First Man (2018)

First Man advertises as the first film to show the iconic astronaut, Neil Armstrong's mission to the moon. Which to be honest, surprised me a little. The amount of space films we have we don't often have ones based on the truth. In fact, bar the recent Hidden Figures (2016) off the top of my head none immediately spring to mind. That's a big part within this film, to show us something we've seen countless times but for real, for the first time.

It's a space film, it's science-non-fiction. There are some things that are always going to be interesting to shoot but that doesn't mean the director can get lazy with his work. Linus Sandgren is the cinematographer as he was for Damien Chazelle's Oscar winning La La Land (2016). There's a strong focus on natural organic shots. With at least 70% of the film taking place on Earth it still has to be natural and first and foremost dated. It's the 60's it needs to looks as such and it does. Hair and costume were good as were the vintage space equipment and vessels.

The editing went well with crisp contracts of locations. The muted almost somewhat warm offices and homes to the cold mechanical insides of the space shuttle. The cinematography was subtle. Used various handheld shots to mimic news reports, then used the same technique just slightly different to replicate home movies. Tying the shots with stationary views or image binded to the shuttle works well with the tranquility of space. The score was obviously beautiful. As expected Justin Hurwitz, who did the original music for La La Land (2016) and Whiplash (2014) delivers again for this. A lot of which is gentle but as the film goes on the score becomes more prominent as the frequency of space and moon shots. The mission itself has its own theme. Beautiful yet somewhat evocative. Manages to embody the journey, the sacrifice mixed with the accomplishments. Also big nod to the sound mixing, can't imagine that won't be recognised as award winning. The stark contracts were poignant and fitting as well as the use of real sample interviews. 

Now the cast sold me. When back when, when we were just told Chazelle, Gosling, Armstrong, I was in. To be fair, there wasn't a great deal to add to that. Gosling was fantastic as expected, he's getting the opportunity to flex his acting chops a little more and he's getting taken more and more seriously. The difficulty he had with the role was that he was playing a real person. It's not a character. And though Armstong is a world wide name he's not a world wide character. I think a lot of people would struggle to pick him out of a line up let alone know what his personality is. So yes Gosling can act, he's tern and quiet but speaks up when needed. He shows intelligences and interest as well as awe. All of which whilst mourning. He doesn't let his feelings overpower him except when he does. I imagine he may get an Oscar nom. 

Claire Foy on the other hand may actually win. She maintains the poise and authority that she's mastered in The Crown. She's herself alongside a wife and mother. She has some real powerful scenes with Gosling and it really makes you think about the pressure this situation would put on any relationship. The final wordless scene between the two of them felt so intimate and strong though it was just a small interaction between them. With no comparison to the real people I personally found Foy to be a more believable person.

It was overall a beautiful film. Well constructed story of a mans life during a period in which he made history. I wanted to like this more. I'm a fan of so many elements but I'm not jump to rewatch this as I did Chazelle's previous filmography. It's long. Towards the end of the film it kinda feels like the end of a long haul flight home, everything up to this point has been nice but you know whats going to happen next so you're just kinda waiting for the landing. 

Meticulously made, and deserves to be appreciated. Just not my favourite thing to come from any of the cast or crew. 7/10 

CINEMATES - A

The Shape of Water (2017)

The Shape of Water, where to begin. Again we were lucky enough to catch this early at an Odeon Screen Unsceen a few weeks ago. A Del Toro picture about a mute woman that forms a relationship with an otherworldly creature kept in a research facility in the 50's. When this first got a bit of buzz all I remember hearing was, a woman has sex with a fish man. That is a bit odd right? We'll get back to that but it's Del Toro so get over it.

Guillermo del Toro is known for his fantasy characters and settings and his peculiar stories. As per usual he has a story which embellishes the use of intricate costume and make up. And this is no exception. 

