Nocturnal Animals

I had been looking forward to this movie, as I have been a fan of Jake Gyllenhaal ever since his turn as a creepy journo in Nightcrawler. Plus it looked so slick and stylish and promised to be a dark, powerful revenge story.

Slick and stylish it was – Tom Ford was able to translate his fashion sense to the big screen well, but as much as it was beautiful to behold, it lacked substance. Beautiful, but hollow. Draw as many conclusions as you like from that, considering the industry in which he made his name.

Quick synopsis: Susan, a posh art gallery owner, gets sent a manuscript from her ex-husband, Edward (who is less posh and wealthy) – it’s a book that he has written and it’s just about as dark as anything that he has ever done. Susan reads the book. That’s basically it.

The film cuts in and out between current reality, past reality and the happenings of the novel that Edward has written. The contrast between these three timelines is superbly set out: Susan’s presumably unhappy life in the now is represented by cold, stark, minimalist, modern architecture and décor, punctuated by fake yes people she has around her, who are essentially caricatures of wannabe snooty art types. Her past, in which she gets together with Edward, features softer lines and is warmer. The novel’s middle of nowhere desert setting is harsh and barren and somewhat reminiscent of a moody Western. Points for style, though I must point out that the opening sequence, while tres artsy in the modern sense, was incredibly cringey, particularly if you have an aversion to naked fleshy persons.

Ford also makes a lot of use of symmetry – in the characters themselves as well as visually, in the transitions from one timeline to another. It’s obvious that the people in Edward’s book are “mirror images”, if you will, of Edward, Susan and her daughter. (Jake Gyllenhaal plays both Edward and Tony, who is the main character in the novel, and Isla Fisher (playing Tony’s wife) has a passing resemblance to Amy Adams.) There is also an underlying theme of male “weakness” or perceived weakness, which manifests in different ways in Edward and Tony. Hell, there’s so much symbolism and symmetry in this movie that it’s worthy of an entire school literature paper on it.

While Adams and Gyllenhaal are decent in their roles (though Adams doesn’t have to do much except look sad/thoughtful at various times), I thought Michael Shannon, as the policeman/sheriff’s deputy or whatever lawman he was supposed to be, was the star of this one. Gruff, but sympathetic, and flawed like any human, law enforcement or otherwise, he brought real character to Bobby Andes. Aaron Taylor-Johnson also does an accomplished, but unexpected and totally unrecognisable turn as bad guy Ray Marcus – polar opposite of his slightly nerdy Kick-Ass role.

So, if everything is so good, what’s so bad about it? I can’t quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it’s the fact that, aside from the story played out in Edward’s novel, nothing actually happens in “reality”. Perhaps it’s because Susan’s reality seems so fake. But probably the biggest reason is because of the ending. It is a let down of note. I was expecting something massively cruel to happen, or some clever twist, a sting in the tail to teach Susan a painful lesson. The novel’s ending was good. The film’s ending? Insipid and disappointing.

7/10 - 9/10 for style, 5/10 for story

Chappie

What can I say about this mish mash…?

After the earlier success of District 9, a documentary style take on aliens landing in Johannesburg, Neil Blomkamp once again enlists the help of Sharlto Copley for this story about a robot who gains consciousness, once again set in the South African city of gold.

In a country where criminals have run rampant, police robots have been deployed to bring things under control, and they have worked spectacularly well. The designer of these robots eventually succeeds in developing AI consciousness which he uploads (against company instructions) into a robot that was destined to be destroyed. The robot, named Chappie, ends up in the hands of a band of criminals (played by South African rap band, Die Antwoord) who use him to carry out various illegal acts. When a jealous fellow developer sabotages the police robots and tries to destroy Chappie, he shows his mettle and tries to save those that he loves.

This is such a strange movie. I can’t help thinking it was merely a vehicle for Die Antwoord to showcase their acting skills, which actually aren’t too bad. (I still can’t believe how big they are in America, being something of a parody – I cannot stand their music, and I use that term very loosely.) Considering they pretty much play their roles of Ninja and Yo-Landi Vi$$er every time they are in public, I guess they are used to these characters and playing your alter ego is a lot easier than playing something completely different. Still, they did a pretty good job of it, playing the doting “Mommy” and no good “Daddy” to robot child Chappie.

Chappie (Sharlto Copley) initially reminded me of a scared puppy dog when he first gains consciousness, but evolves into a child-like entity, and it is this innocence and naivety that makes his mistreatment at the hands of various characters seem so dastardly. Chappie soon learns about human nature and it really is a sad commentary on the human race.

