Mudbound [2017] Genre: Period Drama Director: Dee Rees Actors: Carey Mulligan, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell Mudbound shows the spectator 1940s America, as the country reaches the end of the Second World War with people of all backgrounds throughout the country uniting together to fight against the foreign evil of the Nazis. However, back at home in the rural environment of Mississippi, relationships could not be more fractured. Strong tensions lie between races, with groups like the KKK becoming more and more prevalent, African Americans are oppressed and living in awful conditions due to the Jim Crow laws and everyone is feeling the effect of having a loved one out fighting a war, only knowing the information provided to them by infrequent letters. Rees' film does an absolutely exceptional job of highlighting how just because the American troops were unified at war, it does not mean that there was unification at home. The awful conditions felt by many during the war are beautifully and brilliantly given exposure by Rees in this film. The film depicts the lives of two families living during 1945. One family, the McAllan family, is a white working-class family, made up of Laura (Mulligan) who is married to Henry (Clarke), despite not being too attracted to him. There is also Jamie, Henry's brother (Garrett Hedlund), who at the beginning of the film, is fighting away in the war. Other members of the family are there two children and Pappy, Henry and James' father (Jonathan Banks) who is an extremely racist and bigoted character, who is very harsh and cruel throughout the film. The other family presented is the Jackson family, a family whose ancestors have worked farms in Mississippi for decades as slaves. This family consists of Hap (Rob Morgan) and Florence (Mary J. Blige) who have three children, one of whom, Ronsel (Jason Mitchell) is also away at war, and the film often depicts their hard lives on the film, particularly from the oppressive Jim Crow laws of the time. The return of the two veterans from war from each family is used by Rees to highlight issues of both PTSD and racism throughout the film. This film employs quite an interesting narrative structure, switching between various perspectives to show how different characters are reacting to their current situation, really allowing the viewer to get an idea of the hardships that the characters face in the film, using voiceover narration to, at first, give the viewer an idea of daily routine on the farm but also used to evoke powerful feelings and express them to the viewer, allowing for empathy with both families in a very moving way, and this really adds to the power of the film. It shows the real hardship for both families, dealing with having less money, but then also showing how the treatment by some white Americans of the African Americans made this situation even more the worse. The usage of the voiceover narration is also used in an almost poetic way with one particularly brilliantly performed piece of narration by Carey Mulligan showing the daily routine but also the atmosphere on the farm and perhaps showing the sheer amount of awfulness that goes on daily. Another interesting technique used on the writing front is the clear comparison being made between life on the farm and life in the war. Both are almost portrayed as this living hell by the director and this really helps the viewer to feel for nearly all of the characters involved. The film is shot in such a way to really help to show how there was little contrast between the horrible conditions some felt in the war and those felt by African Americans at home – there was pain and suffering for all. The story is told in such a powerful, brilliantly written and brilliantly performed way which certainly captivated me when I watched it and really created intrigue but also complete shock and horror at some of the grimmer moments in the film. The realistic dialogue in the film, particularly in some of the conversations between the two veterans, really shows how the war brought together some, but the attitudes at home remained the same, with racism and bigotry still being as present as it ever was. The absolute horrific treatment of an African American veteran who had fought for their country the same as any other American was absolutely horrific and shocking to watch. However, what really helps build on this powerful writing and deliver an extremely engaging and convincing story is the brilliant performances. No-one really puts a foot wrong in terms of the acting, with Carey Mulligan being particularly brilliant in her building friendship with Florence, played just as exceptionally, if not more, by Mary J. Blige, and that initial mistrust of each other building to perhaps a friendship that shows they have far more in common. Both Jason Mitchell and Garrett Hedlund are so brilliantly convincing, sharing their traumas of war and really showing PTSD in a very interesting light. The fractures in their relationship as well as the similarities in their experiences of the war are just so brilliantly conveyed to the spectator, really helping to get across the idea of this unification through war of the two races. Other actors also give