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

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

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

Darkest Hour (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                   

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

6/10

CINEMATES - S

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Right, Blade Runner 2049. Here we go. Gorgeous film but it needs to settle before discussing. Young blade runner, K played by Ryan Gosling uncovers a secret that leads him down the path of Deckard, Harrision Ford's blade runner, who has been missing for 30 years. 

The thing I was most excited about when this film was announced was the crew. My man Roger Deakins back to his old tricks being 13 time Oscar nominated for his cinematography. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch there for original sound, edited by Joe Walker and of course directed by Denis Villeneuve. Taking Blade Runner (1982) out of the equation that's a pretty impressive line up for a sci fi film, half of which have worked together before on the likes of Arrival (2016) Prisoners (2013) and Sicario (2015). 

Those aspects do not let you down. The sound was naturally industrial. It's the only way to describe it, it feels organic alongside the environment. In general it rises, it's subtle and not overtly there but as it builds it becomes a vital part in many scenes. The editing is good but to be honest a second thought, but that doesn't make it bad. It's in no way distracting, it compliments the wide shots by giving them room to breath. Pacing matches the tone but on more than one occasion  I felt myself conscious of the run time. 

It is stunning. We knew that from Deakins name, let alone the trailers and posters. The world isn't just created it's maintained from the 1982 original. The bleak dystopian back drop has been done many times but the mixture between high tech and low nature is beautifully done. There's contrast between empty barren lands which once held life and the damp overrun cityscapes. There's a clever mix of dulled colours with neon and life. IMAX was a great choice, and I highly recommend it if you have the opportunity. Gorgeous wide shots which could have any frame a picture. And if you consider the amount of sfx that would have been added then you have an even higher admiration for those getting the base shots. 

Everything in the frame, every shot emphasises the themes. Visually water played a big part, you can read into this as much as you'd like. Reflection, ripples, memories being be lost in time like tears in rain. There's multiple shots through rain, through weather soaked windows, with light bouncing off moving water. It's calming and thinking about it is the most natural thing in the entire film, or I guess the world.

The other more commonly discussed theme from Ridley Scott's original is what defines humanity, what makes you human, can a replicant have a soul? Gosling's K, a Nexus 8, struggles with the idea of retiring (executing) something that has been born. He is then challenged with the idea that he himself may have been born. He's been told he does well even though he doesn't have a soul yet also been told that people forget that he isn't human. He has memories implanted in him that he knows aren't real but is also certain they are. He has feelings for Joi, a programmed hologram that says what you want to hear, but really how many steps above her is he, is it just the physicality that separates them? Gosling is fantastic, a great canvas to paint a replicant onto.

Joi, his love interest is played by captivating Ana de Armas, who is beautiful and loving. Her special effects are wonderfully done, her hologrammed nature is never overstated but it used to its full potential. A scene with K and natural Mackenzie Davis (who you might recognise from Black Mirror's Emmy Award Winning San Junipero episode) is so incredibly done I didn't want it to end. It's a very interesting scene and shows the individuality that Joi appears to have by trying a unique way of making K happy with Davis' character Mariette. Though unique to us that's only due to us not being accustom to the technology available. 

In general the cast were great. Robin Wright was great as expected as Lieutenant Joshi, one of the few humans we actually interact with. Dave Bautista was great though far more brief than I expected. Jared Leto was a bit weird as always, I think almost every scene he was in his voice echoed and reverberated back to us. I think we got an odd amount of the character, didn't get as much development that could have been interesting but also his on screen presence wasn't vital in every scene.

Though, I may be in the minority here, but I think the same about Harrison Ford. Without spoiling it, he didn't need to be in the movie. His on screenpresence was just not necessary. Yes he has a great scene with Leto and yes he seems to work with Gosling fine but at this point it's hard to see him as Deckard and not just Harrison Ford. Ford was arguably the weak spot, that doesn't make him bad just not as good as every other outstanding element. The direction is great, Villeneuve is killing it but it didn't feel like a one of his movies, it felt like a Blade Runner movie. For me his name is becoming a reason to watch a film so to forget that he did it after watching was not quite disappointing but odd. Shows his versatility. 

Must see for any Blade Runner fans, any Sci-fi fans, any Roger Deakins fans any fans of cinema really. Some will like more than others, and more than I did. 7.5/10 Will be Oscar nominated.

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

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 

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