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

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

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 Greatest Showman (2017)

Let me preface this baby with the fact that I love musicals. I bloody love a good musical. When I heard our Hugh Jackman was gonna be singing and dancing, I was in. When I heard Zac Efron was doing the same, I was so in. Beautiful men singing and dancing? OKAY. It's the story of PT Barnum, played by Jackman, a showman, politician and businessman but for this film, creator of the circus. 

Now you have to give into the theatrics a little as expected, it's a circus, it's the in 1800's and not entirely awful, so they obviously glaze over some things. We follow Barnum as a poor child, working hard to get any money he can, in love with the daughter of a very wealthy family. They grow closer, have children and he wants to give her everything she had before and lies his way into a loan for a museum that turns to a circus. 

Jackman starts out open minded and amazed at whoever turns up to his flyer for unique people, then exaggerates their features. Makes the tall man taller, the fat man fatter etc. We meet some great characters, follow Barnum around as he finds different people, he appears earnest to meet them and have them on his team but it has a fine line of just wanting to catch the biggest fish to get the trophy. His seemingly opened mindedness to these differences become fueled by fame and money as opposed to curiosity and wellbeing. Something that is shown quite well through Jackman though the writing was a bit shaky on the development.

As I mentioned we don't see that many bad things considering the time and the topics. Subtly mention the difficulties that Zendaya and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II characters face, being a black brother and sister in mid 19th century. Didn't go into the real difficulties because its a PG musical but I have a feeling that a lot of young kids will watch and not understand why Zefron didn't want to hold pretty little Zendaya's hand in front of people. We also ignored how they got (CGI) elephants and how they would have been trained/mistreated in the circus. 

But that's expected! It's a fun showstopping musical. It has already gain three nominations for the 75th Golden Globes, Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy, Best Actor - Comedy or Musical and Best Original Song. I was happy as soon as it started, though apparently I'm a sucker for large groups of people stamping their feet to music at the same time. The songs were great, well done and wonderfully choreographed. The costumes were fascinating, the set pieces large and bold. The use of CGI was noticeable but it felt somewhat forgivable due to the nature of the film being a little bit extraordinary. 

The cast hold themselves well enough considering there's so many faces it's hard to give anyone a personality outside of 'bearded woman'. Jackman was good, his wife Charity Barnum, played by Michelle Williams came across genuine with their children. Zac Efron was great musically as he can sing and dance, though I think he's a semi decent actor this character didn't quite have the development or depth for him to show off. Zendaya did well in only her second feature length, Spiderman Homecoming (2017) being the first. Rebecca Ferguson plays a famous opera singer with a high level a grace that feels almost misplaced with the story even though it really happened. 

I watched this film 7 days ago and I still have the songs in my head. A tad bit empty but a lot of fun. Wouldn't stand on it's own as a drama, the music holds this feature, don't think too hard, it's feel good. 6/10, 7 if you fancy Hugh Jackman and Zac Efron or if you're big on musicals.

CINEMATES - A

The Big Sick (2017)

Lucky enough to catch one of Odeons Screen Unseen premieres this week, where you buy a ticket for a fiver and you don't know what it's going to be. Previous films this year have been Get Out and Baby Driver. Both films Odeon deemed to be potential classics, so we had high hopes for what we were about to see. It was The Big Sick and it didn't disappointment.  

The Big Sick is about a couple that deals with their cultural differences as their relationship develops. This is based on real couple writer and actor Kumail Nanjiani and his wife, fellow writer, Emily V. Gordon. Nanjiani, brown, from Pakistani, trying to rebuff every advance for arranged marriage his mum pushes. Emily, white, American, didn't really want a relationship but that Kumail man is pretty charming.  Nanjiani is a stand up comedian who is trying to make his way forward and get acknowledged and Emily is finishing her degree and looking to become a psychiatrist.  They don't really deal with their differences until they become a problem, because if it ain't broke, you know? There's a break up due to culture clashing and thoughts of deception but before we have a good chance to deal with this Emily gets sick. She gets the big sick. After being taken into hospital Kumail goes to look after her and meets her parents for the first time. This moment is almost when the film really begins. I think how we are shown each character and their family is pretty great. We see only see Nanjiani's family when they are with him. Whereas in contrast we only see Emily's family when she isn't there. This changes towards the end of the film, where people start to intertwine as they should, but it's still quite a strong choice. It's Kumail with both sides, with both cultures. 

The cast was great, Nanjiani is funny and charming as he is in most things including Silicon Valley. He's sweet and genuine and even when Emily finds reason to dislike him, as an audience you don't. Emily is played by Zoe Kazan, wonderfully cast, I think personally because she hasn't been in too many big things. So it was even easier to just see her as the character. That and the fact that half the film we're told what she's like from other people and not from her. It's like she exists. Her parents are played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano. Hunter is a strong mother in this as she is as Elastigirl in The Incredibles (2004), in case you're wondering why she sounded familiar. It was great to see Romano as someone new, he was great, funny and again genuine, this film has such fresh performances from the cast. 

Now Judd Apatow produced this, and not directed, and you can tell because the film isn't 40 minute too long like most of his directed features. It had some of the same humour but you could definitely tell it was written by Nanjiani and that it was written by a couple. It did really well to have genuine stand up moments, being awkward and not completely funny. As if they knew they wanted the stand up to be funny but not as funny as the real life happening around it. Some of the stand up I recognised from Nanjiani, his own works and interviews. The interactions between him/his character and Emily are real, they don't feel forced. That was something that was written and cast well. His family were well written as to use cultural differences to add comedy but not as the butt of the joke. Race jokes were of course there and there is a particular 9/11 joke that had the entire audience cackling. As much as race and culture were involved in the comedy it wasn't there just as a punchline. 