similarly inspiring and powerful performances, such as Jonathan Banks who just really plays the character so well and really created a real sense of hatred and anger from me. Everyone is just across the board brilliant in this film. The film does have its flaws however. Firstly, while the jumping between narrative perspectives could sometimes evoke powerful emotions from each characters, it could often sometimes be rather frustrating, not showing perhaps the most interesting perspectives and instead jumping to one that doesn't give the same insight into the situation. The jump between perspectives can also sometimes be a bit jarring, with it often being hard to tell where one ends and one begins, leading to the film seeming a bit messy at points, however this is often resolved with powerful writing during the perspective. As well as this, some scenes in the film did feel a bit overly melodramatic. I do totally understand the need for this film to be full of drama in order to fully show the attitudes and atmosphere in America at the time but sometimes it did come across as a bit over-the-top. However, the scenes that were obviously supposed to having the powerful message for the viewer did primarily succeed, so the film's faults do not really ruin the fantastic story it tells across. Overall, Mudbound is a beautifully acted and powerfully written film that shows the awful conditions felt by many in America. The film evokes not only emotion from the characters but lots of varied emotion from the viewer: sadness, anger and even, at rare points, happiness all struck me throughout the film. The film is not a happy watch and it certainly does not leave you with any sort of sense of hope or optimism, but if it did, it wouldn't be realistic. The Jim Crow laws continued to oppress African Americans throughout the United States for years to come. The film really highlights that overwhelming gloom felt all over the country by a large variety of people. The few flaws of the film certainly aren't enough to stop this being a brilliantly powerful film that deserves lots of attention. Rating: 9/10
0 Comments
Justice League [2017] Genre: Superhero Director: Zack Snyder Actors: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot Justice League is the third in a series of attempts by Zack Snyder to make a superhero film that can live up to the greatest Marvel films or Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, following on from Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. So far, he hasn't been too successful. Man of Steel came in with some impressive visuals and a few decent performances but I found myself strongly disliking it, finding it particularly uninteresting as it really didn't seem to even try to make Superman that likeable of a character if you were unfamiliar with the character as I was. Then came Batman v Superman, a film that was particularly critically panned by most and in some regards, I can see why. The screenplay was poorly written with some really odd plot choices and some acting performances were dire (particularly Eisenberg impersonating an amateur actor doing a particularly poor Joker impression), although I found myself quite liking it, particularly the first act which I thought rather interestingly explored the impact of Man of Steel and really made me feel like this action was taking place in a real world with real people. Ben Affleck really impressed me as both Bruce Wayne and Batman and some supporting characters such as Amy Adams' Lois Lane and Jeremy Irons' Alfred slightly impressed but overall, not really Dark Knight quality. Other directors haven't done too much better, with Suicide Squad being an atrociously edited, performed, directed, written and shot film, and while Wonder Woman was a massive step-up compared to the others and far more entertaining, it still didn't really rock the boat in terms of the plot too much. So, this is the climate that Justice League enters into, combined with reshoots from Joss Whedon, responsible for Marvel's Avengers films and some interesting behind-the-scenes production stories. Not good even to begin with. But, perhaps it was possible: maybe with Whedon's slightly lighter tone combining with Snyder's darker elements, the DC Extended Universe could really get going with a film that was entertaining and well-made. The film follows on some time after the death of Superman with the world reeling from his death, with increased crime and a distinct lack of hope. To make matters worse, his death triggered the activation of 'Mother Boxes', which has brought Steppenwolf and his army of 'parademons' to Earth. