Based on: The Killer by Alexis “Matz” Nolent and Luc Jacamon
Produced by: William Doyle, Peter Mavromates, Ceán Chaffin
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Arliss Howard, Charles Parnell, Kerry O’Malley, Sala Baker, Tilda Swinton and Sophie Charlotte.
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
David Fincher is one of those filmmakers whose form and style is often unsettling and remarkable. He has built up a formidable body of directorial work over the years and his qualities were displayed perfectly in the Netflix FBI drama Mindhunter. Greens, dark yellows and browns stained the screen as Fincher and other series directors created a haunting stylistic palette. Furthermore, with the gripping narratives, great direction and memorable performances I just did not want the latest season of Mindhunter to end. Choosing to stay with the theme of death, Fincher now presents The Killer (2023), again released by Netflix.
Michael Fassbender is the unnamed assassin who has a specific set of rules. The film opens with him currently preparing for his latest job. He chimes and opines via a voiceover like a monk praying allowing us into his way of working. Methodical and meticulous, the ‘Killer’ waits patiently for the moment his planning comes to a head and he shoots. All the while he listens to songs by Mancunian indie band, The Smiths. The opening sequence is the strongest of the film and is a masterclass of visual storytelling, character work by Fassbender and suspense building. Inevitably, for a consummate professional and organiser, the hit goes awry and the ‘Killer’ find himself a target for death himself.
After such a memorable opening, reminiscent of one of Paul Schrader’s compelling existential-lone-man-in-a-room dramas, the remainder of the film is a more generic series of chases and fights enlivened by one stand-out acting duologue scene between Fassbender and Tilda Swinton. Moreover, for a character to have renounced emotional connections with anyone or anything, the ‘Killer’s’ motivations to wreak revenge on those who harmed his girlfriend seemed at odds with his governing principles. Also, for someone who is meant to “stick to the plan” he does improvise a fair amount. Putting my personal pedantry aside, this is a fine B-movie in the assassin crime subgenre with terrific work by Fassbender as the quirky killer and also Fincher, who even in second gear, is capable of delivering darkly compelling filmic entertainment.
Based on: Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann
Produced by: Dan Friedkin, Bradley Thomas, Martin Scorsese and Daniel Lupi
Main cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shephard, etc.
Cinematography: Rodrigo Prieto
Edited by: Thelma Schoonmaker
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
Who can tell how the world and society as we know it would’ve evolved if Christopher Columbus, the explorer credited with finding the Americas in 1492, had not landed and begun the first steps toward colonising this uncharted part of Earth. Of course, there were existing natives in the Americas and over time they would experience first contact with Spanish, Portuguese, British and other European, predominantly white, settlers. It may be that the natives would have had equally difficult experiences, and colonists brought with them many positive things. But one has to surmise they would not have had their land and lives gradually taken from them over the centuries without the European invasion.
The violent theft of land and wealth from Native Americans forms the bedrock of the narrative of Martin Scorsese’s latest epic drama, Killers of the Flower Moon (2023). Adapted from David Grann’s critically acclaimed nonfiction book, the film centres on the series of murders of wealthy Osage people that occurred in Oklahoma in the early 1920s. The motive for the heinous culling was the greed of white men. Such individuals lusted after the richness present after big oil deposits were discovered beneath the Osage people’s land. Whereas Grann’s book is a monumental study of the murders, perpetrators, the Osage culture, politics of the era, and how the newly formed FBI delved into the crimes, Scorsese’s incredibly slow and long adaptation does all that, while also exploring the romance and murderous treachery between Osage native, Mollie (Lily Gladstone) and war veteran, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio).
Opening by establishing how the oil erupted and blackened the green land, the film then firmly sets up how the American businessmen used the legality of the headright system to manipulate the flow of sudden wealth that came to the Osage people. One such man is William King Hale (Robert DeNiro) who presents himself as a benefactor to the Osage, but truly speaks with a forked tongue. Having left the infantry unit after World War One, Hale’s nephew Ernest joins him to work and ultimately do his bidding. Hale cajoles Ernest to romance wealthy Mollie and get further feet under the table and closer to that beloved black gold money. Yet, enough is never enough for the likes of Hale and driven by another formidable Scorsese directed performance, De Niro delivers a deviously evil characterisation.
