Movie Review - The Descendants (2011)

The Descendants, 2011.

Directed by Alexander Payne.
Starring George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges, Matthew Lillard and Robert Forster.


SYNOPSIS:

Matt King is a Hawaiian property lawyer who just so happens to be a descendent of the original native royalty of Hawaii. His family has inherited some of the most valuable untouched land in the archipelago and he’s in charge of facilitating the biggest property sale in the history of Hawaii. King is an absent father and a detached husband and without warning his wife is injured in a boating accident that leaves her comatose. As her health deteriorates the reality of their relationship, his deficiencies as a parent and the horrible reality of finding out that his wife was having an affair.


Writer/Director Alexander Payne’s previous works are renowned for presenting deeply flawed characters in a realistic light. Election, Sideways and About Schmidt are all critically acclaimed for their ability to follow wholly unlikeable characters through seemingly mundane environments and making it all compelling: Jack (Thomas Hayden Church) from Sideways, Warren (Jack Nicholson) from About Schmidt, and Tracey Flick (Reece Witherspoon) from Election.

Payne delves you into the Hawaiian physical and social landscape of the island community to give you Matt's working and environmental context. In a way, Payne then has to provide us and the fairly clueless Matt (at this point) with an insight into his family. His youngest daughter Scottie (Amara Miller) is a rough and tumble tom-boy who's acting out by verbally bullying fellow students. And Matt's eldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) has been housed in a boarding school away from the family for being troubled - or so you're initially led to believe. Payne's structure let's you journey through Matt's assumptions and grow through and be awakened to his actually reality. You're filling out Matt's reality because he realises that he's closed himself off from everything.

Enter George Clooney's Matt King, a performance that will possibly gain him an Oscar. Does it live up to the hype? Personally I think his performance as the titular character Michael Clayton will be the performance of his career - but he does some more career best work here with The Descendants. However, knowing the strange moods of the Oscars - he'll be very tough to beat. King's a great character for Clooney. It's a subtler and purposefully restrained performance. Clooney is pitch perfect and really unpredictable as King. He's forced to project deep internal turmoil with an introverted character. The character's arc is great to show off Clooney's range - King is required to deal with grief, traverse the perils of (now single) fatherhood, the rage of betrayal, spite, discovery, and moments of restraint to protect the ideal of his wife in the eyes of her family despite what he's discovered. It's definitely a performance that will stay with you long after you see the film.

The resonance of the characters isn't exclusive to Clooney's Matt King - Shailene Woodley is staggeringly good as Alexandra. It was the best supporting performance by a female actor that I saw last year. Her character requires an immediate and necessary growth and level head with the pressures of this situation and her performance delivers flawlessly. Matt is lost and at times leans really heavily on his eldest daughter for guidance - Woodley's Alexandra receives and absorbs the pressure and is able to fulfil her whimsical teenager and familial rock with the delivery of much more weathered performers. The fact that the performance holds steady (and in my mind exceeds) Clooney's performance may give you an indication of just how good it is.

The supporting cast is fantastic. Nick Krause's Sid (the stoner rock and companion of Alexandra) brings a much needed like to some of the darkness in The Descendants, for the characters and the audience. Robert Forster (Jackie Brown) plays Matt's father-in-law - damaged by the grief of a wife with dementia and now a daughter in a coma lashes out at Matt at every opportunity. Every line is barbed and hits you with such great affect that you don't know what Matt is going to do. It's a performance that punches far above the given screen time. And finally the surprise packet is Matthew Lillard's Brian Speer, who was having an affair with Matt's wife focus and become's a necessary cathartic figure for the film. Lillard previously starred in She's All That, Scream and Scooby Doo - so his brief reactionary performance packs more of a punch if you're familiar with his lighter fare.

The Descendants is a devastating and rewarding emotional journey. Fans and critics of Payne will argue vehemently that this is his best and equally that it doesn't stand against his other works. As will reviewers and critics speaking of Clooney's performance. The Descendants is a film that was over-hyped for me prior to my initial viewing. But in writing about it, and remembering the performances, it's a film that resonates on a lot of levels and I'll definitely be revisiting it.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Movie Review - Abduction (2011)

Abduction, 2011.

Directed by John Singleton.
Starring Taylor Lautner, Lily Collins, Sigourney Weaver, Jason Isaacs, Maria Bello, Michael Nyqvist, and Alfred Molina.


SYNOPSIS:

A youth discovers that the people who raised him aren't his real parents, a revalation that leaves him running for his life.


Abduction is the one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. The acting is horrendous, the direction is stilted and devoid of style, the scripts is laughable, and I actually mean you will laugh out loud when you see it because of the horrendously bad dialogue e.g. “I just saw my parents get murdered in front of my own eyes.”

But I had a hell of a lot of fun watching it.

I think it’s really important to first talk about those involved and how they sold out to star alongside the dog from Twilight. John Singleton directs Abduction – yes, the Oscar-nominated director of Boyz n the Hood. He really hasn’t done anything of value since the 90s and let me tell you he brings some hammy and insincere performances from great actors (not in this film but based on their filmography). So instead of his Higher Learning mode we’re seeing him very much in 2 Fast 2 Furious mode. Great actors shamelessly paying for extensions to their houses by starring in this include the wonderful Maria Bello (A History of Violence), intense Jason Isaacs (Good), many-armed Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spider-Man 2) and alpha female Sigourney Weaver (Alien, Aliens, Ghostbusters).

How does a film manage to be that bad whilst managing to be enjoyable? Well quite simply it’s the way that every frame of the film is just BAD. It’s a holistic kind of horrible that makes you wonder if it was constructed in the mind of a comedic genius ala Rebecca Black’s Friday.

Abduction is the story of the Twilight dog kid, Taylor ‘Abby McAbs’ Lautner, finding his childhood photos on a ‘missing persons’ website and some stuff happening afterwards. I’ll relay some of the biggest highlights in an effort to speak to the films awesome horribleness.

Act 1…

In the first 5 minutes Lautner rides on the bonnet of a car to introduce his totally awesome character, gets thrown onto the front lawn with WWF grace, scowls lots and insists on looking a little Cro-Magnon, meets ‘the girl’ and wakes up after this awesome night shirtless on the front lawn of the host.

Now Jason Isaacs – what do you do if you find you hung-over teenage son on the lawn of some random person after a big night of underage drinking? Definitely an exceptionally brutal kick-boxing session with awesome JCVD slow-mo round house kicks… Oh yeah this happens. And Maria Bello smiles along as it’s happening like a fucking Stepford wife.

