Breaking In (2018)

Smart home, invasion. Gabrielle Union stays in her deceased father's home with her two children when a group of criminals break in to steal what's in her fathers safe. They only learn upon arrival how smart the house is. 

Seeing the trailer I thought this was just going to be a fun actiony thriller thing. And I was right. The children get trapped inside with the criminals whilst mama Union tries to finds her way in. So the house is kitted out. When we arrive the son finds all the surveillance, every room, every door, motion activated sensors, control panel to watch and cover that and lighting and speakers. Oh and a drone, cos why not. If this was ten years ago it might have been seen as a little stretch but now you accept it easy. And you accept how easy it is to control. 

When the family first arrive Union's character Shaun notices a few out of place things, things we find are due to the fact there had been people in the house. Pairing that with the fact it's the house she grew up in mixed with a little desperation her quick wit seems pretty believing. The four intruders were done reasonably well though one was a little excessive. The ring leader, Eddie, played by Billy Burke, means business and respects Shaun somewhat. Though underestimating her he isn't entirely surprised by her progress and successes. One of the intruders isn't really given a character but the other two work well off each other. One is s murderous and impulsive and the other already regret the decision when the kids are involved. They rock back and forth, pushing each other closer and further from redemption. We see the daughter pick up traits from her mother and help her and her brother survive. We're not given a great deal of intro other than that and that's all we need. 

The action was decent and well thought out. Stayed interesting throughout and kept tensions high during quite a few scenes. Didn't fall victim to 'she should have gone that way' or 'why didn't she do that'. Partly because the whole situation is on a time limit, The security company call 911 if systems aren't back online after the mains were cut. And partly because she's just smarter than the audience. And I'm okay with that. There were a few parts where she seemed to be able to take more hits than I would have expected a human to handle and still stand afterwards. And it definitely reminded me that hollywood mums are just fitter than real life mums, because how many other 45 year olds can fight strangers and climb onto roofs? 

The script was alright though some of the dialogue was a bit lacking. By some I mean most, most of the interesting parts of the film involved silence and action. Yes it did lean on the mama bear protecting cubs thing, which wasn't as annoying as it could have been, but was still pretty cliche in doing so. Though Union and Burke were great a cast can only go so far with what they're given. 

Had surprisingly smart scenes, would watch again/would have in the background. Just slightly more original than the standard home invasion but not by a great deal. Passable but not an urgent watch 5/10

CINEMATES - A

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

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

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 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 

Flatliners (2017)

Flatliners is the story of 5 medical students, who all take part in an experiment, to find out what happens to us in the afterlife, or if there is even such a thing. To do this, they take it in turns to stop their hearts for long enough to have their own experiences, but come back and tell their stories. However, this isn’t as simple as they might have imagined when their ‘sins’ come back with them and start wreaking havoc in their everyday lives. Resulting in serious complications for some of them. This idea to me was still quite refreshing, and the aspect of supernatural beings and life experiences being brought into this is what really hooked me in, well… and Ellen Page… and the 4% Rotten Tomatoes rating (oh and I love giving remakes a go).

As I mentioned, the cast was mostly what hooked me in with this remake, Ellen Page is a gem, and I was excited to see her in this because she takes on different characters and plays them well. This role for her, was no exception. You did understand the determination possessed by Page’s character from the beginning, and by the end you genuinely did fear for her, and in some parts empathise with what she was having to deal with as a consequence of her experiment. This hooked me when the film began. This part of the story was complimented wonderfully by Diego Luna’s character, who was concerned about what was going on because it was such a stupid thing to do, and frequently raised the incredibly real point that getting into a good medical school, and training to be a doctor is hard, don’t ruin all your hard work. Oh and, living is great, why are you all essentially committing suicide?