DiCaprio here takes the less charismatic role as the doltish Ernest. As Hale urges him to do further misdeeds the banality of everyday evil is palpable in Ernest’s actions. Along with a litany of professional and thuggish cowboy types Ernest and Hale’s other minions wreak havoc on the Osage people, committing arson, murder, poisonings, robbery, and shootings. All just for more money. The tragedy is that Ernest clearly has feelings for Mollie, serenely portrayed by a revelatory Lily Gladstone, but he just cannot stand up for himself against his wicked uncle. So much so that I just wondered why the hefty runtime was concentrating on Ernest’s character. I mean, Scorsese and DiCaprio give us little in the way of anti-heroism to bounce off, or even some cathartic sense of redemption. Ernest starts out as a loser and finished the story the same. Over three hours spent with a gurning idiot left me frustrated.
Directed, as one would expect with a masterful hand, mind and eye by Scorsese, who once again surrounds himself with an incredibly talented cast and production crew. Not to forget the unbelievable $200 million budget. But Scorsese’s movement of late to ultra-long and methodical cinema is an artistic choice that requires much patience. While Killers of the Flower Moon (2023 is thematically very powerful, beautifully filmed, and contains a number of exceptionally impressive sequences, there was genuinely not enough story to justify such a long running time. Whereas The Irishman (2019) was slow, it was methodically thrilling and absorbing throughout. Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) on the other hand becomes repetitive in its reveals of greedy Cowboys breaking bad and raising hell to the cost of the Osage. The introduction of the FBI and their subsequent investigation comes way too late to save the over-bloated length and pace. However, there is no doubt, the film remains vital in highlighting the historial horror perpetrated upon the Osage land and people. Perhaps Apple TV should have just given the money to the Osage descendants as reparation?
Produced by: Anthony Bregman, John Carney, Peter Cron, Rebecca O’Flanagan and Robert Walpole.
Main Cast: Eve Hewson, Jack Reynor, Orén Kinlan and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Cinematography: John Conroy
Edited by: Stephen O’Connell
John Carney is a brilliant and honest filmmaker who is attracted to outsiders and people with real emotional turmoil. They tend to be at crossroads in their lives and are struggling with their dreams and relationships. He also loves musicians, flaws and all. In Begin Again (2013), a washed-up musical executive, portrayed by Mark Ruffalo, meets unhappy singer-songwriter, Keira Knightley and their first-world romance is played out to bittersweet consequences. Similarly, in Sing Street (2016), a troubled teenager comes of age through his 1980’s pop band and bittersweet romance with a rebellious and equally-troubled schoolgirl. Notice a pattern? Well, this style of music, gritty city backdrops and salty romances were established in Carney’s breakout hit, Once (2007) and are continued in his current underdog musical comedy, Flora and Son (2023).
Flora and Son (2023), believe it or not, is set in Dublin and centres around a single mum, Flora and her delinquent teenage son, Max (Oren Kinlan). Eve Hewson is the foul-mouthed-council-estate-joker, who uses anger and black humour to hide her feelings of insecurity and loss. A mourning for the loss of youth having brought up a child virtually single-handed. Her relationship with Max’s father, Ian (Jack Reynor) is fractured to say the least and they spit sarcastic barbs at each other as shared custodians of disaffected Max. While leaving her cleaning job at a middle-class household, Flora finds a battered guitar in a skip. Attempting to bond with Max, by giving him the guitar, Flora finds herself shunned. She then opens another bottle of wine, picks up the guitar and gives it a crack herself.
Taking online guitar lessons from charming and chilled American musician, Jeff (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Flora initially flirts but then knuckles down to learn the plucking instrument. The stakes aren’t particularly high here, but the feelgood acoustic numbers from Carney and co-composer, Gary Clark, certainly breeze along nicely and breath gold onto the screen. Max’s white-rap-Irish-hip-hop tracks are pretty good too and the video he and Flora make is really funny. Thus, you get the theme again from Carney that music helps to connect and heal and provide salvation to the most troubled of human situations. Overall, Flora and Son (2023), is a slight but enjoyable film with enough earthy humour, strumming harmony and kicking beats to please most.