Act 2…

After discovering that the Twilight dog is kind of Jason Bourne’s son and that guy from the Swedish The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is his Dad’s (and therefore his) nemesis, we have one of the greatest repressed faux sex scenes ever committed to cinema. Abby McAbs and his lady Muppet McEyebrows – seriously this girl has got the same eyebrows as me and Animal from The Muppets (view comparison here) – are in the midst of a heavy make out session when McEyebrows stops McAb’s advances and says “I’m hungry.” I’m hungry?! The scene goes like so – Makeout, Makeout, Grind, Makeout, Makeout “I’m Hungry!” It’s amazing.

Act 3…

It’s the ending you were begging for – awesomely anticlimactic and in a baseball stadium. McAb’s Dad emerges and Dr Claws it from a distance; it felt like I was watching Charlie’s Angels. Oh yeah and he’s so awesome that he kills Blomkvist with great ease (something that the entire CIA couldn’t do throughout the film). Sigourney Weaver stars as Nathan’s therapist (yeah he’s also in therapy for scowling and round-housing as far as I understood) and spy protector who returns from ‘faked’ death in the end to offer Nathan a place to live and scowl. And boy is her delivery ridiculously Mean Girls chipper. This 80s Sci-Fi Queen is reduced to a joke in this performance.

In a screening full of cynical film critics, the laughter started early in this one. My lady hit me for laughing in the beginning and very quickly found herself laughing uncontrollably too. The more the movie played, the worse and more implausible the story, the more laughter heard reverberating throughout. By the end as the credits rolled there was a standing ovation in the cinema (started by me).

It has to be seen to be believed. Seen right in front of your own eyes. I had a hell of a lot of fun watching this Cleveland Steamer.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Second Opinion - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2011.

Directed by David Fincher.
Starring Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson, Goran Visnjic and Geraldine James.


SYNOPSIS:

A journalist teams up with a troubled computer hacker to search for a woman who has been missing for forty years.


I must reiterate that I couldn’t wait for this film. After seeing the original – I was optimistic that Fincher’s authorial style and the talent involved could enhance the viewing experience that I had with the Swedish original. But at the end of the day, despite the revamp, after having seen the original - I couldn't help but feel that I'd met this Girl before.

Infamous journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is publicly discredited and in the process of litigation he’s hired by aging philanthropist (Christopher Plummer) to aid in his search for his niece that's been missing for forty years. During the process of his investigation he requests for a research assistant and is paired with loner, researcher (read: hacker) Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara).

David Fincher is one of the rare working auteurs in Hollywood. His distinctly dark style, suspense inducing, oppressively claustrophobic cinematic spaces and affinity for somewhat dark subject matter have developed a massive and rabid following. Se7en, Fight Club and The Social Network represent his best filmic feats and there is stylistic continuity between these great efforts and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The Swedish setting, with its endless nights, blindingly bright snow covered areas and bleak, harsh Eastern European architecture becomes great fodder for Fincher's lens.

The Swedish original has an identifiable 'style' for the flashback sequences - but Fincher's permeates throughout. The specific off colour darkness that began in Se7en, evolved in Zodiac, but defined the look of The Social Network carries through to Girl, and it's this treatment of the source material that I was looking forward to in this film. Fincher's treatment of violence is also a feature in is previous efforts that made me look forward to Girl. Fincher's Zodiac contains one of the most frightening sequences of cinematic violence that I've experienced - and for those of you familiar with the source material there is one iconic and horrific sequence that Fincher portrays without pulling any punches. I do want to shout out the attention to detail in a violent act later in the film (without spoiling the plot) where you see what damage a golf club can do to a face - which had me audibly gasp.

The dream pairing of Trent Reznor / Atticus Ross and Fincher from the Academy award-winning score of The Social Network is back for Girl and it's a fantastic mix of the metallic and the organic in the electronic sphere that subtly amplify the emotional trajectory of each scene. It's another fantastic score and knowing the previous scoring of Fight Club to a comparable electronic score I wouldn't be surprised if they received another call up from Fincher for future projects.

For me I much preferred Craig's interpretation of Blomkvist than the original portrayal from Michael Nykvist in the Swedish version of 2009. I found Nykvist unlikeable and emotionally bland in male protagonist role. Craig is likeable, relatable and has the range to portray vulnerable in a very accomplished way. The Girl story for the opening two acts of the film really feels like following two totally divergent storylines. Craig's performance made him as important as the audiences' uncontrollable and overwhelming fascination with Lisbeth.

Now Rooney Mara (The Social Network) had to fill the unbelievably big acting shoes of the dynamite Noomi Rapace (the original Lisbeth from the Swedish Girl [2009] and soon to be international star of Prometheus). Rapace's Lisbeth had more of her backstory enunciated in the Swedish Girl to play to so there are some key unique differences in the portrayal. Rapace seems to be a more physically imposing character that Mara and the change in stature automatically made her more vulnerable to some of the heinous things she has to overcome. She's also a more human Lisbeth; the slivers of back story windows into her warmth that she's had to hide with layers and layers of physical and emotional roadblocks she's had to erect out of a life of abuse. Mara does a fantastic job of making such an iconic role, and performance her own despite the proximity of the Swedish Girl and demands notice on the international acting scene. Lisbeth is a sought after and intense role that required an investment from Mara to give her authenticity and layers - she's pretty mesmerising.

I really enjoyed this new interpretation of the Girl. The opening stanza of the film where the different stories are occurring to give the characters context dragged slightly for me but the dynamite 3rd act more than made up for that. My biggest regret is that I'd seen the original and was familiar with the story because it took the punch out of the major plot points/twists for me. If you've never seen/heard of the story and you love Fincher- you'll really enjoy this one. If you have seen/read the original story it may feel a little been there done that Girl - and I liked not understanding what she was saying…

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Spielberg Double Bill - War Horse (2011)

War Horse, 2011.

Directed by Steven Spielberg.
Starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, Peter Mullan, David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston and Toby Kebbell.


SYNOPSIS:

A young boy Albert develops a relationship with the family horse he names Joey. They are split apart by the beginning of world war one and we follow Joey’s journey throughout Europe alongside the English Cavalry, French peasantry, German deserters, and into the frontline. Will they be reunited…?


This is Spielberg’s first venture into director’s chair (in a live action film) since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The great bearded one brings us a film that is Oscar bait, critical bait (to a certain extent) and Classical Hollywood idolatry. Does it have its flaws? Most certainly. Should that deter you from getting out there to see it? Absolutely not. The only real problem I had with the film is John Williams’ soaring symphony perpetually telling me how to feel.

