Second Opinion - Carnage (2011)

Carnage, 2011.

Directed by Roman Polanski.
Starring Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly.


SYNOPSIS:

Two sets of parents meet to discuss the matter of one child assaulting another. Things steadily go from bad to worse.


Everything about Carnage is quite simple, both the plusses and minuses. I know it’s early in the game to say this, but Carnage might be one of my favourites of the year. Now I know that’s also starting off on a high note, so I’ll be sure to bring it all back down by the end, but first the good aspects.

Taking a look at the film’s synopsis, you might get a bit bored. There isn’t really much more in terms of spoilers than can be discovered by watching the trailer or reading a review. The idea ‘four people talk about their children and by the way they don’t ever leave the home for the entire film, no really, not even to talk to the neighbours’ might sound boring but the time does, to form a cliché, just fly by. I’m sure the short eighty minute runtime helps, but there wasn’t ever a point of my mind wandering or wondering if the story was ever going to end.

The film’s simplicity and short time does have its downfalls. The characters aren’t ever shown under a bright spotlight in terms of their background, apart from one character’s mother calling. The lack of outside influence (the nearest anyone gets to leaving is pressing the button for the lift) and any other prominent characters makes the film feel like a theatre production. This is neither a positive or a negative; it just shows that the movie doesn’t completely abandon the feeling and ideas from the play Le Dieu du Carnage, which Yasmina Reza also wrote.

This other mark of simplicity would fall flat on its backside if the performances and script weren’t up to scratch. Nothing is ever used to wake the audience up, no cheap tricks used to keep the audience’s attention. And that’s what I enjoyed most about the film. The script isn’t laugh a minute (it defines the word ‘dramedy’), but what comedy there is is fantastic. Each character brings along their own worldview and baggage to create tension.

Each cast member gives a great performance. And, I think importantly, no one actor or character is overshadowed by another. You understand one point of view, even if an absolute bastard is bringing it across. Speaking of, contrary to what I just said, I think a little special praise has to go to John C. Reilly.

Despite never fulfilling my wish of saying the words ‘For your health!’ (Internet trawlers will be aware of this other fine, nuanced Reilly performance), the character journey of Michael Longstreet is probably the most fun. Reilly seems to revel in the part, enjoying starting off as a sheep that attempts to make everyone happy, eventually devolving into a booze swilling, cigar smoking git. But that’s just personal preference. Christoph Waltz looks, at times, like he could quite easily kill someone with his bare hands. Kate Winslet throws up everywhere. And Jodie Foster breaks down over art books and aftershave. There’s something for everyone!

Each character’s ups and downs just show that, as said by the characters in the film, that everybody lies. Not to be all Gregory House about it, but the journey of Michael is the prime example. As one thread is discovered, everything starts to unravel for the characters. Because of the lack of time with the characters, you don’t feel as emotionally involved. But this probably helps as you laugh with and at everyone.

The fact that there is only surface shown throughout the film, despite the revelations of each character, means that there isn’t a deep life lesson or moral to be taken from this movie. Which is a great thing. The film doesn’t try to teach you anything; it just shows these four people as they are. The obvious message is that parents are as bad, sometimes worse, than their kids. The final shot displays this easily enough without any of the characters expressing it outright. But as hinted earlier, it’s the typical message you could have gotten just by reading the synopsis or watching the trailer.

The enjoyment comes from seeing these four people break down. Nothing truly horrible happens. Nothing extreme happens. Carnage just shows people suffering from everyday problems. A spouse who spends a little too much time on the phone instead of raising their child. A spouse who tries to make everyone feel better and doesn’t actually stand up for anyone. Typical problems we may all come across. Carnage might actually be a great movie to watch, a simple story, before the leotard wearing super beings of the summer blockbusters come along and make everything explode.

Matt Smith

Movie Review - J. Edgar (2011)

J. Edgar, 2011.

Directed by Clint Eastwood.
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Judi Dench and Naomi Watts.


SYNOPSIS:

The story of J. Edgar Hoover, who was the founder and head of the FBI for almost fifty years. The man with everyone else’s secrets must make sure his own aren’t revealed, otherwise everything he has worked for could be destroyed.


J. Edgar, the latest offering from Clint Eastwood, came out of the gate with a great start. A promising trailer, both because of the premise and the people involved, but it slowed down instantly afterwards. Gone are the days of Last Action Hero-levels of hubris and self-delusion from studios, meaning you can sometimes judge a movie by the advertising campaign. Sacrilege, I know, but why would a studio heavily promote a film unless it’s a guaranteed success? So was J. Edgar going to be a promising-idea-but-not-good-execution, or was it going to be a sleeper hit made by the A-list?

