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

Red Sparrow (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CINEMATES - A

Molly's Game (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CINEMATES - A 

The Ritual (2017)

You might have read other reviews where I've mentioned Odeon Screen Unseen, but let me remind you. Once every month or two Odeon previews a film at a discounted rate. For the second time this year they had Scream Unseen, a preview of a horror movie. That is how I saw The Ritual, completely blind, no trailer, no idea.

I think that made it better, watching the trailers now it feels a little try hard. So the story follows 4 friends camping in Sweden as a send off to the 5th friend who was killed before the trip was booked. British lads, British film, European location, our man Andy Serkis producing this adapted novel by Adam Nevill.

If you can, go in without seeing anything. The murder of one of the friends happens almost immediately and is just the crutch to start the journey. That scene was jarring, maybe more so to me because the trailers hadn't ruined the visuals for me. But it was abrupt in a normal everyday setting and I think the contrast is a bit shocking. Soon after we're thrust into the woods. And it's the best part of the film. The first and second act are captivating. Then like many horrors, especially ones with a hidden monster when the monster is revealed it goes downhill a little. 

Cinematography was what it needed to be. The shots made me nervous. The gorgeous woods with long thin trees covering darkness. It slowly zooms as if to direct your eyes to something hidden, you find that you brace yourself, getting tense about something you may or may not even see. The aesthetic is somewhat interesting with the heavy use of wood and folklore. The main character Luke, has dreams mixing the woods with his memory of his deceased friend. We get some great images of a convenience store dripping into the woods, fluorescent lights against the natural woods, the tiled floors with the dirt on the ground. Quite interesting to see, great symbolism for Lukes growing guilt with his increasing fear. 

The cast is great, natural as mates, Luke played by Rafe Spall, is the protagonist. I feel he has a good balance of showing his guilt and not wanting to admit there's a reason to be guilty in the first place. He remains somewhat level headed as things get stressful. There's a creepy scene in which each of the characters wake up all of which in peculiar ways and they each deal with it differently. Poses the question of, how would you deal with this, how would I deal with this situation? Good British ensemble, can't say how it relates to the book, whether the characters are brought out well enough, whether they match how they're written. 

The tag line 'they should have gone to Vegas' seems an odd tone to me, the film is funny, but not overtly. It's an odd angle to sell as it's definitely not prominent in the story. It does have it's scares, it does get uneasy. The sound helps this, as you can imagine in a forest lush with trees and a possible monster the silence was imposing. Nothing but cracked sticks under feet and grown men chatting. Both the shots and the sound leave empty space and let you build your own expectations as to what may fill it. 

As I mentioned before the first two acts are very good, the final act is kinda whatever. Once the mystery is gone it's kinda meh. The risk is a little less though a they try to have little moments of what's next but it doesn't have the same oomph. And the end is also rather lackluster, though I will say it's a beautiful shot though abrupt. 

Good film, worth a watch but it feels as if the small marketing matches the quality, can't decide how funny to be but the cast are natural together 6/10