Young Adult

Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson, Patton Oswalt, Elizabeth Reaser

Dir. Jason Reitman
Scr. Diablo Cody

I guess I was supposed to be amused and, fleetingly, I was. And I suppose I was meant to be shocked. And saddened. Meh. Ultimately, I felt exceedingly neutral while watching this film. Much like the depression afflicted main character. I expected more from the writer/director team that brought us one the best indie films of the last decade. If it wasn’t for a couple of great performances and a refreshingly original and honest ending, I think I would have wanted my money back.

Mavis Gary (Theron), a successful but unfulfilled writer of teen fiction, decides to return to her small hometown and win back the heart of her high school boyfriend (Wilson). Trouble is he’s happily married with a new baby girl. Mavis doesn’t seem to see this as a serious obstacle, as oblivious to real life as the teen girls she writes about. When her plan doesn’t fall into place as easily as she expected, she forms an unlikely friendship with fellow alumni Matt (Oswalt) who, like Mavis, hasn’t moved on from his high school experiences either.

This movie is more drama than comedy, so don’t go expecting many laughs. The humour on offer is very black indeed. And while I’m usually quite a fan of this (I often find myself the only one laughing out loud in a darkened cinema at a particularly dark joke), I just felt the humour here wasn’t nearly funny or clever enough. Sure, there were moments. Matt’s response to Mavis explaining to him that zombies were dead people – “I’m a fat nerd, I know what zombies are” – had me chuckling. And, trust me, I could tell what was supposed to make you laugh in spite of yourself. It just didn’t.

I think one of the main problems with Young Adult was that the lead character was hugely unlikeable (not a problem in and of itself) and I just didn’t care whether she redeemed herself (major problem). I’m quite the fan of unlikeable characters (one of my favourite films is There Will Be Blood, for goodness sake) but we have to still connect with an unlikeable character. And we have have have have HAVE to invest in their redemption. Mavis is a complete cow. Always has been. Sure, she’s clearly suffering from depression or some other form of mental illness. But I simply didn’t care. That’s an unassailable flaw for this movie I’m afraid. The ending only reinforced my lack of caring. And while I found it to be nicely original, it didn’t change my mind on the film as a whole.

I really can’t fault the performances on offer here. In fact, Theron and Oswalt make the film bearable. Theron is perfect – her body language, facial expressions, delivery reeks of this flawed human being. And Oswalt’s turn is poignant and sad and believable. Wilson too gives a nicely nuanced performance as the object of unwanted affection.

If you go into this film expecting some of the warm and humour of Juno, you will be very disappointed indeed. But I don’t think this is the anti-Juno either, as many critics have gushed. Rather than being the dark work of genius I think Young Adult is aiming to be, it’s simply dark. And in the end, that darkness wears you down, leaving you with no one and nothing to care about.

-------------------------

Mavis: You can come to the city with me like we always planned.
Buddy: Mavis, I'm a married man.
Mavis: I know we can beat this thing, together.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams

Dir. Guy Ritchie
Scr. Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney

There is no doubt that this is, at times, an enjoyable and entertaining film. But nowhere near as enjoyable or entertaining as Ritchie’s first outing in 2009. In fact, Ritchie seems to have rehashed the original and ended up making an inferior film – oh, wait, didn’t he do that once before? Yeah, I think so. This Sherlock Holmes also, in my opinion, suffers from comparison with a certain BBC series that is both brilliant and fresh. By comparison, Ritchie’s 2011 Sherlock seems tired and clichéd and just not all that smart.

We pick up not too long after the conclusion of the first film, but long enough for Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr) to have become convinced that a string of crimes are linked to evil genius Professor James Moriarty (Harris) in a web of conspiracy. Watson (Law) wants nothing to do with Holmes’ theories but nonetheless finds himself along for the ride to stop a world war and save western civilisation. No pressure. This outing takes us from London to Paris to Switzerland, and many other scenic spots along the way. It’s not really a spoiler to say Holmes and Watson prevail. In fact, if you know anything of the books or the television series, there won’t be much that is new here.

What is cracking, however, is the action. Ritchie has such a keen eye for stylistic violence and we’re treated to some great scenes of hand-to-hand combat as well as some lovely big explosions. It’s all slick and hyperactive and drenched with colour. And, yeah, it’s fun. What isn’t fun is how depressingly similar it all feels at times. Or how the dialogue seems tired. Or how Holmes, who in the first outing was fresh and funny and smart, has been reduced to an unlikeable, pompous git. Or how the plot is so paint-by-numbers and predictable. Was I expecting something more cerebral? Maybe, and maybe that’s my failing. But, come on!

I’m not really willing to lay the blame on the shoulders of the cast. Because, actually, they are pretty darn good. Downey Jr maybe dials it in a little too much, but he is still his usual charismatic self. Law too doesn’t disappoint. But it is really the chemistry and banter between the two that shines. The film definitely suffers when they are apart. Stephen Fry gives a magical performance as Sherlock’s shadowy and powerful brother Mycroft. Such perfect casting and such a fun portrayal by Fry. One question: how on earth did Ritchie convince him to get naked?!? Harris, as Moriarty, has wonderful gravitas but not enough “crazy behind the eyes” for my liking. I really do have to add a disclaimer here though: I am so absolutely in love with Andrew Scott’s portrayal of Moriarty in the BBC series that I don’t think any other Moriarty will ever stand a chance.