I don’t want to focus on the fact that this is a remake too much, so I don’t want to say the reason this film got bad is due to the choice of cast, the cast weren’t bad, it’s just the performances aren’t exactly memorable, but I guess this is possibly due to the writing. This was extremely poor in some areas, and I got a few eye-rolls in. The story was reasonably strong up until the point of shoving 2 new romances into an already busy film, it wasn’t needed, and took away some of the potential for originality. Similarly, the end is basically given away at the start. You are made aware of what is going to haunt Ellen Page’s character within the first 3 minutes, which again got a massive eye-roll.

There is really nothing much to say about it, and this seems to be the general consensus from those that have seen it. It was fine, it was well made from the point of view that it encorporated some comedy, some drama, it was a thriller, and possibly could be at a huge push a horror, and I would recommend that it is something you watch if you have either seen the original, and want to laugh at the attempt to make another average film from an already reasonably average film, or if you just want to see it, because it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t great. I mean, I would watch it again, just maybe don’t get too excited about it.

5.5/10

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

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

It Comes at Night (2017)

I heard about this film a little while back, we were given a poster (which I adore) and one trailer and that was it. I'm a fan of A24 and the story seemed right up my street so I was on board. If you were anticipating a strange monster in the woods, a scary climax and some potentially disturbing visuals, this is not it. I will tell you now the marketing is in some places incorrect. After watching the trailer back, it comes across as a slightly different film, different genre almost too.

So, we have Joel Edgerton as Paul, the father and husband in a desolate world when an intruder breaks into his home. After restraining Will, said intruder, we discover that he too has a wife and son and is looking for refuge. I mentioned before that I loved the poster and I do. The simple contrast and empty space alone is pleasing. It so effortlessly implied danger whilst showing none. Like a famous piece of art called Deimos by Dragan Bibin. A dog, in It Comes at Night's case his name is Stanley, standing alert and uneasy staring at something we can't see. I was intrigued and impressed that we did not have the big reveal up front. Though after watching it's kind of because there isn't one. This is a character piece, this is a drama. It would barely scrape horror, thriller is a closer fit.

Some of the score has a sci-fi feel, like warped sirens, the repetition that wouldn't feel out of place on a space vessel. It also relied decently on the absence of sound. Heads up, you can't eat your popcorn during every scene. The silence adds real unease and suspense, the whole film is, visually and audibly, quite natural. Bar the occasional score it was all diegetic sound, very real. And most frames are filled with darkness. The black seeps in from the edges to meet the often-small singular light on screen. We see no electricity in the film, just multiple lamps and the natural lighting. The shadows created against the characters hints at what we don't know. As I said, it's more of a character piece with moral standing being part of the ensemble. 

The cast were great, Edgerton is great, I thoroughly enjoyed him in Warrior and The Midnight Special and it's no different here. One of the biggest flaws I found in the film is that there isn't enough of anything. This goes mainly with the characters. Edgerton's Paul has some difficult scenes, he shows emotion and self-conflict well but somehow has a surprisingly sparse time to show them. Kelvin Harrison Jr plays Travis, Paul's son, who has possibly the best performance of the film. He shows a genuine range of emotions and unlike most other characters he can explore them fully. As an audience we're tied to him, he often day dreams or is deep in thought and we stay with him as other characters continue with scenes. He's in a way our time keeper, he often leads us in and out of days with simple dimming to black as he sleeps and brightening as he wakes, often from nightmares. He has different relationships with every character and, thinking about it, is the only person to have a direct conversation with every other character in the film.

Will, played by Christopher Abbott, came into his own. I personally only knew him from Lena Dunham's Girls, and it was nice to recognise him but not see the character and just see this new person. But again, we don't have the chance to see the full potential and beef the character out a bit more. Same goes for the two women in the film, Travis' mum Sarah is well played by Carmen Ejogo who again doesn't have many solid scenes to show off but still managed to show her character. Will's wife Kim alternatively gets a couple of scenes to give some information about her but ultimately, she's used for other characters to work off. With the film being on 97 mins none of them really got the chance to flesh themselves out that well considering its a character driven film.

