Darkest Hour (2018)

Great Britain are losing faith in their current leader, Neville Chamberlain. The Nazis are becoming unstoppable and something needs to change, Britain needs a new leader who is willing to stand up and fight, and protect. Some of the cabinet members are reluctant to take on this role, so it looks like Winston Churchill is the man for the job. Darkest Hours tells the story of Churchill’s early days in parliament, and gives the viewer a slight glimpse into the struggles and triumphs Churchill faced as the Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War 2.

Okay, first things first. I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened, nor was Joe Wright. But this is the case for all productions based on true events, right? I didn’t know Winston Churchill, and embarrassingly, for a British Citizen, I can’t say I’m full of fun facts about him, I have a basic amount of knowledge, like anyone would when it comes to a leader of their country from decades ago. I’ve barely heard more than a handful of his speeches, and I’ve honestly never considered looking at his policies. So again, what is, or is not true I do not know. From what I do know about Churchill, praise deserved to go to Gary Oldman, as one thing that is widely recorded, are his characteristics. He was a fiery, serious man, but also unusually sarcastic, and had a particularly dry persona. If all of that is true, based on the accounts of those that knew him, then Oldman has smashed it. I mean, for starters we know how he spoke, so we know that Oldman got that right. 

The thing about his performance that deserves the most credit though, is the fact that you could believe, and use your imagination. He was a man struggling for approval. He was scared, but was fantastic at hiding it when he needed to, he was professional, unless he was in a situation in which he could let his guard down. He had strong opinions, and was a bold character, and was willing to do anything he could to find a solution to problems the country faced, but needed to be honest with himself and the nation about the reality of the situation. Oldman managed to take these characteristics and make that performance his own. 

He didn’t present Churchill as a good, or a bad character, but as a human being, and realistically that it what we would have seen if we could have been around at the time. In terms of the cast though, I honestly can’t say that anyone else stole my attention, which is of course credit to Oldman, but possible indicated a bad script in places? A lot of the characters were almost treated as fillers in some scenes, and none were given the opportunity to really shine, but then again, they didn’t need to and this wasn’t a bad thing. This film just wasn’t full of minor show-stopping performances.

I can’t say that this film was particularly stunning, visually or aurally. It was fine, and it suited the story that was being told. The score was what kept the mood for this film, it was tense, and depressing. The lighting complimented this well, and the theme was strong, and didn’t falter throughout. 

The editing, although nothing spectacular, was what really tied up all the loose ends in this film. The beginning and end of the film was captioned, which of course set the scene, and allowed us to jump straight in, and allowed the film to be wrapped up solidly, ensuring nothing was left hanging. The timing of this film was perfect, it was just enough that the viewer’s attention could be regained if they started to drift away. About every other scene, we were given an indication of how much time had passed, and this is something that an historical account needs.

Overall, this wasn’t phenomenal, and sure there are other actors, films, directors etc. that are worthy of an academy award, but I wouldn’t be mad if this won anything. I am aware that it is completely coincidental that Darkest Hour, and Dunkirk run alongside each other, but they work wonderfully together. Watching Dunkirk straight after this boosted my opinion of this film, both of them complement each other nicely, and really tie in nicely together. What a happy accident.

                                   

Better than expected, a nice, inoffensive account of Winston Churchill’s early days as Prime Minister. This film will – because of Gary Oldman, hold your attention. If anything, his performance is really why this film should be watched.

6/10

CINEMATES - S

Attraction (2017)

Russian sci-fi. Yeah I didn't have a clue either. I don't know much about Russian cinema in general but for some reason scifi wouldn't have been at the forefront. Which really, when you think about it, is silly. Russians go to space guys, they've been to space, they sent a dog to space, why wouldn't they have an interest in space and science fiction. 