So, if you’re looking for a spot of mindless entertainment on a Friday night, this film will deliver I’m sure. But I couldn’t help but be disappointed and, at times, bored. If there’s a third in the series, I can only plead with Ritchie to try and make it smarter.

-------------------------

Watson: You do seem...
Holmes: Excited?
Watson: Manic.
Holmes: I am.
Watson: Verging on...
Holmes: Ecstatic?
Watson: Psychotic.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, David Dencik, Ciaran Hinds, Tom Hardy, Kathy Burke

Dir. Thomas Alfredson
Scr. Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan (based on the novel of the same name by John le Carre)

This film is one hell of a slow-burner. And some, I can only presume, will find the burning simply too slow. I found it absolutely and utterly gripping. This isn’t Jason Bourne or James Bond. For my money, it’s better. It’ll get under your skin, into your brain and it’ll stick. The cast to top all casts will impress and delight. The story will compel and confuse and reward. Film of the year thus far, no question at all.

I’m not going to try and explain the plot. I don’t want to give too much away and, let’s face it, it’s simply too hard to explain in a paragraph. All you really need to know is that recently retired secret agent George Smiley (Oldman) is tasked with finding a senior mole in the British Intelligence. Set in the late 1960s, cold war paranoia runs riot. And no one can be trusted. ‘Nuff said.

I love the way this film feels and looks. So grey and shadowy, this movie reeks of suspicion. I want to heap much praise on director Alfredson in what is, I believe, his first English-speaking feature. He truly captures an era. Praise must also go to the screenwriters who have adapted such iconic writing in such a faithful and accessible way.

For me, there could not have been a more stellar and tremendous cast. How they were able to be assembled is a mystery but I thank the movie gods that they were. I can’t fault any of them, but a couple did stand out for me. Obviously, a lot rests on Oldman’s shoulders and he more than delivers – his portrayal of weathered and worn and deliberate and sure Smiley is simply perfect. The scene in which he recounts trying to convince a Russian agent to defect was breath-taking – in fact, until he had finished, I didn’t realise I was indeed holding my breath. Cumberbatch, most familiar to us now as over-the-top-and-far-too-fond-of-himself Sherlock, gives a superbly understated and poignant performance as Smiley’s right-hand man Peter Guillan. Firth plays Bill Haydon, one of the top men suspected of being the mole, with such aplomb and calculated charm. He is surprising and wonderful. Kathy Burke too gives a lovely, heart-wrenching, too short performance as a former Intelligence employee. And Mark Strong, ugh, he’s so good. I could go on. They are all absolutely ace.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough. Expertly paced, TTSS rewards the viewer who pays careful attention and plays along. Asked to put conventional morality aside, we are presented with a strangely melancholic place, where reason and loyalty rule. And I loved this place. Just one word of warning: try to avoid answering the call of nature during the film. You don’t want, and can’t afford, to miss a thing.

----------------------------

George Smiley: We are not so very different, you and I. We've both spent our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another.

The Descendants

George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Matthew Lillard, Nick Krause

Dir. Alexander Payne
Scr. Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

I laughed. I cried. I cringed. I was moved and engaged and, bless him, George was completely dreamy in his misery and grey locks. I expected this film, about a man struggling with life and what it throws at him, to be manipulative and clichéd. But, instead, it was surprising and heartfelt with some lovely performances. Highly recommend.

Matt King (Clooney) is a lawyer and landowner in Hawaii whose life is thrown into turmoil when his wife hits her head in a boating accident. As she lies in a hospital bed in a coma, absentee dad Matt must reconnect with his two daughters and oversee a large sale of ancestral land for which he is trustee. To add insult to injury, he discovers that his wife was cheating on him and about to ask for a divorce. The Descendents is certainly a tragedy, but there is much light relief on offer and a fair amount observational insight into how different people cope with grief.

Often, there are a lot of balls up in the air in this film. Instead of being overwhelmed, director Payne eases his audience through the story. Always compelling, some of the most brilliant scenes are surprising and awkward and hilarious. Humour is used, sometimes abruptly and sometimes discreetly, to brilliant effect. The dialogue is believable and I was pleasantly surprised by the novel and quirky portrayal and development of some of the characters.

Payne has made a habit of putting the male species under the microscope. Sideways, About Schmidt, Election – they all follow flawed, troubled men. King is perhaps more well-rounded than Payne’s other subjects, but his life is certainly turned upside down and inside out. In this role, Clooney is at his finest. Completely deserving of his accolades thus far for this outing, his portrayal of a confused and barely-hanging-in-there father and husband is spot-on. He simply makes you want to reach in and take his hand and let him know everything will be okay, even though you know it probably won’t. The scene in which he finds out about his wife’s infidelity and runs to a friend’s house to find out more is absolutely priceless. Loafers are clearly not the best running shoe. And his emotional and dialogue-free scene with his wife’s doctor is breathtaking.