The big names in this movie, to me, are entirely wasted, perhaps with the exception of Dev Patel, playing the robot designer, Deon Wilson. Sigourney Weaver, as the company CEO doesn’t get too much screen time and her character is completely one dimensional. Hugh Jackman plays villain number 1, the designer of the Moose robot, whose machine gets rejected by the police force as being overkill. Although he gets a lot more screen time than Sigourney, I feel that his character, too, is flat and cartoon villain-y with no redeeming aspects to his character. This, too is where some of the plot is a bit silly – Jackman is jealous that his robots are not suitable for police work, but it is obvious that its strengths would suit the defence force, and actually I spotted a SANDF (South African National Defence Force) sticker/stamp on it, so surely that should be his target market??

Villain number 2 is even more outlandish and cartoony than Hugh Jackman’s character. Hippo is the gangster to whom Ninja owes money. Brandon Auret’s physique is impressively intimidating even if not fitness model standard, but Hippo reminded me a bit of the Tasmanian Devil – a bit unhinged with a speech pattern that leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, what even was that accent he put on?? Ugh.

I think this was a movie that could really have been great, but has somehow turned into a big mess. There were some subtle comedy moments - I especially liked the bit where a pitch was being made to police officials who seemed more interested in polishing off the free biscuits than in what was being said – and Die Antwoord were surprisingly good, but numerous plot holes, crazy ass single dimensional villains and in my opinion, Chappie not being able to meaningfully connect with the audience let this film down. 6/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

This is the first offering in the Harry Potter universe that does not feature said wizard boy, but it definitely feels Potteresque.

We are introduced to Newt Scamander, played convincingly by Eddie Redmayne, who arrives in New York with a suitcase full of strange creatures. A mix up occurs, creatures escape and inevitably chaos ensues. Cue a Potter world version of Pokemon (gotta catch ‘em all) with a side of magical murders and mistreated orphaned kids a la Annie, only creepier and with no music. Oh, and the establishment trying to arrest/kill our main character and his merry band of sidekicks.

This movie is good fun if you don’t think too hard about things (like why Newt had to travel by ship and go through customs if he can just teleport himself around by wizardry). The animals are great, fantastical, in fact, and I can’t imagine how much fun the cast must have had throwing themselves around in front of a green screen. Some of the beasts even have personalities of their own and are characters in their own right.

The friendship that develops between Newt and Jacob Kowalski, a muggle (or no-maj) who just happens to be caught up in all the madness, is rather cute, and so is the romance between Kowalski and Queenie, a rather fetching mind-reading witch, who reminds me a bit of Marilyn Monroe. (The rotund Kowalski definitely punches above his weight and it’s cute because this would never happen in real life…)

Eddie Redmayne's Newt appears a bit nervous and shy, not terribly social and seems to get along with his fantastic beasts a lot better than he does with humans, magical or not. Totally understandable, because all animals are amazing and people, in general, suck. I'm so with Newt.

Anyway, a solid 8/10 for this one. Loved the characters and the CGI beasts and Redmayne seems perfectly cast as the perhaps slightly autistic Newt.

Arrival of Kubo and the Two Strings in La La Land

A few weeks ago, I managed to see a flurry of movies in one weekend and was able to make a more or less sensible title for my review out of the titles of said movies. Go me!

Arrival

I wasn’t sure I wanted to watch this one. I had heard it being described as “boring” because there isn’t really any action in it, and there is a lot of talking. Well, kind of, yes. There are almost no action sequences to speak of, but the director does know how to build tension and suspense. The moody grey skies, the claustrophobic tunnel within the space ship, the heavy breathing in the space suits and the misty glass partition obscuring the aliens from view (other than their outlines which reminded me of Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants, and some gross looking tentacle ends pressed up against the glass) – these all contributed to a feeling of impending doom and menace. What did they want? Why were they here? Are they going to kill us? Where was SpongeBob? Did they stick Patrick Starfish on the ends of their tentacles?

Anyway, Amy Adams pretty much does everything in this film. Not sure why they bothered having other people in it at all. She does a great job as Louise Banks, who is brought in as a linguistics expert by the military after alien ships show up at a dozen spots around the planet. Her job is to try and communicate with the ones at the local Montana branch, and she eventually does this, but she also spends a lot of the time daydreaming. Those scenes did tend to annoy me after a while, but they are actually important to the storyline, and although not a lot “happens” in the movie, there is a great plot twist where everything comes together very cleverly, which I like. A lot. So the slower scenes are forgiven.

