My Friend Dahmer (2017)

Completely intrigued by this because of course I am. It's about one of the most famous serial killers in the last 40 years. My Friend Dahmer is based on a graphic novel (by the same name) by artist John 'Derf' Backderf. It follows Backderfs relationship with Dahmer through high school until graduation and his first murder.

If you've not heard of him (how?) his first of many murders was committed in the late 70's. Ever notice that films set in the 60's and 70's are always muted? The colours are full. As if they've aged even when they haven't yet. The decor of course look dated to us though the high school, minus the clothes and prom, still look relatively recent. Costume was great, hair and make up must have had a field day with his glorious yet terrible hair. Same goes for the roadkill and acid filled jars. The sound was subtle, the score was gentle and rare. When it made an appearance if highlighted the potential severity of the scene. It elicited the same feeling as a good horror score would fear. There were a few uncomfortable scenes, not due to gore but social anxiety preemptive disgust, A few occasions you get second hand embarrassment. In a way to get attention Dahmer parodied a gentleman with cerebral palsy and pretends to have fits on the floor. It would be uncomfortable then but due to us as a society moving away from humour in mimicking disabled people it's even more awkward to see. 

Some of the shots were quite interesting. A few of the opening shots were notable shot well. I recently read the graphic novel out of interest and some of the frames were taken shot for shot, as were parts of the dialogue. Which would make sense as a lot of the conversations actually happened. Some of the shots were a little distant, the film isn't to change your opinion on Dahmer it's to give you more information. So a lot of the shots are for observation and to put space in between him and everyone around him. Wasn't incredible but did what it should have. 

So Dahmer himself is played by Ross Lynch. Recognise the name? Me neither, he's a Disney boy and I'm just too old for when he was in power. Yep star of Austin & Ally is now a serial killer. Props to him. I thoroughly enjoy actors choosing more unique and out there roles, especially when they're young. Same goes for Alex Wolff who plays Backderf. Previous Disney lad now in this and upcoming Hereditary (2018). Doing very different roles, moving away from Disney strongly. Either way I was impressed. Lynch was creepy and yet still had an air of adolescence about him. He had a moments of experienced faux confidence mixed with genuine confusion and loss. The key in the character, and the person, before the crimes was his loneliness. And that's captured well. 

Granted it does feel a little serial killer 101, playing with dead animals and being that weird kid that people laughed at or avoided at school. But that's how it was. If you have the opportunity to read the graphic novel I'd recommend it, it's online. It's a unique perspective that doesn't have a great deal of narrative. That is the purpose of it, that its a lead up to a notorious killers first murder. Without that it would be a semi artsy film of a troubled young man with no help or direction that just made people uncomfortable. Without the biopic qualities it's a somewhat average film. The reason it's so interesting to watch is due to the reality of it. 

Keep in mind it's not a traditional horror, drama biopic is more accurate. 6/10 for the film 8/10 for the total experience. Definitely worth reading more into if you're interested in character over story. 

CINEMATES - A

You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Let's get to the point, I'm disappointed. Joaquin Phoenix as a gun for hire specialising in retrieving children from sex trafficking. Sounds hard hitting right? Eh.

So the premise was enough to intrigue me, awful topics always do. But it's not thaaaaat bad? Of course it is, some big 'important' men are swaping children, that's horific, but it never really hit me. I might be harden by other film/documentaries handling the topic in a heavier way but it didn't quite sicken me. I know, it sounds ridiculous. But I was expecting to wince, to squirm in my seat to be uncomfortable. Some people have been. But personally, sounds awful but with a topic that sensitive it wasn't as heavy as it could have been. I think part of this is due to the rating. It's a 15 in the UK, that has some restrictions though all cut's of the film passed. I missed the violence. Along with the abuse themes the violence was often implied instead of shown. Seeing clips of Phoenix as our main man Joe tentatively selecting which hammer to use gave me a bizarre sense of expectation that didn't follow through. I understand not using violence just for the sake of violence but the main character is described as a gun for hire. There are some graphic images yes but depending on how much violence you've seen in the past I don't believe it would be as jarring as it would to others. 