It is, unfortunately, one of Eastwood’s lesser productions. Like the pre-release build up, the film starts off well (explosions! intrigue! Jack from Titanic all grown up!) but it slows down, almost so you don’t notice, until it’s just pottering around like Hoover in his later years.

The big thing about the man behind the title is that he had so much information on so many different people that he became the most powerful man in America for a few decades. He was so good at hiding his secrets, in fact, that when coming to make this movie it turns out Hoover destroyed ninety nine percent of the paperwork he had. So the film has to tiptoe around the fact they can’t show anything the main character knows about these people, apart from the obvious (President Kennedy slept around? Who knew?). So we have a film about secrets and intrigue without showing much of either, because the filmmakers know as much as we do.

So, like the scene where Hoover unsuccessfully tries to ‘persuade’ someone to give up an award using a fictitious letter full of bluster but no real threat, the film is full of promise but no payoff.

Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black wrote Milk, the story of gay activist and politician Harvey Milk, and has taken on a story with both similarities and striking differences. Whilst Harvey Milk was controversial because he stood up and made a lot of noise, J. Edgar Hoover was controversial because he kept everything quiet, made people guess about him. The main difference and problem, boiled down, is that the film focuses on a man so secretive and notorious that the filmmakers don’t actually have anything concrete on him.

While it’s not the only good thing about this film, which I should really stop having a go at, the acting deserves a bit of special praise. Every character has his or her own arc, and each actor brings us in. DiCaprio looks almost the spitting image of Hoover and his performance is spot on. We care for the character, but we can also see how he’s not exactly well adjusted. Some characters aren’t treated as they should be though.

Hoover’s long-time companion Clyde Tolson, played by Armie Hammer (the twins from The Social Network), has what could be an affecting character arc. The relationship has a few great scenes, but it all gets a bit wishy-washy when it comes to whether Hoover and Tolson stay together at the end. I knew the answer as to whether they stayed together in the end, that was obvious. It was just the ‘why’ aspect that eluded me. There seemed to be an explanation missing, so I didn’t know why Hoover was acting the way he did.

Hoover and Tolson must hide their obvious romantic affections for each other, mainly down to Hoover’s choices, which are shown to be down to the overriding influence of his mother Anne Marie (Judi Dench). Their relationship is summed up well by the story she tells Hoover about a local boy, with the nickname Daffy (‘short for Daffodil’), who shot himself. He’s used as an example because Anne Marie would rather have ‘a dead son than a daffodil for a son.’

While I wasn’t expecting summer blockbuster levels of bang crash wallop excitement, I was still surprised by the lack of oomph from the flow of the story. I thought the story switching back and forth from Hoover’s later years to earlier ones would give the flow a bit of energy and urgency, but it all happens in a slow, meandering sort of way.

I think this is the main problem with J. Edgar. It has great potential, a moving story just waiting to get out, but it all happens so slowly that there’s no urgency. The balance between getting excitement and wonder into a story about the man who founded the FBI and keeping the story slow enough that we can actually digest the actions and consequences each character must take part in hasn’t been achieved.

This means I didn’t care about the characters as much as I should. But don’t get me wrong. Looking back, I just seem to have pointed out the bad points and then said ‘the acting’s alright, I suppose’. The film was good enough to keep my attention and I did leave wishing it was just a little bit better. That’s a lot better than just leaving the cinema thinking ‘well that was boring, couldn’t he have made Inception II: The Streets instead of going for the Oscar?’ Even though he’s blatantly going for the Oscar.

Matt Smith

Movie Review - Margin Call (2011)

Margin Call, 2011.

Directed by J.C. Chandor.
Starring Kevin Spacey, Zachary Quinto, Jeremy Irons, Paul Bettany and Stanley Tucci.


SYNOPSIS:

During the first twenty-four hours of the worldwide financial crisis, key members of one large investment bank try to stop their world from imploding.


Margin Call, a film based on what happens at one international bank that discovers it’s not exactly on steady footing, is the first feature directed by J.C. Chandor. And considering it’s his first outing, there should be a lot more to look forward to in the future.

What could be a boring, albeit true and important story is made into a deceptively long film. Without making things melodramatic or over the top, the story (especially the first hour) flows along at quite a pace. We’re introduced to Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto), who discovers things aren’t as comfortable as they seem on Wall Street. Things quickly escalate until the cavalry (in the form of Jeremy Irons) is called in.

Parallels could be made to Wall Street in terms of subject matter and character, but this film definitely stands on its own two feet. Every character has a skeleton in the closet, everyone trying to find a way they can come out on top, even when the entire corporate and capitalist world’s at stake. Just like real life, people have their goods and their bads, and time is devoted to at least getting a glimpse of each from everyone.