Spielberg’s films, for the most part, intend to elicit a state of wonder for the audience and echo that in the character’s experience on screen. Albert (Jeremy Irvine) is a great window into the innocence and joy of pre-war youth. Spielberg creates a whimsical light in the beginnings of the film as Albert interacts with Joey – either riding him through the countryside or training him to come to a whistle that are contrasted with the more hard hitting dramatic sequences in the latter stages of the film. The production design is authentic. The scale of the picture transitions from personal to grandiose. Spielberg’s influences are present throughout with shades of David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia) and of Victor Fleming (Gone with the Wind). The film hit’s its peaks for me in the climax of the film in the sequences set deep in the WW1 trenches – you feel trapped in barbed wire and shrouded in mustard gas. Look out for the great exchange between an English and German soldier in ‘No Man’s Land’.

The performances for the most part are quite good. Jeremy Irvine felt a little manufactured at times though which removed me from the experience. Peter Mullan and Emily Watson play Albert’s parents Ted and Rose and unfortunately I’ve seen Tyrannosaur so I was a little uncomfortable with Mullan playing the down and out Dad (I thought he was going to beat the ever-loving Christ out of his family for most of the film). Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch are highlights as the British Cavalrymen. Cumberbatch’s “Be Brave” catch cry resonates so absolutely in its futility. There is a great cameo from David Kross (the boy from The Reader) as the German soldier who next encounters Joey. The French Grandfather – Niels Arestrup is delightful and helpless in the surrounds of the pillaging horde of soldiers.

The script is adapted from the Michael Morpurgo novel by Lee Hall and Richard Curtis. I’m going to make an assumption that Lee Hall’s (Billy Elliot) contribution was the good stuff and the moments that I wanted to fast-forward because they were slightly ‘naff’ belonged to Richard Curtis (The Boat That Rocked).

This sweeping ode to classical Hollywood isn’t the finest from Spielberg, which is a result of him consistently being an amazing filmmaker (Jaws, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich to mention a few). War Horse is a fine film, helmed by a fine filmmaker all too aware of how to pull the audience’s strings.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Spielberg Double Bill - The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, 2011.

Directed by Steven Spielberg.
Starring Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Toby Jones, Cary Elwes and Mackenzie Crook.


SYNOPSIS:

Intrepid reporter Tintin and the surly Captain Haddock search for a sunken treasure ship commanded by Haddock’s ancestor, but what shady forces look to get their way?


Tintin is a visual feast; a wondrous exploration of the boundaries of computer animation and performance capture. The titanic creative forces of Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Edgar Wright (writer/director of Shaun of the Dead), Joe Cornish (writer/director of Attack the Block), and Steven Moffatt (executive producer of Dr Who) all converge on the great Herge source material and bring it to life in an almost indescribable way.

Let’s travel back for a second to the wake of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981. As Spielberg toured the film around Europe he repeatedly heard people saying that the film felt like Tintin. Having never heard of Herge or Tintin he quickly acquired the books and very shortly after reading he was inspired to purchase the filmic rights to the source material and developed a relationship with Herge, then his wife after his passing. Spielberg held onto the rights for several decades, deciding against bringing the stories to the screen because he was unable to manufacture that ‘Herge-aesthetic’.

Fast-forward to the recent past and Peter Jackson, a massive fan of the Herge novels and a digital technology pioneer, invited Spielberg to join forces with him to bring a potential Tintin trilogy to the screen.

The animation is nothing short of spectacular. It’s so clearly “Herge’ yet is able to feel more ‘real world’ than ever before. Spielberg’s directorial style shines through in the opening stanza of the film. Raiders and Tintin both open with our established and somewhat famous / infamous protagonist diving headlong into a mystery of epic proportions. The intimacy of the opening stanza shows off the detail of the animation. These animated constructs are as alive as their performance-capture counterparts. Spielberg unchained in the animated world is really an extension of his iconic style. Where his influences (e.g David Lean) shine through in his live action – Spielberg-style ‘animated’ has the scope of his eye catching set pieces infused with the boundless warmth of Chuck Jones classical Warner Bros. cartoons. The transitions between scenes alone are marvellous.

The characterisations from the motion capture performers in phenomenal. Jamie Bell’s Tintin captures the icon from the page but Andy Serkis’ Captain Haddock breaks out of the pages and into life stealing the show from start to finish. Haddock’s humour, drunken stumbling and perpetually precarious wandering (all for to ensure that he’s well and truly liquored up) make it very hard for the audience to not love every moment he’s on screen. Daniel Craig provides the motion capture villainy with Rackham – who looks (funny as it may seem) a little like Spielberg himself. The iconic Thomson and Thompson are assayed splendidly by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (insiders know that Pegg took the Thompson with a ‘P’). They both relish in the shoes of the bumbling lawmen. They waddle around like lost ducks, firing their great confused chemistry in every scene and had me chuckling from the moment that I saw them.

This is definitely a film that you need to see at the cinema to truly appreciate the leaps in the medium. Don’t be fooled by the other CG animated fare at your multiplex – this is one for kids of all ages.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Movie Review - Burning Man (2011)

Burning Man, 2011.

Written and Directed by Jonathan Teplitzky.
Starring Matthew Goode, Bojana Novakovic, Rachel Griffiths, Jack Heanly and Essie Davis.


SYNOPSIS:

An English chef with a restaurant in Bondi tries to put his life and his relationship with his son back together in the wake of a life changing event.


We’re truly in an Australian film-making renaissance at the moment. If there is one Australian film that you see this year it needs to be this film. Let me start by saying that I really can’t flaw Burning Man, whatsoever. The story is beautiful, rich and most importantly for the subject matter, real. Don’t be expecting easy viewing for the opening stanza of the film, as you sit and attempt to piece together the jump forward and backward in time and location. Tom’s (Matthew Goode) story is told in fragments, transitioning by mood and feeling so you’re trying to understand the characters and the narrative in the glimpses of Tom’s erratic moods. The joyous highs and the depressing lows aren’t exaggerated; Teplitzky fashions a beautifully authentic film about a man navigating this great tragedy.

I was really moved by the vein of black humour throughout. In really dark times I know that I find myself seeking refuge in whatever humour I can conjur up to soften the hurt, to lighten the intense and pervasive dark. Tom’s always using humour to dig himself out of the pain that he’s feeling and Teplitzky’s scripting and direction in these scenes is timed to perfection.