A big selling point for me was Phoenix. His stary eyes yo. The character wasn't what I was anticipating. They gave him a softer side, made him more human, somewhat deflated. Clearly cares for the children outside of the money. But he cares for his mother as much as needed. We are given abrupt flashbacks of his childhood, a violent scene with his parents. We never get that satisfying moment where we get the flashback in full. I guess to show that all of his actions aren't just based on one moment 30 years ago. They are just that he has a lot of moments. Kind of a shame it didn't follow that cliche because it is satisfying. It makes you wonder why it's really in the film. If it were removed there would probably be less questions to be honest. 

Ekaterina Samsonov plays the kidnapped young teen that Joe is looking to rescue. She is great, has sad habits from her abuse. Though she is very subtle about it, she really captured the lack of innocence in her character. 

Categorised as film noir, and it is, I was interested in the cinematography. There are a lot of silhouettes and contrasts. I enjoyed the intimacy of some of the shots. Combined with the editing some of the shots feel loud. HEY IT'S ME THE NEXT SHOT. The sound obviously helps with the abrasion. Think Drive (2011) but rougher. There some techno sounding moments that almost sound like they're being played backwards or at just the wrong speed. This feeling increases as the film progresses. It's cut with the diegetic sound cut well.

There were some beautiful moments. No spoilers but there is a scene that appears on some of the posters in water which is quite peaceful, considering the context. It doesn't spoon feed you which is complementary to the audience. But I think is almost too gentle with some of it's points. Being only one hour 30 it's not that long for a feature and again, for a feature dealing with this type of topic. 

I wanted something that would stick after the viewing and for me it didn't have the lasting effect I wanted. Great ideas not as great execution 6/10

CINEMATES - A

Red Sparrow (2018)

I got to catch this earlier this week, Spy drama, with what appeared to be notable similarities to Marvel's Black Widow and her Russian back story. Jennifer Lawrence stars as Dominika Egorova an ex-prima ballerina that is coerced by her uncle to be a part of a secret intelligence service training, Sparrow School. Ooo Russian spy school, cool right? Um, kind of.

Now I've not read the book by Jason Matthews (who is former CIA by the way) so I don't know how it compares, but I'd like to think there's a thin line of reality somewhere in there. Whether that's just in the portrayal of CIA, fine. The graze over Russian politics went over my head which is fine to me, as did the accents. I can't say I've heard a real Russian accent to clarify if Lawrence's portrayal is accurate. Plus Russia is huge there's probs alottalotta accents. 

The Sparrow School has notoriety of being a sex school. Adult students, men and women, learn how to seduce the enemy to get what they want. When our protagonist is first introduced, Matron, played by Charlotte Rampling (who reminds me of the Dean in Monsters University (2013)) explains what shes up against. You will learn how to make sacrifices, to manipulate, to fight, to identify your targets weakness and use it against them. Sounds really interesting but we don't actually get to see that training. We had a montage which is them watching porn and a couple people shooting a gun in the distance. This is heavily reliant on abrupt sex talk and nudity. Fine, I get it, it's a people thing, but man show us some of the other cool things. How do I know Dominika can wield any weapons? How do I know she has any skills whatsoever other than taking her clothes off? We see the single skill of picking a lock but otherwise, a bit of waste of spy stuff to be honest. 

The sex stuff was a bit rash because it wasn't sexy, even the intentionally sexy bits. The first 'sex' we see, is forced and it is not the only time we see someone attack our main gal. It's seen as a form of power and in no way to be personal or intimate, just a tool to get whatever it is you're after. So when they try to get sexy with Joel Edgerton, who's starting to look pretty daddy might I add, there isn't as much chemistry there as we'd like. But maybe that's the point, the brutality means that the two attractive people doing it still isn't sexy, we're too far gone for that. 

It looks alright, a lot of greys and dulled colours, inner cities and grand hotels. Many uniforms of course, set in the present the costumes isn't really much to go on. Same goes for hair, though makeup is interesting. The film does have violence, being rated a 15 here in the UK they made active decisions to discuss with the rating board to get a lower rating. There's a few fight scenes and body shots, we see a dead body after torture. Then later in the film we see the torture actually happen, though cleverly always just out of the shot until after the act. To be honest not too extreme, the sexual violence was, standard violence wasn't. 

