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

The Strangers: Prey at Night (2018)

Yet another preview screening from Odeon here in the UK. This Scream Unseen was The Strangers: Prey at Night. I was not impressed with this being the surprise film as I was not looking forward to it. I thought this seemed like an unnecessary sequel to what was the somewhat well received 2008 film The Strangers. It's the same story, this time it's a family of four in a trailer park that get attack in the same knifey way.

The appeal of the first film, which this one followed to begin with, was how real it could be. That it's literally just people, strangers, that pick on other strangers to kill. There was the odd highly strung moment. Many moments where it made you think, what would I do, where would I go. The characters of course made the wrong decisions but at least it becomes engaging. 

The film takes place pretty much in real time in one night in this deserted trailer park so it's dark and just surrounded by darkness. And the cinematography is dark for the most part. There was a particular scene and shot in particular that was quite interesting in a swimming pool. I won't spoil it but it's well lit and colourful and unlike the beginning of the film. It was immersive in the midst of the action regardless whether the action is satisfying or not, that's up to you. This scene also has music blaring from speakers, 80's music, which we hear multiple times straight from the film as the killers enjoy it. some of which was fun, was unsettling, music to violence can make you feel some kind of way and it did. Until it was a hugely popular track which just takes you out of the film and the moment. 

The cast were alright. I'm a fan of Christina Hendricks, she was fine. Dad played by Martin Henderson was also fine. Brother and sister Lewis Pullman and Bailee Madison were okay. They has some awkward sibling back and forth which wasn't so much them as it was the script. Some of the dialogue was weak. They had set up a backstory for the daughter that seemed pointless. Didn't give quite enough to warrant it connecting to her character or make any part of her behaviour justifiable. Followed by no explanation it was honestly unnecessary, didn't add as they didn't commit to it. 

I touched on scenes leading you to different directions and characters choosing the wrong way. Now I'm fine with some silliness, I am happy to indulge that. But this film didn't want to be silly until it was too late. By then we've already been lulled into a horror that's attempting to be taken seriously. The less than subtle dive into unbelievable nonsense is a joke. It felt like something I'd watch age 12 at a sleepover. Which I would have been more open to it they had committed to that from the start. Doing this they managed to miss out on a chilling horror and a guilty pleasure by awkwardly dipping their toes in each instead of jumping into one. 

The best way to describe the film is disposable. It's a one view only type of thing that you will forget about. In the first film when asked why they were doing this they replied, 'Because you were home. ' THAT was what this film needed. More chilling, less nonsense, not as powerful as it should have been. 5/10


CINEMATES - A 

A Quiet Place (2018)

I was intrigued on the trailer, those few minutes made me quiet and hesitant and the whole film is exactly the same. John Krasinski stars in his directorial debut with his wife Emily Blunt in arguably the best horror of the year, and it's only just April. Set in a post apocalyptic world where blind monsters hunt by sound alone and very few have survived. Krasinski, Blunt and their children live on a farm communicating via sign language. Their daughter, Regan, is deaf and confident, their son, Marcus, less so. We learn the family has grieved early on and that they are expecting a new baby soon. 

Right let's talk about sound cos hot damn. Adored the sound, as soon as it finished I thought this could be it this could be the first horror to get an Oscar nom for sound mixing and or editing. With Regan being deaf we alternate to be given her perspective. The sound goes from suspenseful, quiet footsteps or breathing to absolute silence. It's odd how you almost feel like you can relax your breath in complete absence of sound, you almost feel safer not hearing the creatures creeping about or the potentially too loud stumble. It becomes understandable as to why she has more confidence than her brother. 

The score was perfect, gentle yet pulsating, the monsters were raw as was the rest of the sound used. With the farm location there's a lot of open space for sounds to sit, as with the forest and river scenes. The cinematography was good, the same, natural and unclean as the world is now. We get a lot of intimate shots to emphasise the expressions on our ensembles faces, Krasinski's Lee is sternly animated, think sexy Wreck It Ralph. Great wide shots to contrast, stationary shots to ground the scene with more movements to show haste. 