Produced by: Gareth Edwards, Kiri Hart, Jim Spencer, Arnon Milchan
Main Cast: John David Washington, Madeleine Yuna Voyles, Gemma Chan, Ken Watanabe, Sturgill Simpson, Allison Janney, Ralph Ineson and Marc Menchaca.
Cinematography: Greig Fraser and Oren Soffer
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
The Creator (2023) is Gareth Edwards first directorial release since the tremendous Star Wars prequel Rogue One (2016). Of all the Disney-funded Star Wars products that remains my favourite. Overall, Rogue One (2016) is not just a great Star Wars film but a brilliant movie too, as it transcended the franchise while delivering a pulsating, heroic, nostalgic and emotional film experience. It also had an influence on the stunning visual look, action, and effects of The Creator (2023) too. So much so, The Creator (2023), in terms of style, often felt like a Star Wars film in all but name.
With The Creator (2023), Gareth Edwards and his talented production and effects team have invented a continually innovative futuristic look based around Artificially Intelligent robots and technologically modified humans. Indeed, based on all his directorial works, jaw-dropping visuals and themes of humans overcoming machines and monsters are always very much to the fore. But in The Creator (2023) one of the major themes poses the question – who are the real monsters? The humans or their computerised creations? As the narrative begins, in 2055, with the machines detonating a nuclear attack on Los Angeles the Americans declare war on the robots. More specifically, Southeast Asia, who still utilise A: I technology. Fast forward several years and John David Washington’s Joshua, remains part of the U.S. military plans, as they attempt to finish off the A: I threat for once and for all.
As Joshua is manipulated by the US Government, through a past romantic connection with Gemma Chan’s Maya, he is dropped behind “enemy” lines in Asia to destroy the A: I’s secret weapon called, “Alpha-O.” Along, with a paper-thin characterised group of U.S soldiers, Joshua finds the mission going south and ultimately goes on the run with “Alpha-O.” Edwards and his writers humanize the dangerous processor by giving it the body of a young girl portrayed by Madeleine Yuna Voyles. Despite the powerful visuals of the film, I found The Creator (2023) buckling under the wright of over-used ideas from other films. The cute “genius” kid being just one of those.
It’s The Terminator (1984) meetsArtificial: Intelligence (2001) meets Avatar (2009) meets any number of action-hero-saves-young-child narratives. I mean can at least one film TRY and make the American warmongers more nuanced? Yes, the action, cinematography and sound design are especially impressive and thrilling and there is certain emotion on screen. However, I personally did not feel much emotion in my heart, unfortunately. Watch it on the biggest screen you can, because what The Creator (2023) lacks in original narrative and character elements, it more than makes up in nifty robotic concepts and visual cinematic grandeur.
Life and work have been extremely positive and busy of late, but I have still found time to watch a number of films during September. Here are some quick reviews of just a few of the ones I have seen.
** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS **
65 (2023)
How could a sci-fi-creature film with Adam Driver battling dinosaurs sixty-five million years ago be so uninspired? This probably would have been amazing with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead and John McTiernan directing in the nineties, but the limp father-daughter narrative propellent and severe lack of dinosaur carnage left me feeling disappointed.
Mark: 5 out of 11
CINEMA REVIEW: A HAUNTING IN VENICE (2023)
I love Agatha Christie and I love Poirot. The recent renditions from Kenneth Branagh have been mixed. Murder on the Orient Express (2017) was fantastic, especially for a very familiar murder mystery, while Death on the Nile (2022)was overcooked with a number of miscasts. A Haunting in Venice (2023) is a return to form and a real Halloween treat. The murder mystery isn’t the most interesting part as the plot points, apart from one decent twist, are mostly obvious. But the spooky lighting, eerie sound, imaginative use of lenses and camera angles, plus the claustrophobic and spooky atmosphere created within the Venetian palazzo are extremely impressive. I actually wanted more supernatural scares. The cast are great, although Tina Fey was glamorously miscast as the author, Ariadne Oliver. The ITV/David Suchet version was more faithful and had a better story, but I really enjoyed this excellent piece of comfort cinema.