Lawrence was alright, though it can be hard to judge acting when a character is acting. We believe she cares for her mother but the whole thing is about whether or not she's lying, who's side is she on. I think there are particular scene in which she shows herself as powerful and not just the character. Joel Edgerton was good, though comes across earnest and honest, which isn't what I would think CIA agent should be. He does show some skills and I think he's getting a good variety of roles. Jeremy Irons was good, his character arc was fun, his accent I don't really know what it was. Alright all round. 

The film is long, 2 hours 19 minutes though to be completely honest it didn't actually feel that long. There was some odd pacing, to try and keep the illusion of mystery and spies and whatnot you didn't really know when the crescendo was or what it would be. The ending was somewhat satisfying, which is what  you want from any film. 

Not bad, I'd probably leave it on the telly if I stumbled across it again. It was nice to see Lawrence interested in her work a little more than X Men Apocalypse (2016). Not completing boring but a lot of wasted potential 6/10

CINEMATES - A

Lady Bird (2017)

So this was finally released in the UK, luckily just before the 2018 Academy Awards. All I'd heard about this film was 'coming of age story' and Oscar nominated. That doesn't sound that thrilling to me but alright. Found out it's a film from A24 and became more interested in Greta Gerwig's directorial debut. 

Lady Bird, played by Saoirse Ronan, a name she gave herself in her rebellious teenage phase, is in the last year of highschool navigating her way to university. She has her first serious boyfriend, that doesn't work out, has her first big fall out with her best friend, that of course comes back around. Becomes popular for the first time, has sex for the first time and has her biggest argument with her mother for the first, and hopefully last time. 

Saoirse Ronan is 3rd time Oscar nominated and at such a young age that's an amazing feat. Her accent is good, her character is annoying but just about likeable over that. I mean teenagers are annoying, we all were, she's not meant to be great, teenagers are dumb and that's okay. She argues with her mum and you just think, was that necessary? Did you have to talk back to her? Did you have to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal? You watch her self-sabotage her relationship with her mum and you wonder whether it was worth it. To me it seemed a bit extreme but I imagine many related to that type of relationship. They have some heartfelt conversations about it which definitely emulate mother daughter relationships.

Lady Bird's parents are great, very real, their relationship strained with money issues and of course tensions of Lady Bird leaving the nest. Laurie Metcalfe is wonderful as her mother, really hits the honesty that I think mum's have where they don't humour you. Tracy Letts is a great father figure, shows some vulnerability which adds to the authenticity of the relationships he has with his wife, Lady Bird and his son, Miguel. 

The young cast are all likable in spite of their immaturities, and that's often where the jokes come from. Timothee Chalamet is fantastic of course, a little douchey but honest, typical teenage boy. He has a great line to Lady Bird in which he says, 'you're gonna have so much unspecial sex in your life'.  Which I think is quite honest for what is essentially a teen drama/comedy. Lucas Hedges was also very sweet as Lady Bird's first love and they maintain a relationship throughout though it may not be exactly what she was looking for to begin with. And gotta give props to Beanie Feldstein who is a great best friend, is so sweet and likeable you feel like you've watched her before. I imagine she'll be in a lot more than just Bad Neighbours 2 (2016).

The film looked nice sure, there were a few subtleties as the film was set in 2002. Mostly fashion and mobile phones date the film but they do discuss 9/11 in a slightly different way than we do now. Most of A24's films I've found have a prominent use of natural lighting and this is no different. The music was also great and again a nod to the time which is now scarily 16 years ago. It's also pretty well edited, you don't notice it too much but that's a good sign. 

I thought this film may be quite unlike any other other Best Picture nominees but Call Me By Your Name (2017) is a beautiful telling of teenage love which arguable boasts more relatable in the realm of heartbreak. It also follows the relationship with his parents, albeit it a different one to Ladybird but still has that coming of age difficulty. I'd recommend both, though Lady Bird does have some sad moments it is more light hearted overall.

Both moving, both incredible, both Oscar nommed. 7/10 for Ladybird surprisingly funny, and pretty damn touching. 

CINEMATES - A

I, Tonya (2018)

As a young girl, Tonya Harding is pushed by her Mother to do better. She goes through life being told she isn’t a good skater, she hasn’t got any style, she isn’t typically attractive, and battles with the feeling that she isn’t good enough. This doesn’t make her any less determined to succeed though.