But that aspect is a blessing and a curse for this film. I wasn’t one hundred percent sure on some of the characters names throughout, which wasn’t a bad thing. Jeremy Irons walks in the room and calls Kevin Spacey ‘Sam’ and you just go with it. Because of all the characters doing their own thing, there’s a lack of focus. At times you can see something behind the veil as characters come into their own personal problems, but it’s never gone into with a lot of depth. You know Demi Moore is going to try and screw someone over, but it’s never revealed how or why.

That’s what’s missing from this story. High levels of emotion, that people may expect going into a film about Wall Street bankers screwing up. Because of the miniplot, multiple character nature of the story, no one character arc really mattered that much to me. At first it seems that Zachary Quinto’s character will be the protagonist, but in the end he’s focused on as much as any other.

In relation to that, Margin Call might be the wrong choice if you want a story about a Little Guy discovering the wrongdoings of the Big Guy, and going into battle and winning because bankers are bad people, and bad people are hypocrites. In this film you don’t actually root for anyone. Sure, you might think Jeremy Irons should stop that, because it’s not very nice what he’s doing there. But then he explains himself and you can sort of understand where he’s coming from. There are of course different degrees of sympathy and likeability within the cast.

Penn Badgley as the youngster is an annoying little git, even when he’s crying as he’s about to be fired, because he’s shedding tears right onto his million dollar shoes and through his eyes that probably cost a million dollars somehow, and in between his eyes and his shoes, the air he breathes is also costing a million dollars a molecule because he’s a right lucky git. You can actually see him as a work experience kid in the way he’s treated and the way he acts, except he goes ahead and brags about how he’s made a quarter of a million dollars in a year, then compares it to other gi-frigo-normous salaries in the company. Not that I’m jealous, of course.

And that’s the thing. Paul Bettany’s character points it out and it’s true. We’re jealous of these people with their fast cars and nice houses and suits that are shiny, and that’s one of the many perspectives this film brings up, which is one of the film’s strengths. No one is outright good or bad and you can understand each character’s reason for doing this. Jeremy Irons might destroy the lives of others to make money, but if you were in his position, would you do any different? Between him and Paul Bettany, you’re almost persuaded that they’re good guys out to save the world. Almost.

Oh, and a small note. It’d be easier to feel sorry for Paul Bettany (sorry. He plays someone called ‘Will Emerson’, apparently), or stay engrossed in the story completely, if his accent didn’t range from New York to... well, Paul Bettany.

The way the story stays almost permanently within one day is a good idea, especially as it would be impossible to follow all these characters through the troubles that came after. And that’s one of the ideas of the film. As the credits roll to the sounds of one of the characters digging a hole in front of their ex-wives’ house (it makes sense if you watch it), you get that sense that this is just the beginning. And not in a bad sequel, let’s make money from this idea ironically kind of way. You don’t have to see them dealing with the situation afterwards. You just have to know that they’re going to take advantage and do not-nice things to people they’ve never met.

And for this reason, you have a hard time liking any of these characters, but you develop a sly sort of understanding. Because if, in the words of Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), you were offered over a hundred thousand dollars an hour to sit in a room and do nothing, you’d take the offer up before they’d finish offering it to you, even though they just did offer it to you. You’d take it quite quickly, is what I’m saying.

So in the end, Margin Call won’t be for people looking for a barnstorming, wrongs made rights man-drama. It’s a bit more than that. It’s a well paced, well directed look into what happens when people are bogged down by their own mistakes and how they’ll pull up on their ankles as hard as they can to escape. Oh, but you do feel sorry for Kevin Spacey. But that’s only because his dog is sick and he needs more money to pay the vet bills.

Matt Smith

Movie Review - Hugo (2011)

Hugo, 2011.

Directed by Martin Scorsese.
Starring Ben Kingsley, Asa Butterfield, Sacha Baron Cohen and Chloe Grace Moretz.


SYNOPSIS:

An orphaned young boy becomes wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.


Hugo is one of those strange movies. One of those movies that you know probably deserves a couple of those little gold statues, but at the same time you can wander out of the cinema and not remember anything specific about it. It’s a love letter to older cinema, older films that deserves to stay in the memories of film lovers the world over, but at the same time Hugo is forgettable. The older films that it pays obvious platitudes to are cheaper, worse looking affairs. But they also have a lot more magic.