The 1950's setting is pretty perfect for the story, though we were given odd reminders. It's an interesting take that in the 50's two of the characters that have the most dialogue are a closeted gay man and a black woman. But in return the film handles the stigma towards each of them in an odd rashness that just isn't necessary to the narrative. Yes it happened and yes it should be accurate but was less than subtle on occasion and felt out of place at times. 

Now Oscar nominated Sally Hawkins plays our mute leading lady Elisa Esposito. She comes across quiet, not just because she can't talk but because she lets others do the talking. She has a routine and as we find out, a tragic backstory. She's quite quirky and has long accepted she can't speak but not quite accepted that people treat her differently. My gal Octavia Spencer is of course nominated for Best Support as Zelda, one of Elisa's two friends. Used to having a silent friend she does a great job in talking to herself and reacting to Elisa's lack of vocal reaction. Her other best friend relies on Elisa more than he realises, Giles, who lives next door though it may as well be together. Again Oscar nominated, are you sensing a theme? Richard Jenkins plays an older man who is struggling to get back into selling his art to advertisers. Struggling to be true to himself he, like Elisa, sees a part of him in the Amphibian Man and his treatment. Michael Stuhlbarg is fantastic, plays a character with a developed backstory and earns his likeability. Feels like he's the only aspect of the film to not get recognised by the academy, which is a shame as he really was great to watch. Michael Shannon is pretty damn engaging. He's pretty awful, pretty extra. Great character, power hunger aggressor in and out of work. Being the person that captured the Amphibian man he holds a level of possessiveness. 

The amphibian man, who is never named (not even when Elisa brings him home) is played by Doug Jones. At this point Doug must be bessie mates with Guillermo, his most well-known parts include, Abe Sapien from Hellboy (2008) and Fauno/Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth (2006). Outside of Del Toro's work he's played a lot of roles which are alien or monster or mutant, I hope he doesn't take that personally. But he's good at it. The creature begins just that, a creature, an animal, regardless of its potential intelligence we can't communicate. After Elisa begins to teach him basic sign language we see that he is capable of learning and remembers the humane habits she keeps. That's kind of the extent of his character development, anything further than that is more Elisa's feelings projected onto him. 

The relationship between Elisa and the creature is okay, you don't entirely buy into it but you kinda do. She has a thing for water so connecting that to sex isn't a great leap for her somehow. The distance put between her and most people due to her muteness isn't there with him as he's in the same position. And regards to the sex thing she very briefly discusses how it works, only see lady body parts I'm afraid. Though we see their relationship we see a biased version from her perspective and don't get to see how he feels throughout. But that's likely the point.

Racking up 13 academy award nominations the costume and makeup have got to get some attention. Both work well with the environment, Del Toro's use of practical effects comes as authentic and true. The artistic element to it is emphasised with the music and score, rightly so, has received many nominations. Beautifully fitting to the narrative and each scene, the highlight of the movie for me personally. 

I thought the ending was fitting. I felt oddly satisfied when the credits rolled which is all I want from a film. It is a good film, maybe a great film but 13 nominations feels almost excessive for something that isn’t quite timeless yet, but hey time will tell. Beautiful film worth a watch 7.5/10

CIINEMATES - A

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

Baby Driver (2017)

Spectacular. What a film should be. So our own Edgar Wright wrote and directed this original film about Baby, a young getaway driver trying to get out of the game with one last heist. Well written, well directed, well done Ed.

The cast was spectacular, and I'll openly admit that I'm bias for half of them. Ansel Elgort is perfect for Baby. I really enjoyed how much of the character is left for the film and isn't included in the trailer. We get to know him as a person and his life growing up gradually, as we should. He has a long time relationship with Kevin Spacey who plays Doc, the big man in charge. I think Kevin Spacey is hypnotising, he was in Se7en (1995), he was in A Bug's Life (1998) and this is no different. Jamie Foxx actually used to sit in and watch Spacey even when he didn't need to be on set, just to take in what he was doing. Very impressive man, but not to talk down Academy Awarding winning Foxx and his character Bats. Who is fun and threatening though in parts cliched, the character is still original to watch. I enjoy Jon Hamm in everything he does, check him out in 30 Rock and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, surprisingly funny. No spoilers but his character has the chance to show a range of emotion and he does. Also thoroughly enjoyed his partner, Darling, played by Ezia Gonzalez, a young actress that can definitely hold her own against the rest of the cast. There's a considerable number of characters and reasonable depth for each of them. Remember, they all have fake names, Doc, Baby, Buddy, Darling, Bats etc, the less we know about them the more we're treated like the other characters. Criminals need anonymity. 