The other acting on offer is very good indeed. I always shudder slightly when children feature, expecting the worst. But Miller as ten-year-old Scottie is delightful. Krause as comic distraction Sid is excellent and offers one of the most heartfelt moments with Clooney. The absolute star of the supporting cast however is Woodley, playing King’s teenage daughter Alex. She gives a wonderful performance – she’s sassy and mature and steals more than her share of scenes. Another important character is definitely Hawaii itself – decidedly not touristy and eternally wet but nonetheless beautiful and utterly unique.

The Descendants may sound a little movie-of-the-week. But it is a highly nuanced, tough, sweet, insightful, moving and darkly amusing. It’s an honest look at grief and loss which will remain with you for days.

-------------------------

Matt King: Paradise? Paradise can go f**k itself.

The Iron Lady & J. Edgar

The Iron Lady

Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Richard E Grant

Dir. Phyllida Lloyd
Scr. Abi Morgan

AND

J. Edgar

Leonardo DiCaprio, Judi Dench, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Dir. Clint Eastwood
Scr. Dustin Lance Black

So, I’m going to try something a little different here. I saw these two films back-to-back in my movie watching schedule and I was struck that I would ultimately write largely the same review for both. Both are biopics about an extremely powerful individual, both are slightly controversial in their treatment of their subject, both flawed in many ways, both rescued in the end by a stellar lead performance. So, here goes my first double-whammy review. Woot woot.

The Iron Lady is an intimate look at the life of Margaret Thatcher, the UK’s first and only female Prime Minister. J Edgar is a look of the public and very private life of J Edgar Hoover, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Both stories give a great deal of time and focus to the private demons and failings of these two influential twentieth century figures and, in the case of Iron Lady, perhaps too much focus. It is clear from these films and what we already know that they were both people who divided opinions. To this day, Thatcher is both reviled and worshipped. Hoover too, who can only be respected for the changes he made to law enforcement in America but was clearly not liked by many.

In both films, we are greeted with the subject in their older years – Thatcher, as she reportedly is now and Hoover, as he was shortly before his death in 1972. The past, in both stories, is told through personal remembering and flashbacks. In J Edgar, we get a far more complete history of Hoover and his rise to power. The Iron Lady is basically half past, half present. I don’t think this will be a failing for all who see it – I think many will be fascinated by the way Thatcher is portrayed as an elder stateswoman. For me, I felt they rushed through too much history in too short a time. But, I guess, the filmmakers are presuming that their audience has enough knowledge of Britain in the Thatcher years. And, after all, neither film is a documentary. For my money, J Edgar is a more balanced historical telling than The Iron Lady.

I think in both films we are invited to feel a degree of sympathy for a largely unlikeable individual. Certainly, we are presented with their inner torments. This is more subtle in Iron Lady and more in-your-face in J Edgar. But ultimately, there is clearly an attempt to explain why they were the way they were and, therefore, why they did what they did. I don’t think either filmmaker is trying to manipulate the audience into forgiving all sins. And I appreciated, as an audience member, the freedom to make up my own mind. And my opinion was much as I expected it to be – I respect both Thatcher and Hoover but find I can’t like either of them very much. And, in Hoover’s case, was surprised anyone ever could.

There are major flaws in both these films. Some are shared – the slightly clunky nature of non-linear story telling that doesn’t always work; self-importance (but how does one possibly avoid this?); about twenty minutes that could have easily been shed. J Edgar features terrible, distracting make-up and about another twenty minutes that should have been cut. I think the major problem in both films is that each lead performance outshines all else. Neither Streep nor DiCaprio is backed up with brilliant story-telling or hugely compelling insights. And that’s a great shame.

I can’t fault the acting in either of these films. Streep and DiCaprio are powerhouses. We have come to expect this of Streep and she doesn’t fail to deliver in any way. I was more surprised by DiCaprio who, let’s face it, I love to hate. But he really was amazing – he physically isn’t the obvious fit for Hoover, but this is soon forgotten as he lives and breathes his character in such a convincing way. And his emotional performance is simply outstanding and, at times, gut-wrenching. The supporting casts in both films are equally brilliant. Broadbent, as Denis Thatcher, is predictably perfect. Hammer (you’ll recognise him as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network), as Hoover’s number two Clyde Tolson, is understated and haunting. And Dame Judi – well, can she do no wrong? As Hoover’s overbearing mother, she plays one of her most evil roles to date and is simply tremendous.

I recommend both these films but acknowledge they will be frustrating for the viewer. Both are certainly flawed but are saved by great acting and interesting subjects. And, of course, both teach us a little about power corrupting and all that jazz. If I had to make a choice, I would say that J Edgar is the better, more fascinating film.

-----------------------------

Margaret Thatcher: Watch your thoughts for they become words. Watch your words for they become actions. Watch your actions for they become... habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny! What we think we become.

J Edgar Hoover: What's important at this time is to re-clarify the difference between hero and villain.