Not to say I didn’t like Hugo. It’s a shame when this happens, but because it’s Martin Scorsese you can’t help but want more. This probably links in to how I sat there wondering for the first half an hour, forty five minutes, wondering when the film was going to get properly started. Which is probably more my fault really, as Marty’s been doing this for longer than I’ve been alive and is still going strong. And it definitely has more than a touch of magic about it. A fantastic dream sequence (though as an Inception fan I had to laugh as Scorsese took us through a dream WITHIN A DREAM) and some great effects work mean Hugo looks very nice.

When the film starts, but before it properly starts because I’m an idiot, we’re presented with Hugo Cabret. A lonely boy who steals toy parts from a shop at the train station where he lives, Hugo seems like a character who would be struggling to be alive, let alone exerting all his efforts into taking springs and screws in order to rebuild an automaton he and his deceased father were rebuilding.

But fortunately, Hugo is industrious enough to take everything he needs right out from under the nose of the Train Inspector (played by Sacha Baron Cohen who is, unsurprisingly, the main source of comedy from the film). Hugo’s attempts to rebuild the only link to his father play second fiddle to the other, less obvious story. His struggles for the future are quickly entwined with Georges Melies’ regrets and pain of the past.

Also unsurprisingly, Ben Kingsley provides a quiet and assured start to his performance as Georges. His acting fast becomes the best, even amongst the plethora of great actors at the disposal of the story. Kingsley’s performance comes to fruition about halfway through the film, drawing me in and helping make Georges’ arc, from his greatness as a silent filmmaker to his eventual fall after war into obscurity.

The surprising turn of the film comes from Asa Butterfield as the titular character. Any worries of under or over acting are assured from the off. If people think Daniel Radcliffe was going to be a star when he started talking like a snake and having faux-light sabre duals with the evil Nazi from Schindler’s List, Asa Butterfield’s nuanced performance should surely mean a star has been unleashed.

Not to mention Chloe Grace Moretz as Isabelle. Even though she’s still in her teens, Moretz has been acting in movies since she was eight, so it’s no shock that she easily gets into the role and gives an assured performance. Tales of her convincing Scorsese she was a British actress might not be hyperbole either, as her accent is the polar opposite of, say, Dick Van Dyke’s, a long time veteran of both film and TV (but who’s biggest part can be boiled down to the words ‘G’day, Mary Poppins!’).

The other performances work very well, even if some of the sub plots are lacking. Richard Griffiths is wasted. Every time the film cuts to Monsieur Frick’s story of love, I kept thinking I was wasting my time watching it, to be Monsieur Frank. Strangely, the Train Inspector’s story of love, however similar, is one that I actually enjoyed watching. The difference I guess was in the little details. It wasn’t even significant that the Train Inspector was a big part of the main plot. I just think his back story was given just enough balance between mystery and well timed reveals.

Scorsese has an obvious love for early cinema, and this is no more illustrated than in Hugo. You can’t help but notice the fact this is one of Scorsese’s most personal movies. Cutting away from and backing up Hugo and Georges’ stories with clips from early cinema, Scorsese is inadvertently showing us why early cinema had such charm. While the production values of Hugo, especially the breathtaking visuals, are outstanding, the clips from early cinema were the most memorable things about Hugo. Instead of caring about Hugo Cabret, I wanted to know what happened to Harold Lloyd as he hung off a clock.

That’s not to say Hugo has no charm whatsoever. The 3-D, which has been given the big thumbs up by James Cameron no less, is good in the way that 3-D should be. It draws you in, but you never notice it from the first frame. It lends the film an enchantment, which works well with the setting and the story itself. In no way is this a 3-D gimmick movie. Scorsese and cinematographer Robert Richardson have created a movie that uses 3-D as good as, if not better than, Cameron’s 2009 money printing film about blue cats (I think it’s called Avatar or something...).

Now while the 3-D didn’t jump off the screen and bite your face off, I just kept wishing for something to raise the pace and provide a bit more excitement. The long running time obviously doesn’t help the cause, especially if you’re seeing this as a potential movie for your kids. This is more of a coming of age/retrospective of a full life story that introduces some early cinema to newcomers, but which would be more appreciated by film lovers.

And that brings an end to this review, in a fashion that neatly mirrors the film. Because Hugo is a strange film. It is good, and in ways better than the films it’s paying credence to. But in other ways it’s worse than the older films, and makes you wish Scorsese had used all this new technology to create something with the smoothness and reliability of modernity combined with the charm and humour of the old.

So while you sit there thinking and feeling deep down that this film is Good and deserves Plaudits because it’s Martin Scorsese and the acting’s great and the 3-D’s amazing and Sacha Baron Cohen in the bath is funny. But at the exact same time you sit there thinking and feeling deep down that the film should be something more. But in the end, if you’re a lover of early film, you’ll be satisfied but not blown away. At least until you go on YouTube and look up Harold Lloyd films.

Matt Smith