One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed was the visual storytelling. There's no flash backs, there's no, hey remember what happened that time, no vocal spoon feeding. We get a great deal of newspaper clippings to show a how time has passed. 'YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN' titles a front page to show just how far things have gone. We don't have another family to compared to so the old news is new to us, it gives us scale. The basement in the framehouse has Krasinski's work, off limit to the kids. This again gives us an idea of time frame, the amount of research he has put into hearing aids and radio signals. The collection of materials and resourcing weighs the room down without telling us directly. Same with the baby proofing or hinting at later scenes, they place them in the frame and let you take it in. 

Another thing worth noting is the monster. We see it! We see the monsters a lot. And clearly and well. It's not a big secret with a huge reveal at the end that becomes disappointing. They're gradually shown and introduced more each time, I respect them so much more for giving us that. They're interesting to watch, fascinating to see gravitate towards sound and actually kinda scary. I think they were perfectly designed for the story.

The cast was spectacular, I walked out of the screening just thinking about what a great father Krasinski is and learning after that he felt this was an ode to his children is it becomes obvious. Blunt again was fantastic, both natural parents and great actors so I would have believed they were married on film even if they weren't in real life. The kids were also great, Millicent Simmonds is a great sister and teenage girl, she handles herself well. Noah Jupe was sweet and terrified, you see him give in a little and trust his parents even though he's frightened of just being alive at this point. 

The only flaw for me, no spoilers, is the conclusion. Not because I didn't like it, I did. But because it wasn't sooner. Not in the film but within the world they've created. I struggle to believe with how much work they put into surviving and learning about the creatures that they wouldn't have come to this conclusion earlier. Other than that great pacing for a horror, maintained itself well.

I adored this, I'm completely ready to watch this in complete silence in my own home on blu ray later this year. Refreshing storytelling, must watch for horror fans, good amount of heart in there. 8/10

CINEMATES - A 

Mom and Dad (2018)

America has gone mental, parents are trying to kill their kids. That’s it, that’s what Mom and Dad is about. I think this is a brilliant idea, if you’re into that sort of thing of course.

It’s a normal, quiet day in the setting of a typical horror film - a suburban town in America. We meet our main characters very early on, Mom/Kendall (Selma Blair), Dad/Brent (Nicholas Cage), and our 2 kids/main victims; Carly and Josh (Anne Winters and Zackary Arthur).

The family set out to complete their normal, routine day consisting of Kendall going to classes, Brent clocking in at work, Carly going to school, and Josh staying at home with what seems to be a cleaner, or Nanny… or chef? (this was never really explained, but you get the drift). Suddenly, parents are at the school gate trying to get to their children, but no one knows why. Seconds later, there are news reports of parents trying to kill their kids. Before they know it, Carly and her friend Riley are charging away from the school trying to get to safety. Parents are roaming the streets like hungry zombies, armed with bloody baseball bats, and knives, and soon enough one of the girls ends up being killed by their parent.

That was the final point, in which this film held my attention. Then my attention started to drift, because it all became a bit of something and nothing. The build up was so much, that when it all started to calm down I was constantly on edge expecting something really big to happen. Nothing big happened.

Mom and Dad is described as a dark comedy, and I agree that it fits into that category. Although a little bloody and grim in parts, this is not a classic horror. The way the characters have been written really helps lighten the mood of this film, as much as this can be done. I mean, it wasn’t funny per se, but there are moments that amused me. It didn’t cross the line between being comedic, and being silly. It sat somewhere in the middle. It was utterly ridiculous, as an entire film, but it wasn’t unbearable.

The strongest thing about this film was Nicholas Cage. I can confidently say he was one of the only members of the cast I was interested in watching once the film kicked in. I have never really been over, or underwhelmed by Cage (except for in National Treasure, sick film). Initially I didn’t really care for his character, but he really brought the role to life, and made me wonder whether it was the fact that he had been brainwashed by the media – which is what we were being told was happening during this film, or if he was genuinely a psycho dad, who was in the midst of a midlife crisis that genuinely wanted to kill his kids. Honestly, he freaked me out a bit and I’m glad that this film had something to hold the darkness there.