Very sweet film, only a slight bit too long I'd say. Lots of laughs, and a good amount of tears too, if you're into romantic comedies this might be a tad bit heavier than you expected but definitely worth the watch. A refreshing 7.5/10

CINEMATES - A

All Eyez On Me (2017)

God where do I even start. I did not enjoy this. I did not enjoy this anywhere near as much as I wanted to. Let's get stuck in. All Eyez On Me tells the 'true' 'untold' story of prolific rapper, actor, poet and activist Tupac Shakur. Now I say 'true' as immediately after the premier Jada Pinkett Smith tweeted about the liberties that were taken with her history with Tupac and how things actually happened. In addition to this,  a little reading shows the original director John Singleton, the only director that had Shakur's mother's approval, couldn't agree with the studio on Tupac's portrayal and left. So take that as you will but music video director Benny Boom is not the intended director for this vision and I think you can see that.

It's a pretty messy film. For the first part of the film the narrative is structured around Tupac being interviewed in prison and the events that lead up to that. The beginning 45 minutes were erratic flashbacks from before Tupac was born to how he became a recording artist and his release from prison. It was little better than a PowerPoint presentation. Like a list of bullet points from Wikipedia were quickly run through. And all as if it were under a tight time limit. It was so quickly paced I had no idea how it was going to rack up to the unnecessary 140 minute run time. The film skims over a lot of vital and interesting information about Shakur and the period of which this was happening. Everyone knows he was a rapper shot before his time but the film doesn't give much more than that. We're given incredibly little about his introduction to the music and film industry, both of which would have been for a more interesting choice to develop over other aspects. All Eyez On Me tries to squeeze an entire impressive life into a couple hours and struggled. The odd pacing and time span meant we were given so many characters so briefly we had little time to care about any of them. Which is a real shame because the cast was not the problem.

Demetrius Shipp Jr plays lead Tupac Shakur. He has a good likeness and believability to him. Some short scenes with intimate characters he shows real feeling. They seem like brief genuine moments with his best friend or his mother. His rapping isn't perfect, as you would have expected from the real legend, Shipp Jr appears to be miming quite often. Some parts, granted, were music videos so we're more likely to appear staged but still. He does get into a good flow on stage and does embody Shakur quite well. His mother, Black Panther Afeni Shakur is played by The Walking Dead's Danai Gurira and she smashed it. In part for me because I didn't see kick ass zombie killer Michonne, I saw a completely different strong black woman with a vision that happens to be Tupac's mum. She had more weight than most characters but again things were a little brief. She's a real person that could easily have a feature length about her and her alone. Gurira is a great actress but it felt as if she was given flamboyant direction at times. The direction is less than subtle throughout. That's pretty much the only full relationship we see with Tupac.

His stepfather has two short scenes, his sister isn't seen in the second half of the film, nor is Jada Pinkett. His first mentor and manager is given a single scene and about 6 words. Many of his entourage and other rappers aren't consistently named. Jamal Woodard returns to play Biggie Smalls as he did in Notorious (2009) but their relationship has shallow development, blink and you'll miss it. Biggies wife Faith Evans is suddenly brought in and taken out just as fast. Tupac's wife Keisha Morris isn't included, his fiance Kidada Jones isn't mentioned by name until her third scene. If that sounded like a whirlwind it's because it is, it's a mess.

There's a great deal of assumption on the audience, assuming they know the time and real story well enough to ignore many necessary introductions. I'm a fan of Tupac, not seen all of his films and was not old enough to witness him in his peak or his death. I knew a decent amount about his life through pop culture but I was hoping for more, I wanted to learn about him and the difference he made but you don't get that. If you don't know much about him or his life you may get lost. Though on the contrary maybe you might enjoy it more going in with a blank slate, but I'd be wary that you might just get confused.

The film doesn't explore its themes in a way that it should and had the potential to. It doesn't much discuss the East Coast/West Coast or Crips/Bloods situation. It shows the relationship between police and African Americans with an awkward severity that doesn't seem quite authentic. Acknowledging the Black Panthers but not whole heartedly diving in with their values was clearly a choice to put Tupac as priority but the Black Panthers are hardly a movement that can be danced over lightly. Regards to his activism again we were whipped over any remnants of that. As a child of Black Panther activists he is shown to have a certain mindset and in parts he does appear to have a strong sense of beliefs. There's a good scene discussing his song 'Brenda's got a Baby' that solidifies this. But we barely get 10 minutes to accept the character as that person. The entire film is a mismatch of what is and isn't necessary for a biopic. An awkward montage of his life without presenting the meaning or influence that he had.

I'd almost say to watch it to hear 'California Love' in cinema surround sound. That sounded great, it had some great tracks. Otherwise the sound was nothing special. Had a few foreboding moments where they played a Jaws like theme which felt out of place with the rest of the film as it rarely had an actual score in place. The editing was terribly messy considering it's done by Academy Award winner Joel Cox. There's random slo mo, far too many cuts during action sequences and was overall quite distracting during performances. Same goes for the cinematography, boring until highlighted as tacky with editing. Clearly the signs of a director used to a 4 minute run time.

You won't gain anything from this film. Watch Gridlock'd, listen to Tupac's greatest hits and go watch Straight Outta Compton 4/10

CINEMATES - A