ANYWAY. Attraction (2017) follows a small group of people in Russia, reacting to an alien ship crash landing in their city. Our protagonist Yulya, played by Irina Starshenbaum, is a classic teenager, has a loving best friend, sex driven bad boy boyfriend and very strict father. She's ready for revenge when the crash kills many citizens so she ventures into the quarantined area with her boyfriend and co to start a fight. After getting into some trouble that only an alien can help her with she has a change of heart, cleans him up and takes him home.  Stanard fish out of water, new experiences alien to him until he can be taken back home. 

Now I'm happy to watch foreign films, some of my favourites films are not English speaking. But I will say that sometimes, that barrier, makes it a little bit more difficult to judge the acting. Some of the cast seemed cliche, for example, nerdy boy who just so happens to be super interested in the subject at hand, just happens to be able to help the leading lady for no cost but her attention and just happens to be low key really vital. His performance was still sweet and he had one of the few comic relief moments though I do wonder if his performance was dampered by my language barrier. 

The protagonist was good, not too whiney of a teenage girl which we often get. Her boyfriend Artyom, played by Alexander Petrov, a good looking guy who from what I gather is relatively popular in Russia. His character is a bit drastic, goes from charming to a bit aggressive to just genuinely deranged. Again I feel like some parts of his dialogue weren't particularly original but he did have a good monologue towards the end that was somewhat captivating. Rinal Mukhametov, plays the alien, who's given multiple names. Who again, appears to be reasonably successful in Russia as well as being good looking. I think he played alien relatively well, it's hard to convey not human when you look human. Overall alright cast, definitely some potential and definitely some people I will look out for. 

The CGI was good, again didn't know what to expect and was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed the direction they went with the style of the aliens, the armour and the ship. It looked great against the large industrial style estates. The sound was fun, there's particular scene where Yulya take the alien to a gig to keep him hidden and the sound is fantastic for that. Granted part might just be because it's interesting to me to hear Russian music but the songs used were fitting and bold. 

It laid pretty heavy on the 'we don't like people not from here, this is our house' theme. Which at a point was scary. A lot of people found it very easy to become very aggressive towards a group of people (aliens). Though exaggerated, it showed xenophobia fueled by fear and developed with a hive mind. I think that theme probably hit home to some people more than others and I'm so curious to learn how that landed with Russian audiences. 

Fun film though pacing could be improved, has a little dragging but some solid parts. Not the best film but not many blockbusters are, great gateway into contemporary Russian cinema, give it a whack 5/10

CINEMATES - A

Brad's Status (2017)

Brad is a 40-something American living a ordinary life with his wife, and son Troy. He has a pretty good job, a pretty good home… a pretty good life. He goes on a trip with his son to look at his possible future colleges, and because of certain circumstances along the way, he ends up getting back in touch with some old, arguably - more successful friends, and then starts to doubt himself and his life choices.

What a good plot for an easy watching comedy, with Ben Stiller in, right?

Wrong.

I mean, the story was fine, and this was played out well. It had a message behind it, which you understand throughout, you are experiencing everything with Brad, as we get a glimpse inside his mind. We get a visual representation of his thoughts, and sometimes this is where the humour is. Thinking about it though, I genuinely didn’t find this that funny. I think I belly laughed once, and after that I didn’t even let out an amused ‘snort’. To be honest, Brad annoyed me. He was being a massive whiney bastard. He kept talking about how great he had it, and then kept convincing himself he could be better, but he didn’t try and do anything about this, at any point in his life… B O R I N G.

This film was so SO badly paced. It was getting on for 2 hours long, and my god did it feel like it. I felt like I was in the cinema for a decade. The cast looked so great, and I was sure that this was going to give it a boost, but it didn’t. I mean, of course Ben Stiller was fine – he’s Ben Stiller, he knows his way around a light-hearted comedy. Mike White – WE DIDN’T EVEN HEAR HIM SPEAK. He’s a genius, and he didn’t even write himself into this properly, the one redeeming feature I thought this film was going to have just wasn’t there.

