband in Nigel (Mads Mikkelsen), who is a real rotter of a man, and does not take too kindly to Charlie intruding into Gabi’s life…

Oh, and also, Rupert Grint and James Buckley turn up too for some acid trip style sequences. Just thought I’d mention it.

I spoke earlier about Horns being a mixed bag, but this is a mixed bag with the strange ramped up to 11. It’s an utterly bizarre dark love story, and while that sounds good in the outset, it isn’t really. It tries to be dark and edgy with its violence but ultimately fails and feels incredibly silly; not even Mads Mikkelsen can bring any sense of being grounded or realistic to the pointlessly violent Nigel character and his endless list of henchmen. Shia LaBeouf apparently was actually on acid in a lot of the scenes where drug trips were required, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was all the time during the filming of this; he constantly looks doe-eyed and sweaty. That said, his performance could certainly be a lot worse, but unfortunately is not enough to save the film.

There is also the matter of a tacked on subplot involving Rupert Grint and James Buckley’s characters (James Buckley’s is almost a carbon copy of Jay, except not as inherently innocent). While it was an enjoyable aside (and mad to see these three men together in the same film), there is certainly a feeling of “errr… why?” to it all. The surreal nature of the film doesn’t help this either, as it ultimately amounts to a fairly empty and pointless experience.

The subway chase sequence is, however, very good. Seek that out if you can. Lovely use of slow motion. But apart from that, Charlie Countryman is a bizarre movie that feels incredibly flimsy and “for the sake of it”.

The Imitation Game & The Rewrite – Richards Reckons Reviews

A Game and a Rewrite in today’s post. It reminds me of when I was doing my dissertation, but with a bit less crying and a bit more self respect. A bit.

Right, let’s kick off with a film that’s not actually out for another WHOLE MONTH! (I know, right?!). We’ve got Halloween and fireworks until you can see The Imitation Game, but heck, that won’t stop ya reading what Richards Reckons (please, please don’t let it stop you).

Unlike Monopoly, Hungry Hungry Hippos or any of that ilk, this game has a plot, based on real life; the film follows Alan Turing (Benedict “Cool-As-A-Cu” Cumberbatch), a skilled mathematician who, along with an array of intellectuals (sort of like a brainy, British Avengers), was recruited during World War II (don’t worry, you don’t have to see the first one to understand what’s going on) by the military and secret service to break the supposedly uncrackable enigma code being used by the Germans to relay information about attacks and other military intel. The film follows Turing throughout his life, including his difficult teenagehood, his difficulty with the other codebreakers, the creation of his machine “Christopher” and his hideous mistreatment by the government due to his homosexuality.

So before I get to anything else, know this; Cumberbatch’s performance is masterful. He captures and fully realises this character and all his strengths but also his flaws. He shows the callousness that the character can have at times, thinking with cold hearted, for-the-greater-good logic rather than his heart (don’t worry, it’s in a different way than Sherlock); but also handles the emotive side of him being an utterly broken man very sensitively without being too over the top – conveying his feelings in just a look or an intake of breath. Similarly, Alex Lawther deserves a special mention for his performance as the young Turing, who also has to deal with a fair share of grief too; the control over his mannerisms in relation to Benedict’s performance is also fantastic, making you feel like you’ve really gone in a time machine to see his youth rather than it being a separate actor. The rest of the cast is also wonderful, with standout moments from Mark Strong, Charles “May I Have This” Dance, and Kiera Knightley in particular as Joan Clarke, a woman who Turing grows an intellectual affinity with who has to also combat the sexism at the time.

If you’re expecting a full codebreaking lesson from this film (I’m not sure why you would but each to their own), I’m afraid you may be a bit disappointed. Quite how Turing’s machine works and the intricacies of what it does is never explained in great detail, but it doesn’t matter really; the film instead focusses on the possible consequences and the magnitude of the work they are doing rather than the actual work doing on. Something that is apparent though is Turing’s love for the machine who he names Christopher (never has a man loved a machine more; it’s like a more moving Tony Stark and JARVIS, or more socially acceptable me and Wall-E). His love for the machine is an emblem for the love for his work; and it’s his work that could win the war.