I, Tonya tells the story of Tonya Harding’s controversial career, and focusses on her traumatic past. The film pays attention to her relationship with her ex-husband Jeff, and the attack that was carried out on her main competition – Nancy Kerrigan. I, Tonya focusses on her point of view, and how all these events ended up being the thing that determined how she would be remember, and how her career would pan out.

The tone of this film is established right from the beginning. We get to understand immediately that this is going to be something that tries to make no specific truth claims, and incorporates the different stories of 3 key characters. For me, this was perfect. I don’t think it could have been done in a better way.

My biggest issue with biographical productions, is the fact that they are always going to be far from the truth at some point, but this is never acknowledged. I, Tonya makes this account of Tonya’s life comical. Any claims to events were knocked down straight away by sarcastic, on the nose comments along the lines of, ‘that’s how I remember that happening’, and ‘what that person is saying is probably not true’. The mockumentary style that this film takes on suits in perfectly, and really helps ensure this film holds its own style, and has decent pacing.

Aside from the screen writing being spot on for the direction this film is going in, the reason for this film’s success is without a doubt the cast. Margot Robbie portrayal of this character is brilliant. Even though Tonya is portrayed negatively in some scenes, the dark comedy manages to lighten the mood, and doesn’t make her seem like such a monster. It was inspiring to see Robbie playing a role that seemed different from other roles she has previously taken, and do it well. 

                           

Alison Janney presents Harding’s mother as a witch, but a good witch, I guess. Yes, we see that she is nothing but harsh towards Tonya, and I imagine at some points she was. But again, the dark humour just gives the character a different edge. If LaVona really did throw a knife at her teenage daughter’s arm, you can at least try and empathise. Of course, this account isn’t displayed as one given by a Mother who would drown her daughter in obvious love and affection, but what parent hasn’t acted in an unreasonable (maybe not AS extreme) way to show they care!?

The score for this film was thoughtfully selected based on the music of Tonya Harding’s choice for competitions. Similarly, this really suited the mood throughout the film. Really, although an amusing film, there were some difficult real issues in this. It was a film about an angry, disregarded teenager, who spent a chunk of her life getting beaten and songs such as ‘The Passenger’, and ‘Free your Mind’ were incredibly suitable. It is hard for figure skating to look bad, and of course, the editing had to play a part here, in making sure everything was as perfect as it could be, and team on this film did a pretty stellar job.

Of course, this film is not perfect, but it was entertaining. It had such potential to be a lot worse than it was – ‘cringe-worthy’ even, but it was far from it.
I would happily watch this again, and believe it is deserving of the academy award nominations it has received.

7/10

CINEMATES - S

Phantom Thread (2017)

Set in 1950's London, Reynolds Woodcock, Daniel Day-Lewis, is a renowned dressmaker whose fastidious life is disrupted by a young, strong-willed woman, Alma, who becomes his muse and lover. Now let me just make you aware of a couple things. First off, this is one of the Oscar nominated films that I watched after the nominations were announced, which I believe makes a difference going in. And also that if it weren't for the 6 noms and this being Daniel Day-Lewis' final film I wouldn't have watched it. 

In general, personally, I'm not keen on period dramas. Being set in the 1950's Phantom Thread has a distinctive style for costume and makeup, especially so due to it it following Woodcock a somewhat compulsive dressmaker. 90% of the film in take place in the one location, his home and workshop, a large victorian style home. Best way to describe the visuals are eggshell. Imagine a clean off white and you've imagined the theme of the film. It was crisp and purposeful, as if mimicking measurements for dresses. The sound was there almost every frame, it was wonderfully edited to silence on occasion. Rightfully nominated for best music this Oscar season. 

Our man Daniel Day-Lewis in what he says is his final film, sounds pretty daunting but he's decided to retire. Well known for his many Oscar acknowledgments (3 nominations and 3 wins) and his method acting so he is of course very good in this. The character is annoying, he's an aged perfectionist that is set in his ways because his ways work and no one has told him otherwise. He lives with his sister, Cyril, played by Lesley Manville is attuned to him and the business. She has a fine balance of pandering to him and keeping him in check, exactly that of a sister, defensive of others but happy to call him out herself. She is powerful and clashes with Alma, Woodcock's new partner, earning herself a Best Supporting Actress nomination. 