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Affleck) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gadot) must form a team of heroes to save the planet from catastrophe. Sounds groundbreaking, right? Like all of these superhero films when these heroes are brought together in one team, it was extremely important to have a likeable cast. Marvel have established their own Avengers team with likeable characters with clear personalities, so DC should have been able to do the same with the Justice League. Did they? Kinda. The already established members are relatively similar in this film with Ben Affleck's Batman continuing to be really interesting and well acted and Gadot's Wonder Woman being extremely entertaining to watch and plays a large part in some of the film's greatest action scenes. The chemistry between these two works quite well throughout the film and I was extremely glad for that. The new arrivals are a little bit more interesting. Firstly, there is Arthur Curry or Aquaman, played by Jason Momoa. His personality was, at least, very clear and I quite enjoyed some of the interactions between him and Bruce, with their quips about the other being dressed like a bat or being able to talk to fish, respectively. Momoa played these comedic moments relatively well, although I didn't really find him all that likeable – I understand that perhaps he wasn't meant to be at certain points, but even towards the end he wasn't that interesting to me – and I hope that changes for the upcoming Aquaman film, but for him, the film does a good job of setting up his personality, backstory and Momoa gives a good showing for his first real debut in the DCEU. Next there is Victor Stone or Cyborg, played by Ray Fisher. We learn a little about his backstory in the previous films and to be honest, very little is expanded on in this film, apart from a few weak interactions between him and his Father. I found him to be the weakest of the three new arrivals for a number of reasons. Firstly, his backstory really wasn't expanded enough for me to be interested in him or how he would develop. His personality wasn't very well set up – I couldn't describe it if you asked me – and he just came across as a bit bland. The other primary issue I had with him was Fisher's performance. It wasn't awful, but it was just a bit boring. He really didn't put any emotion into his delivery and that really made me struggle with supporting him as a hero throughout the film. Last, but certainly not least, is Barry Allen or The Flash, played by Ezra Miller. In contrast, he's almost the exact opposite of Cyborg. His backstory is well established, giving him some form of motivation, with his Father in prison and this does allow for us to feel support for his character. This is also greatly helped by Ezra Miller's brilliant performance. I was initially sceptical of how Miller would be in comparison to other performances of The Flash, but I was extremely pleased with how he delivered his comedic personality and it really made him a likeable character with a clear personality and an exciting on-screen presence. Supporting characters were weaker however. I disliked Amy Adams for the first time in the DCEU and her on-screen time felt a bit pointless and a waste of time, especially the early interactions between her and Superman's mother. I've really liked her in these films in the past but was a bit disappointed here. However, what is much worse was the villain. I like Ciaran Hinds. I really do. I loved his performance in Game of Thrones and think he has a lot to offer. Poor Ciaran. I don't know whose fault the villain was here, but there is so much wrong. The backstory has so little establishment that I felt very little threat from him – he didn't come across as someone I should be particularly afraid of as a villain and the actions in film didn't really add more to that. The visual effects were even worse now. Everyone's already made the comparison to a video game villain in a cutscene, but it's worth hammering home just how bad he looked. This is the joint-second most expensive film ever made – was it really that hard to make a villain actually look like a real entity? This is a real fault of the film, and while the visual effects look actually quite good at points (Flash's speed force moments particularly good), this was just embarrassing and nearly invalidated most of the supposedly intense action sequences. The action sequences in this film were also important to get right, and, at least for the most part, they were relatively enjoyable. Particular highlights was the initial fight with Steppenwolf (despite him being so useless) and elements of the final fight. Thankfully, they were well edited, especially in comparison to the awful Suicide Squad, it was a nice breath of fresh air for the DCEU's editing. They were all very well choreographed as you would expect and it did have that sense of spectacle to it. The interactions in these sequences were very good also at certain points with the characters really coming across to the viewer quite well. However, the scenes in between really weren't that interesting to me. This is one of the points that Batman v Superman did better for me than this film. The scenes between each action moment were just so uninteresting and I found it difficult to care about the events as the writing wasn't particularly good. I just wanted it to move on, and a lot of it just felt like wastes of time. In these scenes, some of the worst elements poked through, in particular the tone. There's been a lot of discussion about the tone of the film and whether it was good or not. Personally, I find myself lying on the disliking of this weird mashup of dark and comedic with Snyder and Whedon's style respectively. I didn't feel like it felt the film or the franchise so far. I actually loved