Mark: 8 out of 11
APPLE TV REVIEW: CAUSEWAY (2022)
Jennifer Lawrence produces and stars as a U.S. soldier/engineer blown up in Afghanistan who, while suffering from PTSD, struggles to get her life back together in New Orleans. A lower-budget and lower key drama that clearly gave Lawrence a change of pace from the blockbusters she has been starring in for years. Causeway (2022) reminded me how great an actress Lawrence is and also, how brilliant Bryan Tyree Henry is. But the character study meanders with a lack of narrative drive, clarity and dynamism Lawrence showed inSilver Linings Playbook (2012). Indeed, while a worthy advocate for a soldier’s suffering, there wasn’t muchJoy (2015) to be found here.
Mark: 6.5 out of 11
SKY CINEMA REVIEW: DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: HONOR AMONGST THIEVES (2023)
I missed this at the cinema as I was probably washing my hair at the time; what there is of it. However, this latest uber-budgeted attempt to breathe life into the table-top-dice-throwing Dungeons and Dragons game is actually really entertaining. Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez and Hugh Grant lead the energetic cast in a series of fantastically funny and frenetic action set-pieces involving magic, monsters, wizards, castles, stolen booty and of course, dragons. Pine and Grant are always very watchable, but Michelle Rodriguez steals the film with smashing physicality and deadpan humour as the barbarian, Holga Kilgore. The script has many fine gags throughout, as the likeable characters and pacey heist plot rip along wonderfully. You cannot go wrong with a ragtag group of outsiders finding community while fighting against a pernicious foe. Well, actually you can. But, Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) does not!
Mark: 8 out of 11
DISNEY+ REVIEW: NO ONE WILL SAVE YOU (2023)
Kaitlyn Dever’s Brynn exists in a town where no one seems to speak to her or each other. But suddenly the place is overrun with aliens and Brynn must fight for her life while still not uttering a word. Hmmmm. . . in between the no dialogue cinematic contrivance becoming a bit of a bore, Brian Duffield’s excellent B-movie has some terrific action and a committed lead performance from the sensational Kaitlyn Dever. Since her breakthrough appearance in Short Term 12 (2013), she has gone from strength-to-strength as a performer. As a work of pure suspense cinema the film works mostly because of a weaponised Dever, the dynamic camerawork and the cracking sound and editing. However, the story has a number of holes, especially toward the end, which is frankly ridiculous. But Brian Duffield is a very talented writer and director and it is great that he strived for some formal originality in a familiar genre. Even though there was (yes I know it raises the tension) no organic narrative reason for the lack of speech throughout.
Produced by: David Hinojosa, Christine Vachon and Pamela Koffler, etc.
Main cast: Greta Lee, Teo Yoo, John Magaro, Ji Hye Yoon, Choi Won-young, etc.
Cinematography: Shabier Kirchner
Edited by: Keith Fraas
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
“It’s an in-yeon if two strangers even walk past each other in the street and their clothes accidentally brush, because it means there must have been something between them in their past lives. If two people get married, they say it’s because there have been 8,000 layers of in-yeon over 8,000 lifetimes.” – Nora fromPast Lives (2023)
Are we fated to connect with the ones we love through each life we lead? Is love a connecting force for good which enriches and links us to our forever soulmate? Or is it a complex chemical reaction driven by three chemicals in the brain such as noradrenaline that stimulates adrenaline production, dopamine, and phenylethylamine. Be it spiritual or chemical, love drives many of the highs of our lives, but it is also responsible for disappointing lows. Safe to say that love and romance are also a staple for many emotionally charged and beautiful works of cinema, of which Celine Song’sPast Lives (2023) is certainly one of them.
Past Lives (2023) is a love story which transports the audience across time and continents through the spiritual and spatial connection of characters, Na Young (Greta Lee) and Hae Sung (Teo Yoo). The opening act establishes the relationship of the two as schoolfriends in Seoul. Alas, any potential fledgling romance for the teenagers is blocked as Na Young’s family moves to Canada, leaving Hae Sung’s alone with his future unknown. The film then moves twelve years forward where Na Young, now known as Nora, lives in New York. Through a chance quirk of social media fate, she reconnects with Hae Sung. Is that adolescent spark still there?