Overall it felt like a student film. Low budget but well made. Clearly Trey Edward Schults baby as he wrote, directed and co-edited the film, something I have split minds over. I don't tend to agree on people being involved in that many aspects on one project, mostly a 'Jack of all trades master of none' mentality. Sometimes one person's vision needs another persons contributions. It Comes at Night is likely to divide people’s opinions though the reception has been good. Very similar tones and style to The Witch (2015), which debatably had the same marketing flaw, though was well received. I really wished I enjoyed the ending more. A good ending doesn't have to mean a happy ending so I was open to something awful. It felt abrupt and largely unsatisfying. Though one part may shock some people it doesn't have that much of a crescendo to the basic character development. Third act has an interesting goal but not executed that well.

It's slower and more art-house than advertised. Strong aspects but more forgettable than I would like. 6/10 add on another 2 marks if you're a fan of The Witch.

CINEMATES - A

The Transfiguration (2016)

The Transfiguration movie, oh my goodness. Just wonderful. So interesting. Great storytelling. So first time feature length writer director Michael O'Shea brings us the story of vampire obsessed troubled teen Milo as he befriends alienated young girl Sophie. As their relationship grows his obsession slips further from fantasy into reality. This film created buzz at numerous film festivals and after watching Raw earlier this year I was heavily invested in realistic coming of age stories with a twist and I'm so pleased I am. Which means unfortunately for me I have to add another director to my list of people to keep an eye on.

Milo our protagonist is played by a young Eric Ruffin, who I think was somewhat captivating. Our first interaction with him is as he sucked the blood from a strangers neck, followed by him sat in a school counsellor's office ready to start his summer break. We see how he behaves slightly differently with them as with his brother. And different again with the gang living in the same block of apartments and again with Sophie, played by Chloe Levine. Their relationship is a somewhat beautiful one though different. His character doesn't emote all that much, his independence on vampire lore takes the forefront so he struggles to begin with to relate to her. After finding that they have both lost their parents they spend more time together and a relationship forms. He misses some normal social cues and even walks a little odd, as if he glides and doesn't step, all small things that match both with his lack of social practise and his obsession with creatures that have similar traits. Levine is believable as a teenage girl, clearly having to deal with difficult times way before being old enough to deal and adjust with them. She's taken by Milo and it's very sweet to see her deal with her own feelings separate to his.

The style of the film is something I picked up on immediately. The entire film is shot handheld. Whether it's the intimate close ups with high depth of field, focusing on one part of Milo's face. Or the wide location shots with Milo and Sophie very very small on the edge of the frame, there's actually a shot so wide that I didn't spot them at first. But the style is purposeful, so it lingers and you don't miss anything. It's rarely from the protagonist's perspective, we watch everything from the outside often with a wide angled distance. All you could say in a predatory manner, we are hunting throughout the film.

Another thing I noticed within a few minutes of the film was the lack of music. Only a handful of moments in the film was any extra sound used. And it was the same high pitched ringing, an uneasy alert that wasn't all that loud, it never stole focus, but it highlighted the action at the time. From not appearing at all they got more and more prominent in Milo's vampire homages as the film went on. Both the sound and the visuals were realistic, something Milo says a few times, is that he only liked realistic vampire movies. The film appears to be shot using almost all natural lighting, it takes place over the summer between the school year. Mostly during the day, in Milo's room or in the city's night. So some shots get quite dark with only the streetlights to spark the dim screen. Some shots have a bit of noise in them because of this but I enjoyed the cinematography greatly.

Horror/drama is accurate, there are some tense scenes that could be regarded as scary, both due to the visceral images and the possible real life repercussions. The normality of the violence is arguably as unsettling as the violence itself. We watch online videos with Milo as well as many clips from vampire movies. Some with uncomfortable potential but none worse than what we see the actual characters do. There is a good balance between Milo's relationships and his own personal gain and his actions. The ending of the film was in my eyes, perfect. I've said it before and I will say it again, it is always great when a film has a purpose. It started knowing where it was going to end. It was well rounded and came full circle with the character development. Could not think of a better way for it to end.

8/10 Unsettling, intriguing and almost delicate. Wonderful independent film. What Milo says about vampires not being able to kill themselves will sit with you for a while.