The acting is flawless, and the performers are all phenomenal – none more so than leading man Matthew Goode. Goode gives Tom such a great full performance that requires him to convey the full spectrum of emotions – and most importantly a subdued and numb version of himself, during the depth of his trauma. He’s also a devilishly charming as Tom, so despite the series of poor decisions that he makes throughout the film, you’re on his side so you’re constantly reminded that he’s reacting to this tragedy.

The supporting cast is nothing short of spectacular. I wanted to mention Jack Heanly’s performance as Oscar (Tom’s son) up front because it is a staggering effort for a debut. Firstly, it’s so great because of his measured restrained performance, under the circumstances, and finally his ability to convey his character’s crescendo in the latter stages of the film. Heanly and Teplitzky have fashioned as good a debut as I’ve ever seen from a child actor. Rachel Griffiths demonstrates how an experienced and award winning support cast enhances a whole film. She’s great as the psychologist Miriam who refuses to treat Tom because of their sexual attraction.

Essie Davis is a phenomenal character actor and has blown me out of my seat with her performances in Cloud Street and Burning Man this year. Davis’ Karen is the wounded heart of Burning Man – keeping Tom mindful of his impact to Oscar during this period of the film.

And finally, Bojana Novakovic is phenomenal as Tom’s wife Sarah. Sarah’s harrowing journey informs the entire film and without her ability to echo the wonderful and awful memories of Tom’s past (with the same rich intensity) Burning Man would have fallen apart. This was one of the best ensembles of the year.

The direction is elemental and vibrant; rich colour literally jumps out of the screen. The director of photography Garry Phillips brings warmth and life to food, fire, ocean, and sex. There is a vibrance in every moment of Burning Man that really makes for spectacular viewing on the big screen – but something to look forward to on a crisp Blu-ray. The setting is also disguised really well so that you didn’t feel like it had to have been based in Sydney at all. It literally could have been anywhere.

Martin Connor’s editing is seamless and has an important job of piecing together the fragmented narrative. In my interview with director Jonathan Teplitzky he said that he wanted the film to flow according to the mood of each particular scene. This tunes your emotion to the the protagonist's and for me it was disarming to be attuned to the emotional roller-coaster of Tom – but a refreshing experience to be so invested in the journey.

This is one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and it’s probably the best Australian film I’ve seen this year. This is a must see and a must buy. Get out and see it – and if you missed it, pre-order it people - that’s why you’ve got the internet. Jonathan Teplitzky is a name that you’ll want to remember, and if you see it on a DVD / Blu-ray sleeve or a movie poster, it’ll be worth a look.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Movie Review - The Ides of March (2011)

The Ides of March, 2011.

Directed by George Clooney.
Starring George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, Max Minghella and Jennifer Ehle.


SYNOPSIS:

The Ides of March puts us on the campaign trail of potential Democratic candidate for the presidency Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) with campaign manager Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and his second in charge Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling). During the political dogfight between the Democratic candidate campaigns, the idealistic Stephen gets a crash course in dirty politics.


I want to start with lauding Clooney’s move from actor to director once again with The Ides of March. His debut with the criminally underrated Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (starring the great Sam Rockwell) was followed up with the phenomenal Murrow vs McCarthy, Good Night, and Good Luck, and despite a dip critically with his drift into the rom-com genre with Leatherheads he’s well and truly back to form in The Ides of March. Firstly his direction is terrifically paced and transitions from the grandeur of the campaign – to the tense behind closed doors machinations of political betrayal. The aesthetic feels authentic, open and well lit (perhaps transparent) in the beginning but progress is engulfed in shadow and dark spaces. He extracts great performances from everyone involved – and is able to balance that with his own fantastically nuanced performance.

The writing is sharp and it is infused with current political argument and debate – as well as Clooney / Heslov’s progressive political ideas that give his character Morris a greater authenticity and point of difference. I also enjoyed the necessary but exceptionally tenuous relationship between the political campaigns and their media counterparts. They are sleeping with the enemy (figuratively) constantly and there is a great insight into the interplay between friendship and being a ‘source’. The story arc is constructed excellently – having you invest in all of the characters fully before the story is ‘torpedoed’ so to speak. The relationships between Meyers & Zara / Zara & Morris / Morris & Meyers etc. are allowed time to establish their different and interesting dynamics. I will say that when the controversy hits in this film (and no, I’m not going to tell you what it is) I found myself unconsciously leaning forward in my seat. It is a pretty intriguing film that actually makes you sit up straighter in your seat (especially me) – this is one of the best political thrillers that I’ve seen in some time.

Finally, the players in this film are truly of an award winning critical calibre. Firstly PSH (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), one of the finest actors of our generation, is great as the campaign trail hardened manager whose ‘seen it all’ and is grooming/mentoring Stephen along the way. He’s great in the pragmatic wise role and has a great performance space to play his political game. Next let’s mention Paul Giamatti, who is also vying for that ‘actor of our generation’ mantle with PSH. Effortlessly great in really any role – and even with minimal screen time - he plays PSH’s equivalent on the opposite side of the campaign, who tempts Stephen with a scenario that triggers the beginnings of the political game. I’ll mention quickly Marisa Tomei for her great (if brief) performance as the journalist connection to the campaign; also Evan Rachel Wood - growing in stature with each new role – playing Molly, an intern for the campaign who gets involved with Stephen.

Did you think I could forget to mention the phenomenal Ryan Gosling? Two really stellar performances in two totally different roles this year. This time, as opposed to Drive, he’s a charming, idealistic, intelligent, people person lauded for his understanding of the media in the political campaign game. He’s got the great (almost ‘Brutus’) transition from ‘true believer’ to ‘cynic’ and it feels totally authentic. And really people he’s ridiculously good looking too. Fun for the whole family!

The Ides of March sets the same tone as the great political thrillers like All the Presidents Men but it brings it to a fictionalised present (which ever so slightly softens its impact). This is a great political thriller and I highly recommend it. It will surprise you and have you literally on the edge of your seat.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Movie Review - Jack and Jill (2011)

Jack and Jill, 2011.

Directed Dennis Dugan.
Starring Adam Sandler, Al Pacino, Katie Holmes, Elodie Tougne, Rohan Chand, Eugenio Derbez, David Spade and Nick Swardson.


SYNOPSIS:

Advertising executive and family man Jack (Sandler) has to contend with the one event of the year he fears most... the Thanksgiving visit of his identical twin sister Jill (Sandler).


I feel compelled to write something about this film – despite everything in my body being affronted by the idea that some of you masochistic people will be compelled to pay and see this train wreck.

Jack and Jill is the most insipid effort from Happy Madison productions yet. It really is filmmaking at its most passionless, effortless, thoughtless, and wasteful.