In the second act, Song’s elegantly devised screenplay explores and Nora Hae Sung’s long distance relationship over several heartfelt online calls. But complex emotional circumstances dictate the two cannot reconcile the friendship further. The two drift apart and they take other partners as another twelve years pass. With Nora in a strong relationship with the sensitive and kindly, Arthur (John Magaro), it would appear Nora and Hae Sung’s friendship is at an end. Or is it? Because Song delivers one of the most powerfully moving third acts I have seen at the cinema in some years.
Without explosions, or car chases, or superheroes or fast-paced cutting or extraordinary heroes defeating powerful foes, Past Lives (2023), is one of the most impactful and stirring films of this year. Celine Song achieves this with a delicate hand in the writing and direction, plus a purposeful naturalistic cinematographic palette delivered by Shabier Kirchner. Above all else Song creates two honest characters who you root for from the start, as the one feels the romantic electricity build on the screen. Indeed, Greta Lee and Teo Yoo’s on-screen chemistry is an acting masterclass, with John Magaro further providing touching support within the triangle.
Now, I am not without sensitivity, but it’s virtually impossible to make me cry at the cinema. But Past Lives (2023) almost did. It made my heart swell and ache. It made me laugh as well, because Song’s script has lovely humour throughout. Above all else, whether it is karma or chemicals, it made me grateful to have known love.
Produced by: David Heyman, Margot Robbie, Tom Ackerley and Robbie Brenner
Cast: Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, America Ferrera, Kate McKinnon, Michael Cera, Simu Liu, Helen Mirren, Issa Rae, Rhea Perlman, Will Ferrell, etc.
Cinematography: Rodrigo Prieto
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
I saw Barbie (2023) a few weeks ago but work has been really busy so I am only just getting round to reviewing this cinematic adaptation of a lump of plastic that was moulded into a best selling toy. So, after the critical acclaim received for the excellent rites of passage film,Ladybird (2017), and recently starring in the existential comedic folly that is, White Noise (2022), Greta Gerwig takes the helm for this funny, intelligent, sarcastic and brightly coloured filmic vomit.
Gerwig shares writing duties with Noah Baumbach. These two major talents seem an unlikely duo to adapt a story of about an arguably sexist and outdated doll, that profiled unrealistic body images to the millions of people who owned it. I mean, I have never had a Barbie doll and didn’t really like dolls at all as a kid. I might have had an Action Man, but must admit I did enjoy owning my Star Wars figures. They somehow had more character and worth, despite also being made of synthetic polymer. My point is that Barbie (2023), aside from making money, I do not see any reason for a Barbie film to exist. However, it is to Gerwig and Baumbach’s credit they have crafted a wonderful and funny screenplay to ultimately sell more plastic dolls.
The story finds Margot Robbie’s ridiculously attractive blonde living in a utopian land entirely run by different versions of empowered Barbies. Many of which are played by an energetic who’s-who of an ensemble. Suddenly Barbie is struck by existential dread and a fear of death. Determined to discover why Barbie’s perfect life sucks, she goes on a journey to find the reasons why an anthropomorphic lump of processed oil isn’t going to live forever. Joining her on the trip to the real world is the dopey Ken (Ryan Gosling), who love-stalks Barbie like a pining puppy. Cue Barbie and Ken’s “fish-out-of-water” quest to find whatever in the real world. Yet, after a terrifically imaginative opening series of scenes and sequences, this is where the film starts to unravel.
The opening 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) homage is easily the best thing about Barbie (2023) for me, along with some cracking one-liner gags throughout. Ryan Gosling also steals the show as the dim-witted Ken, whose character arc is ironically way stronger than Barbie’s. Robbie is sparkling as usual but I found the frenzied colours and manic ensemble a little overwhelming for my taste. The film is also way too long with too many unsatisfactory sub-plots, such as America Ferrara’s underwritten real-women-in-crisis narrative. Overall though, Gerwig and Baumbach have great fun satirising the patriarchy and corporate capitalism while at the same time upholding patriarchal values and making $hitload$ of cash in the process.