the tone of Batman v Superman and felt it had potential going forward but this film really took that away, removing any sense of seriousness to it. I think it's a real shame and I do think it harmed the film rather than helped. Who wrote what scene has been released, and it's easy to notice the strong conflict in the tone at points, which often harmed the film. Few smaller elements to discuss: I really hated the score. It felt uninspired, not just in comparison to Hans Zimmer's score in previous films, but it just felt bland, boring and dull and didn't get me excited or interested. I also wish some of the even smaller parts had some more scenes. I understand J.K. Simmons' Commissioner Gordon will have more of a role in Matt Reeves' Batman film but I really enjoyed him in this and wish he would have had some more screen-time in some way. I also noticed that Willem Dafoe and Kirsey Clemons as Nuidis Vulko and Iris West respectively were cut from the film which is a shame as it would have added even further backstory to Aquaman and Flash, however, I can see us getting these scenes in an extended cut. Overall, I found Justice League to be underwhelming. The tone's inconsistenly, the weak plot and the villain (some have already compared the villain's evil plan to that of Zod's in Man of Steel) as well as the poor visual effects in points. This film certainly isn't as bad as Man of Steel or Suicide Squad but then watching paint dry be more visually pleasing and entertaining than Suicide Squad. It doesn't, in my opinion, reach what Batman v Superman did in terms of tone, while slightly beating it in terms of acting performances. It is certainly much weaker than Wonder Woman and light years away from Marvel's releases this year in terms of quality and in a different universe to any of Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Rating: 4/10 Blade Runner 2049 [2017] Genre: Science Fiction Director: Denis Villeneuve Actors: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto Following up on a great film is extremely difficult. Appealing to the fans of the original as well as drawing in new viewers who can learn to love the world previously built is a feat that many talented directors and screenwriters have tried and failed to do. A new challenger to this task is Denis Villeneuve, director of previous films such as Arrival, which was a visually stunning science-fiction film with a deep and interesting message that was one of my favourite films of last year and Sicario, a crime thriller that provided a well-directed and exciting look into the fight against a Mexican drug cartel by the FBI, who has now taken on the daring trial of directing the sequel to Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's 80s sci-fi cult classic. If anyone could capture, in particular, the visual ecstasy of the original, Villeneuve seemed like the right director for the job. Making a sequel to Blade Runner would never be easy, but I'm extremely pleased to report that Villeneuve's aims of making a sequel that lives up to the original was a resounding success. Blade Runner 2049 tells the story of K (Gosling), a replicant working as a blade runner, who uncovers a secret (which I will not mention – it's certainly better to go in unspoiled) which causes him to hunt for Rick Deckard (Ford) from the original film who can help him with the fallout. Rounding out the list of character is Joi (de Armas), K's girlfriend and Niander Wallace (Leto), who provides a threatening side to the story as the antagonist. In seemingly all reviews of this film, the first thing almost everyone has mentioned are the visuals. This film looks astonishingly beautiful. Roger Deakins, the cinematographer who has worked with Villeneuve on films like Sicario in the past, provides us with some absolutely unbelievable shots, telling us so much about the characters and the landscape, that should finally cement an Academy Award for Best Cinematography for him. The dark and dingy city of Los Angeles from the original film is explored even further in this film in a very interesting way. It is important to remember that thirty year has passed in-universe since the original and the development of the city is evident to see. Large holographic advertisements take the place of the large billboards, which take the place as the artificial lighting for the shots, even providing a lot of interesting thoughts for the viewer in the later parts of the film. An example of one of my favourite scenes from a cinematic standpoint takes place in a desert landscape with the ruins of an old structure standing in the sand. Clear indications of Villeneuve's inspiration from texts like Ozymandias, as well as other film ideas portraying a dystopian landscape such as Planet of the Apes and Mad Max to give us an idea of the lack of nature's presence not only in the city, but outside too. On a more interpersonal level, the technical genius of the syncing of a virtual character and a real character is absolutely mesmerising, and praise should be given to the visual effects team for this also. There is rarely a dull or bland shot in the film, and despite not matching the distinct cinematographic style of its predecessor, it is almost impossible to criticise