I didn’t really understand Selma Blair’s character in the same way (not that I relate to a child killer), I just feel like her change was just so random. To be honest, I still don’t fully get why everyone wanted to kill their kids. Kendall for example was strong as anything one minute, and fighting off this urge, then next minute she wants to stab her daughter in the head… but her personality didn’t change, Kendall seemed incredibly monotone throughout.

We didn’t see much of Zachary Arthur (except that he’s cute as a button), and Anne Winters was as good as she could be, it just wasn’t show-stopping. She spent most of it running and surviving.

The script for this film seemed like a giant mish-mash of events. It’s like they had it all sorted, then it came to editing and with the looming deadline it was going to be easier to randomly plop bits together. It felt messy, come on - it ended half way through a sentence! The script is what really let the film down. If it wasn’t so jumbled, something good could have been produced. 

One thing that was done nicely was the lighting. The mood was very sombre throughout, like something bad was going to happen. I wish I could say the same for the score, the pacing, the rest of the cast, or anything at all, but nothing else was memorable.

This film was absolute chaos, which fizzled into nothing. Such a huge disappointment.

4/10 

CINEMATES - S

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

Father Figures (2018)

Kyle (Owen Wilson) and Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) attend their Mother’s wedding to find out that after years of thinking their father had died due to illness, their Mother had lied and their real father may still be out there. they both set off on a trip to try and find him, they get to spend some time together, and they meet some interesting characters along the way.

First of all, I wanted to see this because the trailer looked like this would be okay. The reviews, however… THE REVIEWS!!! People can be so mean, but it worked, it roped me in further and I decided I had to see it.

So, this story isn’t an original idea, siblings set off to find their parents, they get into a pickle more than once, there’s a twist, and at the end everyone is happy and after years of bickering – the siblings get on great. But it was fine, I don’t want to use the word light-hearted, (because what is light-hearted about absent parents?) but I will, because it is an easy comedy. It doesn’t intend to offend anyone.

The most redeeming thing about this film was the cast.

                                 

I’ve seen so much controversy around the cast, and didn’t realise before how much of a ‘marmite’ actor Owen Wilson is for some people. I think he’s a gem, he’s like Hugh Grant; he basically always plays the same character, but it works, and rarely flops. I thought he was good in Father Figures, but I am a Wilson fan. This is the same with Ed Helms, I am a fan, so I thought he was good. The chemistry between the two though, is what I’ve seen to internet kicking off about. Was it really that bad? I mean, I had to remind myself that they were brothers sometimes, but it wasn’t completely awkward throughout. The cast did an alright job, I guess?

I have to say though, I believe a chunk of the responsibility for the bad parts of this film have to go to the script. The writing for this was poor, it could have been rounded up in a much neater way. There were times when this film went off on a tangent, and other times it just dragged. You were given glimpses of what the characters are actually like, and it started to get good, and sometimes even funny… and then we lost this. The pacing was just so off, it was almost like the editors were like ‘ehhh, that’ll do, I’ll just put whatever in, it’s nearly home time’.

Saying that, though… I don’t think the comedy was a massive flop, that kept the film light, and actually watchable, however – if you don’t like dad jokes, dick jokes, or dirty jokes about mums even slightly amusing, just don’t bother. I’m sure this film could offend some people, but really, it was pretty harmless. It’s no comedic masterpiece, but there were some bits of dialogue that absolutely tickled me, and I ended up doing a massive belly laugh.

One problem I did have, was the score. I was SO aware of this throughout the film, because we get a nice landscape of one of the random places in America they arrived in and playing on top of this was Grouplove’s Ways to Go. I don’t remember hearing more than 1 chorus of a song. Was there a soundtrack? Was there any other sound? Did they forget to put that in?

This film wasn’t bad in any sense. Well, not as bad as the internet claims it is anyway… It just wasn’t really very good.

Average comedy, average performances. Bad pacing, bad writing. Though, despite all that – somehow it was watchable.

5/10

CINEMATES - S

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

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 

The Disaster Artist - video review!

THE DISASTER ARTIST

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

The Mountain Between Us (2017)

This film sounds more dramatic than it is overall, but the story captures you regardless.