Based on: American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
Produced by: Emma Thomas, Charles Roven, Christopher Nolan
Cast: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Conti and many more.
Cinematography: Hoyte van Hoytema
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
One wonders if Christopher Nolan sees himself reflected, on some subconscious level, in the character of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Both are geniuses within their chosen field, and both have had their critics who do not always agree with their choices. The intrinsic difference is that the work of Oppenheimer and his team of scientists created one of the most expensive and deadly weapons the world has even seen. His actions led to destruction and death on a mass scale. Christopher Nolan, on the other hand, merely creates expensive drama and destruction on a cinema screen for our entertainment.
J. Robert Oppenheimer is clearly a complex character to bring to life on the screen. Indeed, scientists are not always the most riveting of characters, nor particularly cinematic. Especially since they spend their days in laboratories, classrooms and have their heads buried in books. Thus, visually speaking it is a constant challenge for filmmakers to present such biopic narratives. Moreover, thematically, and philosophically there is much internal conflict to wrestle with. Especially someone as (in)famous as Oppenheimer. I mean, how does a man overcome the guilt of being responsible for the deaths of so many people?
Having said that, Oppenheimer, as the leader of the ‘Manhattan Project’ at Los Alamos, could also be interpreted as the saviour of lives. The invention of nuclear weapons is an act of aggression, but paradoxically also a shield of peace. Such is the fear generated by such a devastating tool we will never know how many lives the existence of nuclear bombs has saved. Unfortunately, human beings find other ways to kill each other. That sadly will never stop. Does Nolan explore these themes within the intense three hours of cinematic propulsion, Oppenheimer (2023)? It is certainly there in the subtext, but perhaps not as pronounced as I would have hoped.
Adapting American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, Christopher Nolan’s screenplay is highly intelligent and clearly professionally researched. It is also, when compared with the often-baffling Tenet (2020), simply structured. Events from Oppenheimer’s early life, post-war troubles with the United States government and the key stages of the ‘Manhattan Project’ are cut together in juxtaposing timelines throughout the lengthy running time. Nolan builds from the Senate and court hearings Oppenheimer faces after the war, where his security status is threatened with revocation due to his alleged association with the Communist party before the war.
That McCarthyistic-Red-Scare-paranoia was vilifying genuine heroes such as Oppenheimer is quite incredible, but unsurprising. I mean, here is a man, who served his country to personal cost and his own mental degradation. It is therefore a measure of his character, as presented via Cillian Murphy’s formidable portrayal, that he refuses to break in the face of constant questioning of his patriotism and commitment to America. I felt that the constant jolts from the Senate hearings, where Robert Downey Jnr’s, Lewis Strauss, is seeking election, to Oppenheimer’s security status “trial,” brought about an overly repetitive and talky series of scenes which bogged down the emotions for me.
Where the film truly blooms is when Oppenheimer makes his scientific breakthrough, builds his team of geniuses and the construction and testing of the nuclear weapons at Los Alamos. There is palpable suspense (even though we know what happens) in the race with the Germans to make the bomb first. Imagine if the Germans had won the race? It does not bear thinking about. The history of the world would have been irrevocably altered beyond comprehension. Nolan also does an effective job of keeping the scientific language at an understandable level, as he promotes personalities over jargon. Indeed, Nolan’s ultra-talented ensemble cast including Matt Damon, Rami Malek, Josh Hartnett, Dane DeHaan, Jason Clarke, Florence Pugh and the best of the lot, Robert Downey Jnr, are all superbly marshalled by the director.
As well as being rich in history and thematic power,Oppenheimer’s (2023) visuals, allied with Hoyte Van Hoytema’s pristine cinematography, are unsurprisingly impressive. Nolan makes the choice to switch between black-and-white and colour photography. This is initially jarring but works with the shifting character perspectives it is intended to denote. On the other hand, I would say the pulsating sound design and score felt overbearing at times. Similarly, one could argue the overload of cutting, aural battering and switching of film colour stock combine to overload the viewer and remove emotional and dramatic resonance.