Vicky Krieps plays Alma, a waitress become muse for Reynolds Woodcock and his dresses. She is younger and stubborn, wants to open Woodcock up to a slightly different day to day and he does not hide his annoyance to that. She was good, she felt familiar though I haven't seen her in anything else as of yet. She was the most relatable though she was treated like a child. And in fairness when she gets to the end of her tether she behaves as such in punishing Woodcock for his behaviour. She wants him to suffer in a way that means he needs her, she wants a purpose as he so vocally denies it. 

The change of relationship between them, their back and forth, is difficult. You can't quite justify the benefits but they find a way to. No spoilers but the agreement they have in the end is an odd one. Somewhat romantic idea though a bit twisted, didn't fulfill me and my time invested in the story but I imagine a lot of people are happy with it. 

Good send off for Day-Lewis, great big break for Vicky Krieps, deserves most of the Oscar noms. 7/10

CINEMATES - A

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

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 

Wonder (2017)

Wonder, is the story of young boy August Pullman, who until fifth grade is home schooled by his mum. He suffers from a genetic disease which causes his facial differences. The story explains the difficulties he faces as a child who isn’t quite ordinary, and the effect this has on his family and others in his life.

The trailer for this film shows you everything already, right? No, it doesn’t. I was definitely happy about this for starters. The way the story is split definitely helps give this story some further depth. So, for example it’s not just a story from the point of view of August. We start of learning about him, then how this affects his sister, Via – here we get to learn more about her experiences past and present. Next we move on to Via’s best friend Miranda. After this we learn about Jack Will, another young boy who is in the same form class as August at school, and so on. There is a nice chunk of character development throughout this film, which means it straight away reduces the risk of the story becoming disjointed.

To be fair, it is well written. It is paced fine, though for a film of this genre – seems to be quite long. I can’t say that this is a bad thing though. I really think this level of development is crucial for it to have any effect on the audience. It is a touching story, and the way it is structure is good.

The cast in this film do deserve serious credit. As well as the team of make-up artists, whose work although not breath-taking, was pretty damn good.

There are numerous moving moments, and if you are even the slightest bit emotional, you will cry at least once. Again, something that shows this film has done it’s job, you leave feeling disappointed that people can actually treat people in a way August is treated. This is because you have truly connected with the characters on screen. The chemistry between Owen Wilson and Julia Roberts was perfect. You could tell that they had a strong bond as parents because of all they had been through with their family and their child. You could see the strains the past, and current events were putting on relationship’s such as Robert’s character, as the mother, and her daughter. As well as this, you could see the August was a young boy who just had difficult things going on – like kids do, and he wanted his dad to help him out of it.

Of course, the way certain characters are portrayed is dramatized, and in some scenes it got too much. For example, the way children were shown as being incredibly mean – yes, I am completely aware things like this do happen in society, but not to the extent that it was emphasised in this film, necessarily. By that – I don’t mean, people just are mean in such a way, I mean it as there are 5 or 6 kinds of people in the world, and events don’t always occur in the way they do in Wonder.

But, whatever, if you want nit-picking, that’s my criticism. It’s a fictional story – admittedly, it claims to be based on a true illness etc. but there are, from what I’m aware, no true events on which this film is based.

I liked this film. I think it is moving, inspiring, and it made me feel all sorts of things. I recommend this film, and I’m sure I’ll be watching this again.

6.5/10

CINEMATES - S

Suburbicon (2017)

I honestly don’t know where this review is going to go, because I am just so confused. You know when you head into a film screening, having read the synopsis beforehand… but come out even more curious and clueless that you were to begin with? Suburbicon is one of those films.

Before going in, I was sure this was a film – BASED ON WHAT THE INTERNET DESCRIPTIONS SAID, about a family who had to deal with a lot, due to difficulties arising in Suburbicon, and Matt Damon played a ‘Liam Neeson in Taken-esque’, super-dad that kicked ass. I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE WRONG.

I honestly can’t say that this was a bad surprise though, because I can’t think of a film that I have experienced, which is anything like this. I’m going to try and keep this review as generic as possible because of the fact that the synopsis seems to do the same (This film can be spoiled in a second, so I am going to attempt to skip detail where I can).

Suburbicon is the story of an all-white American town/community living situation, in which everything is very calm, and running like clockwork. Nothing bad happens in Suburbicon. Everyone lives in perfect little houses, with a white picket fence, a back porch, a decent sized garden - you get the drift. Then suddenly, things begin to go downhill in the town, and the Lodge family are the ones that are suffering because of this.