Alex and Ben (Winslet and Elba), are complete strangers who meet because they have share the need to get to the same place, but a storm is going to prevent them from doing this. Alex then comes up with the idea that they can hire a tiny plane and someone to drive it. Unfortunate events result in them crashing and only having their dead pilot’s dog for company. They need to figure out how to survive on a completely snow-covered mountain, whilst debating whether to leave to attempt to find help, risking Alex’s health – as she injured her leg in the crash or battle it out, and risk their lives by staying there.

OOOOOH DRAMA.

 

I feel like in recent years we’ve had a few films like this with the undertones of survival in them, and I’m not mad about it. They aren’t getting repetitive, because although there are going to be obvious similarities, the cast, and intricacies of the story vary. This film was no different. This is what initially intrigued me with this – the cast. Both fantastic actors, both with some big titles under their belts, and both bloody British (yaaaaaaaas!), but was there going to be chemistry? They were really, the only two actors we saw throughout this whole film, so they HAD to be good together for this film to be even slightly successful.

My god, there was chemistry – they both worked wonderfully together, and I must say Kate Winslet – your American accent isn’t infuriating. As soon as the film starts we are left with just the two of them, and very, very early on in the film the plane crash happens. At this point I really thought, there is no way this is going to be good. There is no way they can be amusing for nearly 2 hours. I was so wrong. We really got to understand the characters, and over those few weeks they were together we got to learn about them, and share a journey with them – the experience really was as corny, yet thrilling as I’m making it sound.

There were some thrilling moments, like the very real (for them, anyway) danger of going for a walk right at the top of a mountain, slipping, and almost falling off the edge of a mountain. The struggle of being stuck with either just yourself, or someone you barely know and might not like. The fear that you could get attacked by a Cougar. It was all captured well, of course dramatized, but not to the point of it being uncomfortable to watch.

The story was well paced, and set in a beautiful location – it’s hard to believe tonnes of effort was needed for this to be shot well – but then again, what do I know about shooting a film at all, let alone in the snow? The film only had one slight downfall for me. This was the fact that a love story was introduced. I cannot say it wasn’t powerful, because of the connection that Elba and Winslet had, but it at the end of the film because kind of cringe because of the conclusion to the story. I will not deny that the situation they were in couldn’t happen in real life, it was just a perfect example of oh, for god sake does everyone HAVE to fall in love and live happily ever after? Couldn’t one get killed by a bear and the other tell their story?

It was heart-warming, heart breaking, shocking, and pleasant all at once. It was everything I wanted from it, and I would recommend it – and say it’s worth more than some of the ratings I have seen so far.

7.5/10 

Wind River (2017)

If you're outside of the UK you may have something similar, but here Odeon cinemas runs something call Screen Unseen. It's £5 a ticket and it's a guaranteed preview. I've been to a few now and they're always great films and this was no exception. I hadn't heard much about this in the UK but saw a trailer months ago when I was in Canada. The trailer seems somewhat intriguing, didn't give much more than, a body was found in the snow, whodunit. I personally thought the way they showed some of the Native American traditions seemed a little cliche in the trailer but this was thankfully not the case in the film. 

Jeremy Renner plays Cory Lambert, a wildlife service agent who finds the body of a teenage girl barefoot 6 miles from the nearest lodge. The mystery of potential murder and rape bares the right for an FBI agent, Jane Banner, Elizabeth Olsen, to investigate. She relies on Lambert who knows the land and the people to put more peices together. It was great to see the two of them together outside of Marvel, they're good and they bounce off of each other well. Renner handles his character well, he's a divorced father who's lost one of his children, its a heavy role to play but it all comes out gradually. Good development for him and same for Banner, we aren't given the same character history but you don't always need every chapter to know the person and we get to know her well enough without. 

The rest of the cast was great a lot of familiar faces, for some reason there doesn't seem to be many Native American actors in big features, Gil Birmingham being the one of the most recognisable. A lot of new faces as well as surprise appearance from someone I didn't know was featured, I won't give away any names but it's a great scene.