CINEMATES - A 

Raw (2016)

Now you might not have heard of the film, or the cast or the director but you would have definitely heard of the stories. Go ahead and have a google. When this film was screened people vomited. Someone fainted. Oh yeah, that cannibal film. So Raw had the buzz, it had the reputation in spades. But did it live up to that? If you're expecting hardcore torture porn and aggressive violence, this won't do it. I didn't throw up, nor did I faint, but two people in my screening did walk out.

So we follow protagonist, Justine, played by Garance Marillier, as she starts her first year at university at a prestigious veterinary school. She travels with her parents, all three of them vegetarians, and we briefly see her relationship with them. Her mother more highly strung than her father who flips out when her daughter is accidentally given meat. She then joins her sister who is an 'elder', already studying and established in the school. After some consistent hazing Justine is forced to eat raw rabbit kidneys. Again, when introduced with meat we are introduced fully to her relationship with her family and see how her sister treats her. Justine has a physical reaction to the meat by coming out in an aggressive rash, but that doesn't stop her hunger, she begins stealing meat, from the canteen and from her roommates fridge. She gets braver and more daring alongside getting more confused and misunderstood. Her new relationship with her male roommate is strained as she becomes tempted by his literal flesh. Her relationship with him, her sister and her newly discovered feelings all meet at an intertwined crescendo.

Now as a spectator I encourage feeling uncomfortable. The fact someone has created something that has affected how you feel is incredible. And in this day and age and what we all have access to, it can be hard to do that. There are some scenes which are uncomfortable. The first time Justine tried human meat, that's uncomfortable. The scene leading up to that where she has getting an extremely close bikini wax, that's uncomfortable. Her pulling her own chewed up hair from the back of her throat, that's uncomfortable. A lot of the imagery definitely suggests to worse things. The opening scene to the film is unexpected and jarring, right off the bat we're told how this film will play out. Every time we're shown something  a bit disturbing we're reassured that it might happen again. There might be something worse.

Visually it was still stunning. The film switches between wide landscape shots with a solitary character small somewhere within the frame to tight imposing close ups. Mise-en-scene is heavy on the realism, with it being in a veterinary school, there's lots of whites and grey, lots of dulled colours. Justine is seldom in bright clothing or make up. The blood is rarely bright, but deep and tired, stained on clothes and surfaces. Even the party scenes are some how partly unsaturated and washed out. The sound again is quite realistic, though with an abrupt score in parts. A strong focus on the sounds of meat and flesh to keep is as authentic as possible.

Okay let's talk about ladies. Female writer and director, Julia Ducournau, is fantastic, Raw is her first feature length and I'll be keeping an eye out for her. As a woman, I hate the phrase, 'as a woman', but as a woman, I like watching women. And I find that there can be a difference in how a woman presents other women on screen. Now I won't go too into feminism and all that, but there is a lot to say with this film. Ever watch a film and know that someone is gonna go to a film school and do a case study on it? Well this is one of those films. Not preachy but a lot of underlying things. You can easily make a blood/period connection but that's kinda basic. 

One of the things I enjoyed the most was Justine slowly acknowledging her hunger for meat, human meat. The male gaze gets reversed as she leers at her male roommate. The camera lingers on his body, at first in a sexual way then more in a predatory way. In return Justine is never viewed in a sexual way, though we see her undress, we see her body and we see her vulnerable it's never sexual, the camera doesn't take advantage of her. We are all very much on her side, we watch she grow. Both Justine's self discovery unto cannibalism as well as an adult. It's a coming of age story, We experience what could be her first kiss, as well as her first time having sex. We're there through her first time away from home, the first time she doesn't get top marks in class. There's a lot of firsts and a lot of growth for Justine.

There are a fair few things I haven't touched on in the review as I wanted to keep this spoiler free. I suggest watching it, waiting, then discussing with someone. This is a film that needs to settle and needs discussion. Promising future for the cast, crew and the genre. 7/10

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