OKAY SOUND TIME. Incredible. That's established in the trailer and the few promo clips. We listen to the sound with Baby as he listens to one of his many iPods. The scenes and editing are cut to the sound. The gunshots, the car door slams, the coffee cups placed on the table, all to the beat of the song playing. It changes if he's listening to one or both ear buds. As he has tinnitus if he's not listening to music there's a low ringing in the background, we're very much in his shoes and I love it. The editing really does highlight this and I'd be honestly shocked if there was no Oscar nod for sound mixing or sound editing. The music was an insightful selection for not only the scene but for the character. The opening sequence and what follows, establishes the theme of the film and then the character. We see Baby interact with the gang, his deaf foster father, his love interest Debora, and his parents, all with music. He uses it to connect with his past and communicate the present with his foster father Joseph. He uses it build up a barrier with the gang and to break it down with Debora. There's no secrets, it's all diegetic sound, we are there, we are included. 

The editing as I said is cut beautifully to the music, it crossed my mind that the editors must have had a great time putting this together. Both Paul Machliss and Jonothan Amos have been editors for many big British shows and have worked together before, as well as with Edgar Wright and it shows. There is a particular scene there the timing of the cut with the sound is reminiscent of a montage of Shaun leaving his house in Shaun of the Dead (2004). Just a small reminder of where this film has came from. The cinematographer, Bill Pope, has again has an impressive list of works including collaborations with Wright and the editors. Very stylistic but not distracting, going back to the opening sequence and the scene that follows, it was gorgeous and immerse. The entire film is almost interactive with the spectator. Great range of colour, great costumes, a few moments of day dreams which accentuate those aspects as well. 

It's an incredibly well rounded film. When you get an original screenplay that's what you should hope for, things said at the beginning making sense at the end. Characters having developments that we knew or that we didn't. It was really on purpose. The script was great, each character seemed like separate characters and their interactions are great. Not as funny as some of Wrights predecessors but still comedic moments. The dialogue felt fresh and natural for the most part. It had moments wherein a film references another films and it didn't feel too unwarranted or take you out of the moment. 

Couldn't think of a flaw after watching this. I read a few reviews myself to try and see a different perspective and I found one poorly written attempt at a criticism but it definitely opened my mind. There is a potential contradiction in character choices when it comes to the finale. I don't quite believe this, I believe that some character development is more subtle than others and I didn't doubt any of the decisions made by any of the characters. But let me know what you think on that front, I imagine a second viewing will do wonders either way.

Outstanding, I'm seeing it again in the cinema and I can't wait for a fancy blu ray as this film is interesting from script to screen 9/10

CINEMATES - A

Get Out (2017)

So. Get Out. I will say now, without a doubt, it this film will be different depending on who's watching it. Yes, there are clear messages but there is a line open for interpretation to the individual watching. But we'll get to that.

So the story, black boyfriend anxiously meeting white girlfriend's parents for the first time. Or shall I say, African American boyfriend. Because there's a difference as Samuel L Jackson has recently pointed out. That's it, it a simple set up with some mystery involved. Now I watched the trailer for this a good while ago and I couldn't tell how satire it was meant to be, how much of a horror it was meant to be. But I'll be honest, I didn't think it looked great, I knew I was gonna watch it but I didn't have any expectations. Then the reviews started coming in, steam rolling in and I thought, what is this film, what has happened, I need to see this as soon as I can. Now I've seen it it's what I expected and more.