the beautiful looks of the film. Every shot could, and should, be considered a work of art. The next aspect of the film certainly worth talking about are the performances. My personal stand-out of the film was Harrison Ford who brings the character of Rick Deckard to life once more and in my opinion, gives a performance superior to his in the original. Other supporting actors like Robin Wright, who plays K's stern but sympathetic boss give a compelling and interesting performance and even an actor like Jared Leto, who has given some shocking showings in a film such as Suicide Squad, brings to life the character of Wallace well, creating a creepy, threatening and menacing character as well as subtle actions and movements that make him seem real. Unknown actors like Ana de Armas give an emotive performance that makes the audience think about many engaging ideas in the film, as well as Sylvia Hoeks who removes all emotion from her character, yet still shows so much, gives a praiseworthy performance as Luv, the antagonist of the story, yet doesn't quite manage to match Rutger Hauer's stellar acting in the original. Interestingly enough, one of the weaker performances in my eyes was that of the lead, Ryan Gosling, who unfortunately I found to be a little bland and boring (as I have found of his acting in films like Drive in the past) in the film, with the interesting arc of his character saving him from becoming a protagonist I felt apathetic to. Before I get onto some negatives of the film, there are some other things that are certainly worthy of discussion and praise. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch collaborate to give a score that is fantastic not only in the context of the movie but also as pieces of music as a whole. Zimmer continually manages to impress with his score in films after creating my favourite score of the year so far in Dunkirk and Wallfisch has done some impressive music in the past, particularly in Hidden Figures. The combination of the talents of these two create a score that keeps the viewer interested through the audio of the film, as well as the aforementioned visuals. One of the more overlooked relationships in the film is that of K and Joi and, without going into details, I believe the dynamic between these two characters explored so many interesting ideas. Some of the earlier scenes highlighting their relationship are some of the most beautiful and moving I've seen in years and will be some of the most memorable in years to come. Unfortunately, this film wasn't perfect in my eyes. Firstly, the nearly three-hour long running time can be a bit daunting at first, and although the visual and auditory masterpiece kept me thoroughly entertained, a few scenes did drag ever so slightly. My main issue, however, comes with the narrative of the film which I found to be comparatively weaker to the original. While the original's story felt fresh and interesting, actually telling the story in a rather minimalist way, with little dialogue and a lot of emotion shown through acting performances, the story here felt a little generic. While there were genuinely surprising turns along the way, it didn't feel entirely fresh, and didn't resonate with me in the same way as the first. I also would have been more interested to see some of the themes explored a little more, as some of the more interesting ones, such as the dynamic between K and Joi, were relegated to the side-plot a little in the film. While these themes were there slightly, the film instead decides to focus on K as a character a little more, which was slightly disappointing to me. It's not that the narrative is poor – I just felt a little more could have been done. Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a success, despite its minor flaws. The cinematography, the visual effects and the melodic score all combine to make a film that will be remembered for its beauty for years to come. Ford's performance will also be seen as one of his best of his career and I hope will garner him some awards towards the end of the year. The issues I have with the film however, namely Gosling's performance and the slightly weak narrative, do stop me from calling this film a perfect masterpiece. There were hints of something more to the story of the film, trying to break free, but unfortunately, for me, it just didn't come through. Despite this though, Blade Runner 2049 is the best film I have seen so far this year, and will be seen as a worthy successor to the original that, too, will be remembered for years to come. Villeneuve cements himself as one of the great modern directors, and proves that he was up to the challenge with this one. Rating: 8/10 Death Note [2017] Genre: Psychological Thriller Director: Adam Wingard Actors: Nat Wolff, Lakeith Stanfield, Margaret Qualley, Willem Dafoe One of the topics that seems to be coming up a lot recently in debate is the disconnect between fans and critics. With films such as DC's Suicide Squad being panned by critics but loved by fans, some have started to question whether or not you should base whether you see a film or not off a critic's review. However, every now and then you get a film where both the critics and the regular movie-goer come