Compared to other films that have a very heavy amount of secrecy and espionage (cough Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy cough), The Imitation Game actually deals with who is keeping what from who quite well, keeping it coherent for the audience at all times. The narrative too is also very clear on the whole, though in parts the jumping around in his timeline can seem confusing. The dialogue too is smooth, engrossing and at times poignant, and not as dense as it perhaps could be; meaning the characters are easier to connect with, although there are some quite unexpected emotional moments that seem to come out of nowhere, in particular between Alan and Joan (is it bad I keep typing “Alan and Lynne” out of habit?); though it’s better than this way than being predictable. It’s also a surprisingly funny film too, especially observing Alan’s almost autistic reactions to the world around him and how people communicate with one another.

The Imitation Game is very clear Oscar bait (a true story wartime period drama can scream Oscar), but that doesn’t make the film any less moving, compelling or wonderfully performed. Director Morten Tyldun has put together a very impressive and moving film that in other hands could be cold or dense. I have read some controversy that the film tries to steer away from Turing’s homosexuality, but I think this is a bit poppycock; it does not paper over it in any way, and the emotional punches to do with his mistreatment as a result of his sexuality feel just rancid and heartbreaking. You’ll be so pleased that the story of this man who not only was one of the fathers of modern technology but was also horribly mistreated by the country he saved has been finally told, and with such gravitas and respect too.

Right then, time I think for a Rewrite. Or, rather, THE Rewrite, starring England’s own Hugh Grant. Here he is, being Hugh Grant.

The Rewrite was written and then probably rewritten with a plot, the plot being this; Keith Michaels (Hugh Grant) was once an academy award winning screenwriter, but has of late not found a great amount of luck nor money in the hills of Hollywood. His agent suggests teaching screenwriting at a small university in Binghamton University (apparently a real place and not in any way affiliated with Matt Bellamy’s son); due to his lack of money and lack of literally anything going on in his life, he agrees, but it’s not as much of a cakewalk as he thinks it’s going to be…

As you may expect, this film doesn’t contain Hugh Grant doing anything new whatsoever really; it’s Hugh Grant being Hugh Grant, but a bit older. It’s very clear that this film is written specifically with him in mind in the title role; it’s written and directed by Marc Lawrence, who has never directed a film without Hugh Grant in it (it’s true, check it out), so it’s safe to assume that rather than the actor fits the mould for the character, the character fits the mould for the actor. Now, if you like Hugh Grant’s normal shtick of being a charming-but-aloof-and-quite-grating British man then there’s no reason for you to object to this; but it would be nice for him to do something that maybe wasn’t quite so… Hugh Grant (‘Hugh’ and ‘Grant’ don’t look like words anymore, do they?).

Keith, while also being very Hugh Grant-y, can be a bit of a dick at times, complaining about female empowerment and there being too many “kick ass girls” in Hollywood, and exploiting his students for his own gain; such as judging them purely on what they look like rather than their talents when it comes to class admission, treating them like mail order gawk objects. But this is swept under the rug somewhat as he is showered with praise regarding his most well known film that seemingly everybody loves (is there such thing as a film that EVERYBODY loves?!); it’s mentioned so often you start to groan every time it comes up (which it does, A LOT).

Some of the characters on the side (such as the students) would be instantly forgotten as caricatures of one joke if they weren’t so well performed, with one character’s last name being Bai only to serve as a “go either way!” punchline. Annie Q puts in a great Aubrey Plaza-flavoured deadpan cynic performance, and Andrew Keenan-Bolger also adds a degree of vulnerability to a role centered around a guy being obsessive about Star Wars. However, there is a criminal underuse of the wonderful J.K. Simmons, playing a surprisingly meek authority figure who gets emotional about his family almost constantly. In terms of performances, I would say this movie’s strongest point is Marisa Tomei as Holly; an older student who works almost constantly while studying and raising her kids. She adds a degree of quirkiness and enthusiasm to an admittedly underwritten role; coating it in kooky chocolate like a digestive biscuit (sorry, I’m hungry again).

It’s quite a patchy affair that has charm in some areas but drags and feels very forced in others, and there aren’t that many laughs either. I particularly enjoyed the way that it progressed with the story alongside the students’ scripts, but their creativity is kind of shunted aside for more Hugh Grant flavoured romance which ultimately doesn’t amount to anything. Plenty of people find it likeable, and while I didn’t find it perhaps as charming as others did, it’s not offensive in any way; just don’t expect too much from it…