The thing that I took away from this film was the awfully random, ill-fitting, unexplained part of the story involving a black American family moving into the town. It was a story about a town of racists in parts. I understand that due to the era this film was meant to be set in, and it being an all-white living area, it makes sense that the event of a black family moving in, will cause conflict. Yes, you can assume that the reason the horrific events that occur, supposedly (from the point of view of the citizens) occurs as a direct result of 3 black people suddenly moving in to the area. But this is just such a disjointed part of the plot, and honestly brings nothing to the story whatsoever, and in fact just confused the plot. As well as it confusing the story, it’s just such a bad depiction of such an event. We have tonnes of films incorporated this theme, and doing something creative with it. The creativity that seemed to be attempted was a giant flop.

The story itself, obviously ignoring this part was gripping. I liked the theme that was chosen, I like how dark it was, and I liked the (possibly) unintentional comedy. Matt Damon plays an awkward Psycho, and his performance surprised me, as it was one that I enjoyed. 

The progression of the story was quick, which was both good and bad. It was good, because it meant it was well paced, overall. I didn’t feel like the film was too long, or too short. It certainly lacked detail, but it was still fine to watch. The setting, at the start of the film, reminded me of the beginning of Edward Scissorhands, so at that point made me feel a bit worried, because that setting can be used badly. In this case, I think it was used well, and it complimented the story… Especially as I thought I was going in to see a TOTALLY different film. But it gradually started to impress me.

The greatest fault that this film has, besides the story, is the script. The script in this film was boring. It was not ‘meaty’, for lack of a better word. I would have written this film off had it not been for the cast, who - on the whole, did the job. This was also the case for the score. Although the score is DEFINITELY not noteworthy, there was one, and it worked with what we were seeing on screen.

Suburbicon is a film that starts off incredibly slowly, and then increasingly becomes more tense, more gritty, and more worth the watch.

5.5/10

CINEMATES - S 

The Florida Project (2017)

I went into this as an Odeon screen unseen, I had never heard of it at this point. Going in completely blind. The opening was bright and sunny and had natural seeming kids running around. The first thing I noticed was how often the name Sean Baker came up on screen. I do preemptively judge a film if I see that one person has an unmatched level of involvement. As many independent filmmakers, Baker directed, produced, wrote and edited The Florida Project. He also did the same for Tangerine (2015) a film that made a mark due to being shot entirely with iPhones. I believe this can affect the showing of a story sometimes, like tunnel vision, having a secondary opinion can make a difference.

This for the most part was ignored until the end. The 'story' if you want to call it that, follows Moonee a 6 year old girl who lives in a motel room with her mum and runs around over summer making friends and causing trouble. The film doesn't have much of a narrative, more a social commentary of Florida's lower class residents. It plays like a memory or a diary of someone who grow up in those conditions. Because I think you do find yourself wondering not just how it will end but when. It's hard to pace something that isn't necessarily going anywhere.

The cast was great, the only big recognisable face was Wilem Dafoe, the motel owner, and father to the building. I have always thought he's a wonderful actor and he does make a point of choosing quite dissimilar roles. He has the fine balance of being at wits end with the children and protecting them dearly. Moonee is played by young Brooklyn Prince, sweet and annoying in equal measure just like a normal 6 year old. She sporadically uses language and attitude as if shes in her twenties, a clear notation of how much time she's spent with her mother, who treats her like a friend more than her daughter. Bria Vinaite, the mother, Halley, is again a natural. Being her first feature length and first film in general its easier to see her as the character as we don't know anything else. It seemed so genuine that I would struggle to see her in any other way with any other accent. The rest of the cast are similar, the children young and real but still showing the traits of their respective parental figure.

The cinematography was gorgeous. Natural lighting was apparent from the get go, lots of sunrises and sunsets colouring the frame with warm reds and orange evenings. The motel was a giant purple building, a man made backdrop to a lot of scenes. Moonee and her friend Jancey have free reign of outside but inside we only have a few rooms as motels do. The few locations mimic their lives of having a bedroom and a bathroom and nothing else. The sound does the same, no score or music in the film until the final scene. Everything gives a raw documentary feel to it.