Now we've got Daniel Kaluuya, playing protagonist Chris, who is captivating. I feel like I'm watching a friend, I believe him and I want what's best for him. Granted I might be a little bias, as I am with most British actors (you did it mate!) but I was thinking about it, is it because he's closest person to me for relate to? Race is of course a huge deal in America, now more than the past few years, and people are aware of it. People that don't experience it personally are still aware of it, even if not the bigger picture. Kaluuya brings to life the dulled frustrations of the day to day prejudice Chris has to deal with, with a sad respect. He jumps through the social hoops that he's given because it's easier than not, he almost doesn't register the offence personally now. The character was a great mix of highly controlled yet in some scenes so raw. He's the audience's eye, not just because he's a photographer but because, bar his comedy relief friend, he's the only person we see and trust. I think this builds understanding with the stereotypes as well as his reaction to them. You get why he's tired, you get why he's cautious, yes he's dealt with it before but what if he hasn't and what if the unknown is worse? Well it is.

Among the parents manor we meet a total of 3 black characters, all stemming so far from the stereotypes they've been pigeon holed to, that Chris finds it uneasy. There's the absence of them, not just of any remnant of culture but of a person being present at all. Now Chris doesn't actively seek out answers to this, why you ask? Partly because it's a horror and he's a black man, he's not gonna search out the danger, don't you know how films tend to go? But on a more real note, why search for what's likely to be conflict, he just wanted to escape it. Because it can't help but find him. He's frequently reminded of his background and a range of attitudes towards it. Now there aren't too many overtly racist things, just the ignorant ones. Now these add up, don't let that slip, but they're all calculated. No word is an accident with those comments. Reading into the film a bit more, a lot of the scenes had the opportunity for the actors to improvise. But some had lines of clear purpose.

The cast was great, Allison Williams, who played the girlfriend, Rose, has some humour. If you've ever seen Girls, then you'll probably go into this not liking her due to only knowing her in that. But she has won Chris over so we're inclined to do the same. The parents, do well in playing exactly that, oddly caring mother and poor joke telling father. Rose's brother, a little more on the nose with his classic race statements, is more uneasy to watch, and that doesn't let up. Chris' friend Rod, who acts as the spectator for the most part, has some great scenes. Most of the actual jokes come from him, theres the odd few from Rose, in the form of teasing girlfriend, but any other laughter is nervous. The collection of white family members and friends that visit for the weekend event all have the same singularity. They're faceless and their comments about race and Chris all line up to make them a single entity. The unity of this group of characters emphasises the Us vs We mentality held by many that have issues with race.

Visually the film was crisp and clean. Had a great use of colour as well as the lack there of. One of my favourite shots was Chris sneaking out of the house to smoke standing in the garden in moonlight. Kaluuya unsaturated against the white building comes very close to being entirely black and white, a subtle image within the film. Peele chose a very artistic way to portray Chris' interaction with his mother-in-law. She hypnotises him and he wakes up the next day with a foggy understanding on the night before. Great cinematography in these scenes, a really interesting perception of how the character feels.

The sound was great, opening song from Childish Gambino, 'Redbone', is perfectly fitting, singing the words, 'stay woke'. The score was highly strung as expected from a thriller/horror, there was a particularly jolting moment which relied more on sound than visuals. And it worked wonderfully.

Now I want this to keep this spoiler free. It's a great film and it unravels naturally. You put things together yourself, even encouraged to so by some characters as well. After getting to climax of the narrative you're able to think back and put together many things. All of which I wish for you to learn yourself. Parts regarding Chris' past, as well as Rose and her family's. Hints towards divulging the real intentions of the family become clear and fitting. As I said before, there's no accident. This film has such purpose and it does everything on purpose.

8/10 Solid social commentary, incredibly well put together, wonderfully paced and 100% needs another viewing. Must watch.

CINEMATES - A