So while I’d imagine a lot of people will dismiss this as slow moving or boring, and yes, I’ll admit there were certain points when I thought that the movie had stalled, but I was adequately entertained and I really wanted them to hurry up and get to the answer of whether Squidward 1 and 2 were friendly or not and what were they doing here.

In summary, good things: Amy Adams, plot twist, cinematography, bad things: ok so it is a bit slow at times. Overall, 7/10.

La La Land

It was between this and Lego Batman. I think I actually wanted to see Lego Batman more, but due to a circumstance of timing we ended up seeing La La Land.

At the time of viewing, it had won itself seven Golden Globe awards, including best comedy/musical, best actress for Emma Stone and best actor for Ryan Gosling. (And since I saw this, we all know what happened at the Oscars!) So is it worth all its hype?

Well, after the opening number I was heartened that this was going to be an absolutely amazing film. I loved the song, the dancing, the unusual setting (LA traffic jam) and I especially loved the vibrant colours. I felt the urge to clap after that first song, so much did it remind me of musical theatre, and I was not alone – the old ducks who couldn’t shut up during the pre-movie trailers clapped heartily.

Unfortunately, the film does not live up to its early promise. It’s good, but it’s not amazing. Why? Well let’s take a look.

I’m sure we all know what the story is about by now. Struggling actress meets struggling musician, they fall in love, whereupon success hits and of course, it tears them apart, because success = bad. Awesome. Hardly an original premise, but I guess that’s difficult to come by these days.

Mia is likeable enough and Emma Stone does a great job playing the hapless wannabe, but I was missing the usual Stone wit, sarcasm and feistiness that does not shine through in this character enough for me. She does show a vulnerability, though, which is perfect for the part, but is a quality that does not resonate with me, and actually it annoys the crap out of me. Sebastian – well, he is a bit of a dick. He is a jazz purist (read snob) and immensely rude and surly. I’m not sure Ryan Gosling had a lot to work with, but having seen him do chat shows and interviews I’m not sure this character is too far off his natural state. But he is pretty. So we forgive him.

This being billed as a musical, I can’t not comment on the singing and dancing. The songs themselves are great and Emma Stone does pretty well, though given that she was in the Chicago stage musical I was expecting a bit more. I don’t think she was given the chance to show off her range, though, and apart from the audition song (The Fools who Dream) I felt that she was always singing in the same sweet, saccharine style.  Gosling, though, seemed to struggle at the lower registers and I presume that is why his numbers are quite limited in the movie. Gosh, sometimes it felt like he struggled to stay in tune at all. Overall I felt the vocal performances were weaker than they should have been, which is a great pity, because the songs really do deserve better treatment, and actually, the instrumental bits on the songs are fantastic.

As for the dancing, apart from the opening number, I felt what little dance sequences that survived the final cut were a bit too tame and “safe” – absolutely nothing either of the leads did wowed me, but perhaps I am expecting too much. Fred Astaire was primarily a dancer who could act, while I suspect Stone and Gosling are rather actors who kind of can dance.

So yes, it’s good - Emma Stone’s acting chops, the beautiful cinematography and the score make it so, but I can’t help thinking that a different male lead (one who can actually sing and maybe dance) would have made it so much better. That, coupled with a fairly pedestrian story line, gets this homage to Hollywood and its ups and downs a 7/10.

Kubo and the Two Strings

For as much as La La Land lacked in story, Kubo possesses it in abundance.

This is classical storytelling wrapped up in stop motion animation with just enough creepiness to put the scare into young children.

It didn’t surprise me that the makers of this movie are the same ones behind the uber creepy Coraline, she with the buttons for eyes. This one is slightly less disturbing though, and is all about magic and fantastic tales and a little boy named Kubo, who is kind of a refugee. He is saved by his mother as a baby and during their escape they are washed up ashore somewhere, where they have been in hiding from the Moon King, who tried to take his eyes (again with the eyes!). Eventually, something bad happens and Kubo must go on a quest to find three magical items.

This is a children’s story, but I totally loved it. The characters are beautifully crafted and lovable, from the protective but grumpy Monkey to the villagers who are essentially secondary actors, but oh so endearing. I was absolutely charmed by Kubo and his friends. Kubo’s own tale is tragic, yet heartwarming and, like real life, even though the outcome is not what you really wanted in the beginning, it will all be ok somehow.

Kubo gets 9/10 for its beautiful storytelling and characters, and its immense heart.