My only beef was the end of the film. And I'm sure many others feel the same. People in the cinema laughed out loud then asked amongst themselves, is that gonna be the end? Then when the credits rolled there was audible groans. It's the first piece of music we have from the film and its a dampened down version of Cool and the Gang's 'Celebration'. No spoilers but the film ends in Disney World and you can tell this not just due to the iconic castle but due to Baker obviously not wanting to pay for consent to film professionally. The footage goes from smooth wonderfully coloured shots to jagged phone footage. It's abrupt and kind of undercuts the visual world that had been created.

Subtle social commentary on the poor people living so close to the money making Disney World and it's ever coming tourists. A definite eyeopener to the status that some people live though somewhat disappointing ending. If you're open minded and like your artsy films, a solid 7/10 otherwise you might find the lack of conclusion frustrating.

CINEMATES - A

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

From the first time I saw this trailer, I was genuinely excited about this release. I feel there hasn’t been a decent looking feel good film for a while, and Call Me by Your Name seemed to be one with a refreshing story to get me even more excited.

Call Me by Your Name is a film set in 1983 about the Perlman family, who every year have doctoral student stay with them every year. This year, Oliver comes to stay with them and work with the Father of our main character, Elio – a seventeen-year-old boy. Over the time they spend together all summer, they discover a mutual passion which is seemingly something new for Elio.

First things first, this film is beautiful. It’s such a great film to look at, Guadagnino has certainly realised the ticket to this film’s success and taken full advantage of it. There is so much focus on the beauty of the Italian buildings, the relaxing family breakfasts, the views out in the countryside when Elio and Oliver are out on a bike ride, the lunchtime banquets in the garden, the massive group games of volleyball – you get the picture, it was summer, and it is what makes this a feel good film. There’s something about seeing these kinds of scenes on the big screen that taps into so many different emotions for me.

The score was beautiful, it was probably one of my favourite aspects because it tied in so perfectly with the different things the characters were going through, and the events that you were watching. It really connected all the events on screen together. The only way I can describe this feeling, is by saying that it felt like I was part of the experience with Elio. It perfectly helped the transition between scenes, and I do not think this is a feature that was overused.

There really was attention to detail in this film, and the script in part was surprising. It was filled with comedy, sadness and drama. Conversely, there are a great deal of silences – some of these filled with the great pieces of music, but some that are just truly chilling. For this to work an excellent cast is needed, and that is definitely what this film has. Excluding Hammer, I was clueless about the rest of the cast, but went home desperate to find out what else I might see Chamalet in.

This is definitely a must see film. Not in the sense of – ‘I couldn’t keep my eyes off the screen, so much is happening’, but the opposite. It’s easy, it’s pleasant, it’s an extremely emotional story that will make you feel all kinds of things. I will be seeing this again, and encourage others to do so too.

7/10.

CINEMATES - S

Home Again (2017)

Romantic Comedy Home Again, follows Reese Witherspoon and her family as she embraces newly separated life in LA. She meets 3 young men who begin living in her guest house.

Romcom but kinda just Rom, it's not very funny. There are moments when you can tell there's meant to be a joke and it just doesn't quite meet you. Never offensive but should just be a romance film with some smiles.

I think it was lazily written. As expected it was predictable, and that's okay, that's the point of films like this. Very much a string of coincidences and 'do you believe in destiny' type things going on. It was a very optimistic idea of 20 something year old men, believable? Absolutely. But just as before, a little too easy. I think Witherspoon's Alice had some lines that were spot on, but almost too perfect, as if they were the things you thought of after an argument in the shower not what you said on the spot. But hey maybe that's just how you speak when you're 40, maybe that's intentional.

The cast were good, I mean Reese Witherspoon has expanded in her career but in this instance is back just being, 'woman'. The character doesn't have all that much depth, possibly because we're told about 'her' life directly in the opening sequence and then that's it. You're kinda of left to rely on stereotypes a little bit. Not many characters have much development because there's quite a few of them. They struggle to give the lads strong individuality, and though there's a lot of talk of the soon to be ex-husband, Austen, there's no addition information from Michael Sheen being there in person.

There was a fair bit of unnecessary 'story', Alice having a new job was something and nothing. It tried to pushed the single mum doing it for herself aspect but you just don't relate because there's no risk. It's very first world problem to the point of boring. As is most elements of the film.