Sound is something and nothing, was used well with some scenes with gunshots, you won't miss those. And of course uses the silence of the snow where they can. Being set on a reservation in Wyoming it's pretty hard for it too look bad. Snow is always easy to shoot right? Great landscapes, great wide shots. The use of animals is symbolic as they often are. Renner's character is a hunter and in the opening shot you see him hunting a wolf, immediately showing his behaviour with predators. The next prey he's hired to find is a mountain lion, turns out it's a family with two cubs and we get a gorgeous shot of them and again it hints at the bigger picture. His job is to eliminate predators for the greater good and that he does. 

As Renner and Olsen figure out the crime and the culprit we get a head strong flashback of what actually happened. Knowing how things turn out in an uncomfortable scene makes it more uncomfortable. Knowing the awful fate of the character just fills you with dread, you're waiting to see something you don't want to see. It's a great scene, well placed in the story, well portrayed by all cast included. And unfortunately it's almost satisfying to see something awful happen because it confirms the mystery. Then after that follows apt justice which is then genuinely satisfying. 

I think the pacing was a little off, but the subject matter and frankly the location I think eases that. There is a chunk of not much going on, in some parts it feels a bit dragged. Which I honestly think the story gives some allowance to. It adds to the boredom some of the people feel, the long days filled with nothing and nothing around them. That being said it doesn't excuse it completely. There's some great tension but it's not always consistent. 

Definitely worth the watch, performances are great, the ending leaves you appeased yet uneasy 7/10

CINEMATES - A

Detroit (2017)

I didn't know a great deal about the story going into this, I was aware it was one of the many recent stains in American history where African Americans are brutally treated by authority and justice has failed them. It's odd that as I write that I could be talking about basically any big unjust shooting in the last couple years but this was 50 years ago in 1967 amongst the Detroit Rebellion. The film focuses on police pushing boundaries and interrogating a group of people in Algiers Motel for a confession that ultimately leads to murder. It's based on real people and actual court cases but due to some missing information and of course the fact none of us were actually there, they fabricated some of the story. 

The reason I was so interested in this was to see John Boyega tackle such a heavy story, to see how he took responsibility to play a real person with important themes. I think he was the best thing about the film. He's mainly level headed and calm but doesn't under react. He appears to be exactly as he is, a random honest man caught in a bad situation trying his best to keep people safe, even when he knows things are against him. Saying that I thought there would be more of him, there's an odd character progression with him where his performance peaks in the last moments we see him on screen.

The rest of the cast was okay. It was more of an ensemble piece than I expected. Antagonist 'punchable face' / Will Poulter was okay, he had some genuine moments regards to the character flat out lying to people and he appeared to be a bad liar. What that tells you about the skill of the actor I don't know. But his accent is great and as I've 100% mentioned before I love a British actor smashing American films. He wasn't likable but he wasn't meant to be. Anthony Mackie was great to watch too, it's nice to him in this type of role no matter how small. 

Understandably very little character development as the story takes place over such a short time. And the story in question relies on the lack of information, the whole point is that we don't exactly know. The antagonists rely on assumptions of other characters and creating the characters to be what they needed to fit their own story, their alibi. 

Katherine Bigelow uses similar techniques as she did with Oscar winning The Hurt Locker (2008) filming one scene with multiple cameras in different places. Capturing the same piece from multiple angles, giving the actors the flexibility to move around and not be confined. Which I believe helps let the characters breath a little. She seems to know strengths of war or humanising it, alongside the handheld shots it helped make people appear quite raw. But this was not quite Academy Award winning. The sound did the same, was very real. Some of the characters were in a Motown band and sung at different points of the film. Hearing a sole voice singing with no backing track and no other sound in the scene is quite powerful. The sound makes sure you notice. 

Though it may appear as Oscar bait it's not quite worthy. It was a 15 minutes intro, followed by a 2 hour scene, a 10 minute 'finale' and some classic real life photos with facts written over them. I understand the choice of narrative structure but I think it's difficult. I understand that it's in place not to break things up, it's to make sure you endure the awful interrogation with the characters. But 2 and a half hours is a long time, let alone for such a topic. But even that, I don't think it had the weight to match the duration.

Good yes, but not as timeless as it could have been 6/10

CINEMATES - A