The premise is that Jack (Adam Sandler) a popular television ad director is going to lose his company in this trying financial climate (ooohhh topical right – I know – this is just like fucking Win Win or Up in the Air except devoid of anything that made those films great) if he doesn’t get Al Pacino to do an ad for their biggest client, Dunkin’ Donuts. What a fucking tenuous bullshit excuse to get Pacino on board.

Also Jack’s strange, annoying, clearly Adam Sandler-in-drag, caricature, walking slogan T-Shirt that gets old in 2 seconds flat, sister Jill (Adam Sandler) is coming to visit. Doesn’t this just sound like the perfect situation for comedy ever… No. No it doesn’t. It sounds fucking stupid.

So in an effort to purge any remote desire you may have I’ll mention all the things you would know if you had seen it…

1. Everything that could be deemed as remotely funny is in the trailer. And you really only love the trailer because you think that it’s a parody of a trailer (as seen in Judd Apatow’s Funny People) because the premise is so bullshit.

2. Nothing remotely funny happens in the film except for the lowest common denominator fart jokes and slapstick falls with Adam Sandler in drag.

3. You get to see David Spade in drag for 1 minute and it’s boring and pointless. (Don’t even bother looking for it on Youtube).

4. Johnny Depp makes a cameo (as himself) for 1 second and it is funny because it’s an exchange with Al Pacino (if you like Depp he is MUCH MUCH funnier in his appearance in Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant’s Life’s Too Short).

5. If you do see the film you’ll notice a desperate grab for sincerity in portraying the the ‘twin’ experience. This sincerity may be attempting irony but it doesn’t work – like everything else in this film.

6. All SNL alumni are wasted and feel like they’e appearing for their pay check. And they recycle so many jokes, characters, personas from other Happy Madison films that it’s sickening. They literally cannablise peripheral characters from other films (the homeless guy is pretty much Steve Buscemi’s character from Big Daddy). It is nice to see Norm MacDonald – because he looks, sounds and is terribly funny (but just watch Dirty Work again instead for some great Norm).

7. Sandler and Co. do a great job of portraying racist generalisations of Mexicans in the film – it’s really to die for.

8. The finale of the film sees Adam Sandler talking to himself via both Jack and Jill characters in ‘Twin Speak’ – which is just an excuse for Sandler to do his “habbado odeb bo zzebbaddooo” bullshit language (this was funny in SNL and Billy Madison but that was about 15 years ago).

9. Al Pacino is a good sport for taking the piss out of himself steadily throughout – but wait – all the Pacino bits will be edited together on Youtube in no time so don’t bother.

This is the worst movie I’ve seen this year and perhaps the worst example of Hollywood Studio Comedy that has ever been committed to film. They need to keep the negative in a controlled environment just like the small pox virus so that people know how bad it is if anything else remotely like it is mentioned, pitched or discussed again.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Short Film Review - Toy Story: Small Fry (2011)

Small Fry, 2011.

Written and Directed by Angus MacLane.
Featuring the voice talents of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Estelle Harris, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Angus MacLane, Teddy Newton, Jane Lynch and Timothy Dalton.

If you weren’t already looking forward to The Muppets, I’m going to give you yet another incentive to get along to the cinema. Immediately preceding the feature, you the audience, will be spoilt with the latest Toy Story short toon: Small Fry.

We see the wonderfully familiar Toys with their new owner at a fast food chain outlet, which just happens to be promoting a ‘Happy Meal’–esque Buzz Lightyear giveaway. The ever popular micro Buzz Lightyears are all sold out – all except the display model. When he sees his larger counterpart playing with the other toys he seizes an opportunity to replace his larger contemporary and assume his identity to finally be played with.

This replacement leads to an amazing sequence where Buzz stumbles upon a group counselling session for forgotten promo toys. There are great voice guest spots from Jane Lynch (Glee, The 40-Year-Old Virgin) and a bunch of classic 80s and 90s toys that have been out of sight since their promotion’s passed. The new scenario is perfect for a temporary gag – and they load it up so you’re laughing pretty much constantly throughout.

The little family of Toys that we left at the climax of the 3rd film are still together and seeing them interact literally elicits stupid grinning immediately. For now I guess I’ll borrow some terminology from Billy Connolly and call it the ‘Tell us a joke we know” (must be read in his accent) syndrome. We all know and love these characters and seeing even a glimpse of them is fantastic. You love how they interact with each other and all their unique quirks – and yet it doesn’t in anyway sully your memory. It’s the perfect little taster.

Small Fry is the perfect warm-up for The Muppets - making the audience receptive to be so totally satisfied with the nostalgia of Kermit and the gang. Although I don’t know how they could possibly top Toy Story 3, I do love seeing those characters. And I’m sure you will too.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Movie Review - Puss in Boots (2011)

Puss in Boots, 2011.

Directed by Chris Miller.
Featuring the voice talents of Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Bob Thornton, Amy Sedaris, Constance Marie and Guillermo del Toro.

SYNOPSIS:

The heroic Puss in Boots is pitted against the outlaws Jack and Jill, who have discoved an ancient power that threatens the world.


As I’m sure most of you remember the character Puss in Boots made his first appearance in Shrek 2 (2004) as a secondary character, and for me he was the highlight of a franchise that progressively declined and sullied the name of the instant classic Shrek (2001). So Dreamworks Animation have decided to give him an origin story to give this great permutation of the Puss in Boots character the chance to survive on his own.

I know that what I’m about to say is ultimately going to come off as sounding negative but I want to start by saying that I think this is a fun little family flick with some salvaging adult laughs that is ultimately worth a watch.

The story firstly explains how Puss’ (Antonio Banderas) outlaw status came about, which coincidentally involved him being framed by his best friend Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis). In order to clear his name he partners up with the backstabbing Egg and his partner Kitty Soft Paws (Salma Hayek) to steal magic beans from Jack and Jill (as in Up the Hill) to the Giant’s lair (as in the Beanstalk) to retrieve the ‘Golden Egg’ treasure.

Now the revisionist fairytale mash-up that was pioneered with Shrek has been progressively butchered and repeated for the last decade. So instead of the skill of those elements working cohesively isn’t as impressive as they would have been a decade ago – instead they’re a little stale.

The Shrek version of the Puss character (because of the Antonio Banderas influence) has a great Spanish / Zorro feel and that gives the film-makers some great opportunities to infuse elements of Spanish culture. The downside is that unfortunately earlier this year Verbinski and Depp’s Rango (2011) was set in a comparable western setting featured some of the most mind-bogglingly amazing computer generated animation – especially in the great visceral characterisation of the anthropomorphic characters – that the relative simplicity of the ‘Shrek’ aesthetic felt like it inhibited the film.