It's shot alright it sounds alright but with this type of film there's not where it needs to excel. The priority needs to be with connecting with the audience. We don't have the cliche best friend for us to bounce off of. They highlight the youth of the love interest by basically putting him down to nothing but being cute and not having aged pessimism yet. Which sure is the case for a lot of twenty somethings but it shouldn't be the case for a developed character.

I'd probably leave it on tv until the adverts then change the channel. Fans of romantic movies might give this more of a pass but it was underwhelming as best 4/10 and that's including the attractive men.

CINEMATES - A

mother! (2017)

Right let's get stuck in. Not a horror and not for the majority of the public. Darren Aronofsky is known for being a bit weird and pushing the boat out and that he does. From the trailers it appears almost like a home invasion and gives very little away. Javier Bardem and his wife Jennifer Lawrence live in a large house, he gets serious writers block and is happy to let strangers who are fans of his writing into their home, much to J Law's dismay. 

Not a great of narrative here I'm not gonna lie to you. This takes a lot of text from the bible. And the idea of Earth/Mother(!) Nature. The two guests come in and the wife tempts Bardem like Eve with an apple, their two sons arrive like Cain and Abel and fight and we know how that ends. Lawrence is used pretty much as a vessel for Bardem's baby, who is then treated like Jesus once born. If you've ever been in a church and had to drink some wine and have some bread or a cracker you're gonna know how this guy turns out. Throughout the film Lawrence sees a frog like the plague and water rains in the house like Noah's ark. Alongside the idea that Lawrence is playing Mother Earth. She's redoing the house, wanting to make her own paradise, with us pesky humans coming in and ruining it. Guests literally laugh in her face when she says it's 'her' house even though she's very clearly at one with it. I'm sure there's many other connections that went over my head but none seemed to have a goal. 

This is a no spoilers review, so I'll be pretty general. Though a spoiler suggests there's a twist or plot that I could ruin but there's not really a narrative give a surprise to. As for creepy or uncomfortable, I was expecting more. Just more frequency. There's a single cliche of closing a door and someone being stood behind but other than that, no real jarring scenes until the end. There's a long scene of Jennifer Lawrence in the house trying to find her husband and escape which descends quickly into a riot. Watching a heavily pregnant woman surrounded by madness is uncomfortable to watch but it's only after the birth that things get worse.

The cast was good because I didn't like any of them. No one should be likeable here. Bardem's character is driven by vanity and fame and ignores everything his wife does for him. Any gratification he gives her is superficial, everything is for him, being able to write and being recognised for that. As the intrusion continues and Bardem becomes less and less caring and more delighted that there's a claustrophobic amount of people despite his wife's distress. He does show some emotion well but rarely inline with Lawrence's character. Performance good, character bad.

Lawrence was okay. She managed to show a slither of a personality from a lack of character. I know she's an Academy Award winner but she sometimes appears as if she hates the fact shes there, like a kid grumpy they're in a lesson they don't like. But this doesn't come through too much here, her character slowly tries to build a backbone and stand up for what she wants instead of waiting for her husband to sort it for her. Though quite pathetic she is the most relatable of the characters. It's as if she's living in a dream world and she's the only one that responses in a realistic way. She's frustrated when the first guest, Ed Harris, stays even with her clear discomfort. Annoyed that he smokes in the house when she specifically said not too, she responds to this by 'accidentally' knocking his lighter out of reach. Follows suit when Michelle Pfeiffer, his wife, arrives. She asks Lawrence personal questions invading her privacy physically and mentally and in turn Lawrence 'loses' some of her clothes when doing laundry. The petty actions are understandable and somewhat ground the bizarre world they're in. 

The cinematography was nice yes but not quite breathtaking. Appeared to be mostly natural lighting, very warm, not dissimilar to this year's It Comes at Night (2017). With the single location things can get close to boring. Themes of fire are laid heavily from the off, and this is continued with the imagery right to the end. The sound though was quite impressive but not the best I've heard this year.

If you're a fan of Aronofsky you're gonna be a slight bit more prepared and open to the film. It makes you never want to host a party and never want to marry Javier Bardem. As clever as it thinks it is it isn't satisfying enough to be that provocative. But hey maybe that's the point. 

It's not a horror its more like an annoyance. It's metaphor over story 5/10 

CINEMATES - A