Of course, though we had Martin Sheen (DISH). Again, we just don’t get a lot of him. But we got a decent chunk towards the end of the film, and he did his job. We learn about his character throughout, and hear stories about things he’s said, or done previously, and the kind of person he is, and it’s nice to actually meet this character, and then see that the actor is playing up to what is let be honest, pretty much the job description for this casting, but done well.

I think the biggest thing that kept me going through this was Austin Abrams. His performance wasn’t phenomenal, because there wasn't much space for a stand-out performance... but he played a bored, grumpy, pissed off at my dad for flirting with my friends, 17-year-old well. He was also 100% the funniest, maybe that’s because I understood him, and his character wasn’t overly cringe.

The score in this was annoying, it was like elevator music, but the elevator stops for too long at each floor with the door open, and a cold wind comes in. Irritating.

Sure, it was a pretty film, but nothing was shot exceptionally well.

This film was bad, because I was bored. It’s a comedy, and I was bored. Honestly, this was all down to the fact that it was all over the place. There was no structure, and it really showed. I don’t think I’d never watch this again.

3.5/10

CINEMATES - S 

Molly's Game (2018)

You may not have heard of her before this film but Molly Bloom but her story is pretty damn cinematic. Olympic skier has a tough fall, taken out of the sport and decides to take a gap year before going to law school and stumbled her way into an exclusive poker club. She ends up being a total queen and running her own million dollar poker night in multiple locations in America, not without problems like Russian mafia and the FBI. Sounds sick right? Well she wrote a book and now we have this baby in the cinemas. 

I can't believe I went that long without talking about Jessica Chastain. She is outstanding in this. And the more I think about her the more I think she is a fantastic actor all round. She's been in some great stuff and made some great creative choices. Loved her in The Help (2011) as well as Interstellar (2014) and The Martian (2015). (And look out for Painkiller Jane she will be perfect). The film is narrated by Bloom, and Chastain captures that well, she engages with the audience immediately and maintains that. Will say quickly as well, the teenage version of her was also fantastic and really captured the character's tone the same as Chastain. Samantha Isler played a younger version of Bloom to a T and helped build her life up until when we find her. 

The direction was great, Aaron Sorkin, known for writing some bloody good stuff, The West Wing, A Few Good Men (1992) and The Social Network (2010) to name a few, knocks it out of the park with his directorial debut. Though I imagine he had a helping hand from Kevin Costner who played Bloom's father but also has experience in directing. Costner was great, believable amount of pushy vs supportive parent and brought a justifiable means to Blooms resentment. There is a great scene with Costner and Chastain in which they bounce off each other well which was quite touching.

Idris Elba OR SHOULD I SAID I-DISH ELBA. What a dish. Attractive man, attractive character. He plays Charlie Jaffey, Bloom's lawyer, father and purposely good and high in morals for a lawyer without being too preachy. His interactions with Chastian actually get a few laughs, there's some natural back and forths between them both quietly and with louder outbursts. Really the whole cast was pretty great. 

The poker team have a few different memorable characters, Michael Cera plays 'Player X' / a fictional self. A famous actor that plays poker as a means of pushing his power around more than his money. It's not confirmed who this actually is but it's interesting to think about the amount of powerful players in the early noughties that would throw their money around on the table. 

It was well shot, well edited with good sound mixing. I think though long I enjoyed the narrative choice and how we flipped between the present and the past. They integrated the past with the lessons learnt well and we were never rushed in between locations or times. The costumes we great, sometimes its hard to notice a time different when a film is set so recently, essentially the main noticeable difference is the mobile phones. They have buttons. The costumes and makeup were gorgeous, they drip with expense and risk as the underground poker games do. There's a slight grittiness to the game, the smoke and grumbles which make the games feel more validated. 

I haven't yet read the book, though now I intend to, so I can't say how good of an adaption it is but it is a great screenplay. Perfect choice of formatting for the story. Yes it is long but you honestly don't really notice. 7/10

CINEMATES - A