The one great saving grace for Puss in Boots is that the film-makers emphasise his ‘catness’. Some of the little touches that showed off what you’re likely to know about if you’ve ever had a cat (or watched Youtube) really cracked me up. Without spoiling anything (that wasn’t already featured in the trailer) - Puss lapping at shot glasses with milk, the cute cat eyes, his fur standing on end when he’s scared etc were highlights for me.

So is it worth seeing? Yes. Will the kids love it? Definitely. Will the kids of all ages love it? Maybe not love it, but I admonish you if you don’t love the wonderfully random ‘aaaaaawwwwww’ Cat who literally had me laugh out loud every time I saw him.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Ten things I learnt during The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

Blake Howard sinks his teeth into The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1...

So I’m not going to bother reviewing Twilight for fear of measuring it in the standard that I’m normally used to, that is to say – as a FILM and not a phenomenon. I’m mainly going to compare it with comparable televisual texts and attempt to grade it according to this now emerged vamp / wolf genre. So I’ll just share my key learnings with you after seeing (and thankfully not paying for – bless you Dale Sinden) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1...

1. If one receives a wedding invite to one’s best friend’s wedding (that one is also in love with) in the post, one must immediately take their shirt off and run into the woods.

2. The werewolves in this film have caught the ‘Banner’ syndrome – meaning that when they transform into giant wolves, their metamorphosis back to their human form allows them to keep their clothes. I was under the impression that the previous film established that they lose their gear? Anyway.

3. A werewolf’s hot blood always makes him look like he wants to ravage your human bride if you’re a vampire. I would not let that 8-pack mofo touch my lady for fear of him stealing her.

4. Humans marrying vampires are calculating mofos. Bella clearly has gone, 'well Edward will always look the same and Jacob will eventually look like his dad'.

5. If you see a cutaway to a person / character that you’ve never seen before in an important scene, it is most certainly the author of the series who is now producing the film.

6. Don’t try and crow bar in an evil back story for the vampire lover so late in the piece (please see 'Passion' – Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 2 for a lesson); especially when it’s just another bullshit Edward is so mind numbingly perfect fucking blah blah fart blah. I will also make special mention to Eric from True Blood, whose Viking origins and progressive war mongering throughout human history as an awesome and fascinating story that arcs over a number of episodes / series.

7. If you were hoping that there would be some debauchery in this ‘Book of Mormon’ repressed as shit series; STOP! The sex scenes between Edward and Bella in this $137 Million dollar blockbuster don’t come anywhere near the gold standard of True Blood – or even the silver standard of the ‘mucho-controversial’ Season 6 Buffy and Spike fling. Edward is all like ‘I don’t wanna hurt you’ and Bella is all like ‘give it too me you friggin pussy’….or something like that. See Kristen Stewart dripping sexuality in Into the Wild as a horny teenager in a far more impressive (if brief) performance.

8. Vampire husbands-to-be get Bears along to their bachelor party. Those boys are very ‘Twinky’ so I wasn’t surprised.

9. Vampire caesareans involve husbands biting the child out of you.

10. Sometimes cinema can project your dreams for you; and in Breaking Dawn Bella’s dream that her and Edward are standing on a pile of corpses that used to be their wedding guests was the most satisfying part of the film for me.

Fortunately for all involved - particularly Stewart (good actress in anything else) and Pattinson (good in Water for Elephants) - Breaking Dawn - Part 1 means that there’s only Part 2 to go before we can move on.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com. Follow him on Twitter here: @BLAGatCCO.

Second Opinion - The Skin I Live In (2011)

The Skin I Live In (Spanish: La piel que habito), 2011.

Directed by Pedro Almodóvar.
Starring Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Marisa Paredes, Jan Cornet, Roberto Álamo and Blanca Suárez.


SYNOPSIS:

A genius plastic surgeon, haunted by the tragedies of his past, creates a type of synthetic skin, tested on an imprisoned patient, that can withstand any kind of damage. His guinea pig - a volatile woman whose origin reveals the mystery of their past.


To be honest, I find myself increasingly unmoved by a vast majority of what I’ve seen throughout blockbuster season. I know they’re popcorn flicks but I can’t help but admit to you guys that I’m looking for a film that moves me. I want to be shocked, challenged, pushed to tears or occasionally sickness. I want internal conflict. For whatever reason while seeing The Skin I Live in I felt like someone threw a bucket of cold water over me. I was sharp. I was agonising over every twist and turn. I was shuffling in my seat. I was feeling physical reactions to the scenes and quite simply I was impressed with Banderas’ strikingly nuanced performance under the incredible direction of Almodóvar.

I think that Banderas’ Spanish origins has had him typecast for an age in very theatrical and over the top/hammed up roles that really haven’t done his ability justice. He absolutely blew me away. His intensity, constantly suppressed and conveyed through his clinical gestures and mesmorising gaze. This is him at an award winning level.

Elena Anaya is spellbinding as Vera. Her back story is increasingly tantalising and provocative. Her range in this performance is really impressive. She’s got a lot of emotion terrain to cover – some of it quite treacherous and without her thoughtful and delicate performance; could have lapsed into something farcical.

And Almodóvar; I must admit that I’m relatively new to the master of Spanish cinema – but with every new viewing that mantle of master seems to be repeatedly validated. No one does what ultimately could be considered ‘melodrama’ with such beauty and grace. His composition is classical and his characters have a mass on screen – and I particularly feel that regardless of how beautiful the production design, or colour scheme in a scene is – the characters fill the frame. Some of the technological advancements in the film potentially make this film the first science fiction-melodrama hybrid and it works perfectly.

I’m sure that you’ve realised by now that I’m intentionally with-holding the details of this story. This isn’t because I didn’t love it; quite the contrary actually. It just feels impossible after disclosing the snippet of plot summary at the beginning of the review to mention anything that isn’t going to ruin the film for you. The Skin I Live In is layered to reveal the depths of the characters, and their origins.

This film affected me. I got home and needed a drink to process just how much it affected me. Almodóvar puts you through a moral roller coaster and all I can say is that you simply must see it. It won’t sit easily with you, you won’t have a relaxed or easy viewing. It will challenge you – and you’ll realise the power of the film medium.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.

Movie Review - The Thing (2011)

The Thing, 2011.

Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Eric Christian Olsen.


SYNOPSIS:

A team of scientists discover an alien craft at a research site in Antarctica.