together and unite in their opinion of a film. Unfortunately for Netflix, their new release, Death Note, has united them, but not in the way they would've wanted. Criticism for this new adaptation of the popular manga and anime series (which found devout fans from both Japanese and western audiences) has been widespread, with most fans and critics considering it poor. But is there anything to be praised about the film? The film's main premise concerns around Light Turner (Wolff), an intelligent teenager who finds the notebook after it was dropped to the human world by the death god Ryuk (Dafoe). The notebook causes anyone who has their name in it written to die in whatever way Light wishes. He makes the decision to clear the world of all evil using the notebook. Capturing the style and genre of the original was always important. The genre of the original series is an interesting question. Some could argue that it is a horror series, but the lack of general horror conventions in it could go against this. Other labels such as a detective/crime series or psychological thriller have also been put on it. The film has the same sort of ambiguity on genre. While the start of the film does edge more towards horror, with all the usual tropes of a jumpscares and pathetic fallacy used, this focus shifts away and focuses on the detective elements which made the original so good, using them as a pivotal point for the film. One of the principle relationships in the series is between Light Yagami, an incredibly intelligent teenager who finds and L, an equally intelligent detective who is set on hunting down the killer. This results in an almost cat-and-mouse like game where each side is attempting to discover the identity of the other so they can either kill or capture them. The film, in my opinion, also explores this relationship quite well, although its limited length perhaps restricts how far they can take this. The original anime series was directed/animated in quite an odd way, with very quick cuts between one shot to the next. At points, Wingard does employ this same technique, but it doesn't have that same feel to it, almost forced in to appease fans rather than done with purpose or care. And, this, perhaps is this version of Death Note's greatest flaw, a lack of care for what made the original so great. Criticising an adaptation that claims to only be loosely based on the original is difficult, as one could argue that the director is making an original film. However, when using an almost identical concept to the original, it is essential you acknowledge and take into account the ingredients that made that original so brilliant. Wingard seems to take an admirable shot at doing this for the first half of the film, giving an interesting take on the relationships between Light and multiple other characters. However, any interesting dynamics seem to go out the window in the second half, with out-of-character decisions and poor dialogue plaguing the script. While entertaining and fun to watch, the ingredients that Wingard decides to use don't really make a good film. An example of this are the music choices that Wingard goes for, with soft rock used repeatedly throughout the film. This would be only slightly distracting if it was purely in the background, but the usage of it in a slow motion death scene in the climax of the film made it impossible to take seriously and is certainly a very odd, and not particularly wise, artistic choice. The acting is another area that has garnered much criticism , in particular Wolff's performance in the film. Personally, I wasn't too disappointed with his performance here, with only a few scenes really standing out as unconvincing and most putting forward Light's personality well. Margaret Qualley and LaKeith Stanfield also give relatively convincing performances in their roles for the majority of the film, with Stanfield in particular getting right the mannerisms of L throughout the film. However, the largest amount of praise has to go to Willem Dafoe. Despite not physically appearing on screen, his haunting voice throughout the film provides an extra edge of horror to Ryuk's character, as he goads Light into killing throughout the film, even adding in a bit of humour to his tone at points also. Is Death Note a good adaptation of the original series? No, it isn't. Wingard blatantly ignores what made the original so good, changing it to a generic formula that we see from most Hollywood blockbusters nowadays. Is Death Note an entertaining film? I would tentatively say yes. While the story flows poorly, with some really gaping plot holes in areas, the film entertains both in a 'so bad it's good' way but also, with some genuinely tense scenes and entertaining lines in the first half of the film, in a genuinely entertaining way. Death Note, while flawed, is a mildly entertaining thriller, with some admirable performances by Stanfield and Dafoe, and while it will probably be seen as one of the weaker Netflix originals, it is a relatively entertaining thriller, if you have some time on your hands. Rating: 4/10 |
InfoBlog for A Level Film Studies. Consists of critical analysis of films from different time periods and genres. Archives
July 2018
Categories |