The Thing (2011), for starters, should have an alternative title in an attempt to distinguish it from original cult classic that is John Carpenter’s The Thing. And despite how it was marketed I wouldn’t say that this film is a ‘reboot’ of the original – in fact it loves the original sick. It expands on the tantalising beginning of Carpenter’s cult classic. For those unfamiliar with the original just quickly the film opens with a husky being chased by a helicopter and some Nordic gents are shooting at it. It’s an ambiguous opening and the unseen but oft-mentioned (in the original) Thule base is the setting and premise for this new film. The film’s story recounts what happened there and how ‘the thing beast’ made its way to the legendary bearded awesome of the 80s Kurt Russell.

Back to the marketing – on the one hand, this film is enough like the original that I know definitely how they can brand it as a remake and I suppose that one could ask ‘How far could it diverge really?' Alien on an Antarctic base wreaks havoc and has the ability to mutate into other forms to disguise itself. The core difference of the films is their protagonists. The Thing follows Kate (Mary Elisabeth Winstead) a palaeontologist tasked with being able to handle frozen fossilized specimen. She’s hired and shipped off to the south pole to inspect a mysterious discovery. The film is directed with constant nods to the original – attempting to elicit the same atmosphere, aesthetic and mood that Carpenter’s film did so affectively. However CGI both benefits and hinders the film. In the original the animatronic and model aesthetic of the design makes the monster feel more tangible and believable. There are only a few moments where the CGI version of the thing beast does anything memorable. I guess if you’re new to the mythos it might have some pretty good “holy shit” moments – but unfortunately fans will only be moved by one really cool display of the thing's intangible, malleable form.

I think the main problem that I had with the film was the inability to connect with the protagonist Kate. Kate (is the Sarah Connor/Ellen Ripley character but without any of Hamilton or Weaver’s great charisma and charm. The Kate character has to complete the Alien to Aliens or Terminator to T2 transition from innocent and dainty into arse kicking tough bitch in a very short period and I really didn’t believe it for a second. Joel Edgerton plays a kind of conscience in the film – channelling Kurt Russell’s great ambiguity. He’s a highlight, and does nothing but demonstrate why he’s such hot acting property at the moment (with limited screen time).

Is it worth your money at the big screen? It’s definitely worth watching on DVD if you’re a fan of the original. Just set the expectation that it’s gone past the point of homage and moved steadily into what my colleague Cam @PopcornJunkies Williams calls a ‘Pre-Make’. Just like the monster itself; The Thing 2011 replicates the original, but it changes it so some of you may just want to strap on your flame-thrower and set fire to this #PopcornPremake.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.

Movie Review - Bill Cunningham New York (2010)

Bill Cunningham New York, 2010.

Directed by Richard Press.


SYNOPSIS:

A profile of the veteran New York fashion photographer Bill Cunningham.


You may not have heard of the stellar documentary Bill Cunningham New York, but it has deservedly won more audience awards at film festivals than you can poke a stick at.

The film is an account of the life of now, irreplaceable fashion photographer and icon of the New York and Paris fashion scene Bill Cunningham. Bill’s a great eccentric character who spends a majority of his time on his Schwinn bicycle, peddling through the busy New York City streets and pulling up to busy intersections to photograph street fashion. Bill’s weekly column in the New York Times has catalogued the evolution of street fashion since the 70s.

The film is a historical account of the evolution of New York Fashion, the social scene, the artistic community – from possibly one of the most modest, understated and interesting men on the planet. In the face of the wealthiest and style focused citizens in the world and frenetic pace of technological advancement – Bill still uses an old school film loaded Nikon (and he processes his film himself), wears the same modest clothes (which he occasionally repairs himself) and refuses to be monetarily rewarded for his attendance to parties etc. Cunningham lives in a studio above Carnegie Hall, alone, surrounded by a cornucopia of files cataloguing his life’s work and a library of fashion books. He’s staunchly against people interfering with his creative vision and at times in his life he’s contributed to fashion publications without being paid so that he could have total creative control. Bill has a certain kind of unique integrity that is exceptionally rare and the plethora of interviews with fashion icons throughout the film can attest to not only his influence but his uniquity. There is a particularly beautiful moment as Bill is shuffling to get past a checkpoint at a Paris fashion show when one of the organisers barges past the people holding him up and says – “This is the most important man in the world.”

You can’t help but feel that despite his renown, that there is a deep sadness and loneliness inside of Bill that informs his continuing pursuits. It leaves you with a strange feeling while you’re viewing when you’re pulled between the emotional poles of joy and intangible loss.

Press’ documentary style is unobtrusive – happily being a fly on the wall to Bill’s exploits and really warmly admires the subject. However, there is one moment that Press’ presence is felt as he asks Bill about his sexuality and religious beliefs (which until this point in the film hasn’t been mentioned – but its absence is cultivating a curiosity in the audience) and it is one of the great moments in in documentary cinema this year. Press asks the question with such warmth and trust and doesn’t push the subject and Bill’s reaction rippled through the audience that I saw it with.

Normally I’d say something like “see it if you’re a fan of fashion or even eccentricity in great artists” but this film has something for everyone. It’s a fascinating insight into fashion, New York’s artistic community, the evolution of fashion, fashion photography and the sublime beauty of finding your passion and letting that drive you to excel. So see it if you like great stories and fascinating people.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.

Movie Review - Contagion (2011)

Contagion, 2011.

Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Starring Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Lawrence Fishburne, Jude Law and Marion Cotillard.


SYNOPSIS:

A thriller about a deadly global virus and how the medical world, media and real citizens react and cope with the outbreak.


Soderbergh is a wonderfully eclectic director and this frighteningly realistic impression of a virus that starts to savage the population of the world is eerily real but far too clinical. The film drops the audience into Day 2 of the outbreak and alongside Centre for Disease and Control and World Health Organisation officers (along with some civilians experiencing the chaos) as they investigate the origin of the outbreak and formulate a plan to save as much of the population as possible.

I saw this film twice and I think it’s important to say that I reacted differently on both occasions. The first time I saw it I was impressed with the stellar cast of internationally acclaimed actors, the divergent perspectives, and Soderbergh’s gritty directorial style applied to the scope of a worldwide virus. On the other hand, the second time I watched it, I found that I was exceptionally critical of the second act/middle of the film.

Contagion opens strongly as the outbreak begins and the international community is reacting to it. The performances of Winslet, Fishburne and especially Damon that open the film are stunningly authentic (and just in case you didn’t already think it – Matt Damon demonstrates once again that he’s an absolutely phenomenal performer). There are great insightful perspectives into the WHO & CDC that give a realistic impression of their public and private reactions to the crisis. The film charts the days of the outbreak chronologically from Day 2 and the thrill of being helpless to this exceptionally contagious virus makes for compelling viewing.

The middle section of the film jumps from about the 30th day of the crisis until the 130th day. That middle section where the deaths would have rapidly increased, panic would have been prevalent, fighting would have occurred in the streets, and where (one would assume) the world essentially grinds to a halt in the face of the contagion weren’t shown in the film.

That second act’s potential dramatic impact, seeing the great acting pedigree on show in the height of the crisis, could have made this film one of the best films of the year. However, once we’ve been transported to the 130th day ***spoilers*** the government authorities are well on their way to discovering a potential cure. It’s almost as if there is a vastly longer cut of the film that shows everything that we want to see but the distributors of the film asked for a markedly shorter theatrical cut (this could be totally wrong but that’s how it felt watching it a second time).

You’re wondering is it worth seeing? Absolutely. I enjoyed it and I’ve spoken to a bunch of people that have enjoyed it. I think that it had the potential to be great but was O.K. because the middle section of the film didn’t utilise the talent that had been assembled to make you care about their individual plights.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.

Second Opinion - Drive (2011)

Drive, 2011.

Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.
Starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston, Oscar Isaac, Christina Hendricks and Ron Perlman.


SYNOPSIS:

A Hollywood stunt driver (Gosling) moonlighting as a ‘wheelman’ discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.


Drive is currently wrestling Red State at the top of the best films that I’ve seen this year.

Nicolas Winding Refn is a name that we’re going to be hearing more and more often from Hollywood. This film exploded onto the international festival scene at the Cannes Film Festival, where Refn was nominated and awarded the prize for best direction; which is no mean feat! [Other recipients to name a few are Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Jean Luc Godard, Abbas Kiarostami, Michael Haneke – I could go on]. I guess that a lot of the directing plaudits go to the visual construction of the picture, so I’ll start there. From the outset, based on the synopsis, you may have been expecting some kind of Hollywood derivation of The Transporter series. This is definitely not the case.

Refn’s Drive belongs in a triple bill with Michael Mann’s Thief and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. Refn slows the pace of the camera down. Every motion is purposeful. Refn’s protagonist is condusive to a Travis Bickle-esque skewed world perspective and the camera relishes in slow subjective moments. Refn also winds back the clock (as Tarantino did with Death Proof) sticking to very logical and classical car chase visual aesthetic. And it is so refreshing. Greengrass’ Bourne influence seems to have made most films attempt to approximate that frenetic hyper cutting impressionist aesthetic. The slower camera movement emphasises the almost golden look of the film. It somehow instantly detaches you from a more gritty action film that sap all the colour from the film. L.A’s famous golden sunsets and yellow streetlights form the main palette for Drive and it reinforces the perspective.

Now there are directors who are dubbed ‘actors director’s’ because they are able to extract really powerful performances from all involved. Refn constructed some quite brilliant performances that required far more physical acting that dialogue driven performance. Ryan Gosling’s lead character doesn’t have much to say at all throughout – you’re forced to rabidly read every nuanced expression, every flicker in his eyes in order for him to fully convey his character.

The Cliff Martinez score is such a foundation of the film that it would be remiss of me to not mention it. Refn’s Drive (in the best possible way) feels like a music video – because the accompanying music amplifies everything that we see on screen. If you see Drive – get yourself a copy of the soundtrack – it is stellar. Drive feels as if it is was specifically made to accompany the beats, sweeping sombre lyrics and synthetic atmosphere.

Onto the cast. Ryan Gosling’s measured and minimalistic role is pitch perfect. His strong silence alludes to an almost fundamental detachment from the norm. He feels as if he’s already running from something – only ever comfortable on the move. Refn’s Driver is the Mannian professional. Michael Mann’s continuing thesis of professional men would go perfectly with the antisocial, meticulous and hyper-skilled driver. Bryan Cranston is great as the Driver’s caretaker Shannon. Cranston is his connection to work (legal and illegal) and facilitates his interaction to the outside world. Cranston - now so famous for his aggro Breaking Bad persona – shifts gears into the mentor role perfectly. I don’t think it’s possible for him to be bad in any film – but he’s great even in his small role here. Carey Mulligan is bursting into the Hollywood acting scene as another Michelle Williams type. Here she’s the “love interest” Irene in the most simplistic terms. Mulligan is a window into an emotional connection – which he’s since been isolated from. The most serene and lovely moments in the film is the Driver exploring what it could be like to be “normal”.

Ron Pearlman is great as the overtly sadistic and bloodthirsty mobster Nino, who has a past with Shannon (Cranston) that’s important to the story, so I won’t spoil it. And finally, the wonderful, the one and only: Albert Brooks. His villain Bernie Rose anchors this film to its biggest 70s influences. Bernie is a subtly vicious and dangerous bastard. He’s old school – in the best possible sense. In a way he’s the antithesis of our Driver. His gravelly and understated delivery has you hanging from every single word. He’s brilliant.

Warning - Drive is easily one the of the most violent films of the year. Again – hoping not to spoil it – in the same way Scorsese portrays extreme, disturbing, brutal violence that doesn’t ever reduce the ‘meaning’ of the violence (the the “Gorno” Rambo 4 pulling out peoples throats, babies thrown into fire). There are moments that I audibly and uncontrollably gasped. However, don’t let this deter you – violence is meant to be disturbing. And I know I may be blathering on about Scorsese but if anyone can say that the scene on the beach, if only for the Driver’s look in that mask, isn’t reminiscent of Bickle in Taxi Driver then … I won’t care because the fact that it reminded me only enhanced my viewing experience.

To sum up, there are so many great reasons to see Drive -the direction; the aesthetic but particularly the perspective that Refn forces us into throughout. The soundtrack & score are exceptional – this film feels as if it was specifically made to accompany the beats, and synthetic atmosphere. The cast & their performances particularly the rarely flawed Ryan Gosling (my favourite actor working in Hollywood at the moment) and the flawless and magnetic Albert Brooks, whose voice claws at you – you’re well and truly a slave to every slippery delivery. Has there been a better exchange this year than when our Driver meets Brooks’ Bernie...

Bernie hand outstretched – gesturing toward the driver.

Driver: My hands are dirty.
Bernie: So are mine.

That moment alone made me think that I may have to begin piecing together my top 10 moments this year that I wanted to stand in the theatre and applaud fucking great dialogue and acting.

Do yourself a favour... get in your car and drive to see Drive!

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.