Oppenheimer (2023) is another Nolan masterwork as he and Cillian Murphy will surely get Oscar nominations. Lastly, the film works best as a bullet-pointed history lesson, a fine tribute to a complex and flawed genius, and a powerful damnation of United States paranoid politics. However, the solipsist nature of Oppenheimer’s character study and crowd of talking heads often becomes dizzying, watering down the drama and emotion of this immaculate and nuclear work of cinema.
Produced by: Wes Anderson, Steven Rales, Jeremy Dawson
Ensemble Cast: Jason Schwartzman, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hanks, Jeffrey Wright, Tilda Swinton, Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Liev Schreiber, Hope Davis, Stephen Park, Rupert Friend, Maya Hawke, Steve Carell, Matt Dillon, Hong Chau, Willem Dafoe etc.
Cinematography Robert Yeoman
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
Wes Anderson is a phenomenal filmmaker with an imaginative set of style and narrative conceits. Everyone one of his releases is a rich tapestry containing memorable ensemble casts, adjacent framing, effervescent use of colour, geographical pertinence, intellectual humour and subjects situated in the far-left field of genre cinema. Yet, I do not enjoy ALL his films. Often, they veer too far into eccentric pretentiousness. Indeed, I found The French Dispatch (2021), frustrating and, other than the tremendous story set in the asylum with the mad artist (Benicio Del Toro), disconnected with it overall. While it was another admirable work of cinema, I did not enjoy it as a paying punter.
Asteroid City (2023), however, is a film I enjoyed greatly. The famous actors immersed within the ensemble, the cinematic artifice, the clever meta-narrative structure, symmetrical shot composition, beautiful use of colour, offbeat characters, specific era and geographical setting, imaginative props and costume design, and witty humour are all present as per Anderson’s impressive body of work. But Asteroid City (2023) had a larger emotional heart than his recent films, and is my favourite since the superb, The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014).
A heady combination of genres, one could describe, Asteroid City (2023), as a hyper-sci-fi-Western-retro-romantic-futuristic-comedy and study of grief set in 1950s, America. Despite filming taking place in Spain. Anyway, Anderson establishes the characters through the structure of a film within a play. Bryan Cranston’s narrator introduces us to the various middle-class, working class, military and scientific personalities who become trapped in the town of Asteroid City by a series of unlikely but hilarious misfortunes. Throughout the chapter inter-titles the scenes return us to our narrator as Anderson cleverly comments on the process of creating a story while delivering the narrative events.
Anderson delves into familiar themes of grief via the story of war photographer, Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzmann) and his four kids, one of whom is a genius, Woodrow (Jake Ryan). He is there for a Junior Stargazer competition amidst the setting of the gigantic meteorite bunker. Again, the theme of prodigious children is mined for great humour and intellectual wit by Anderson. The futuristic inventions created by the children are especially fantastic. The plot strand of the science geniuses being exploited by the military and corporate sharks is deftly done. Yet, the main emotional heft is delivered within Augie and Hollywood actress, Midge Palmer’s (Scarlett Johansson) budding relationship. Johansson is especially compelling in the role, anchoring the film in welcome pathos, amidst the flurry of idiosyncratic absurdities Anderson throws at us. His framing of Augie and Midge between the their chalets is aesthetically memorable, visually augmenting their growing human connection.
Asteroid City (2023) proves once again Wes Anderson is one of the most original filmmakers of this generation. Will he gain some more converts to his particular set of cinematic bag of tricks? Who knows. What I do know is that I was completely immersed in the colour, movement, pace, humour, aesthetics, performances and themes with the film. I must say though, while it was necessary, the “Area 51” style — and I don’t want to give it away — absurd plot-turn halfway through was not my favourite aspect of the piece. But I realise it was narratively integral to the story. The meta-framing also seemed to get in the way at times of the main action effecting the occupants of Asteroid City. But these are minor gripes at a thoroughly artistic, beautifully immersive, and technically impressive cinematic achievement.
Screenplay by: M. Night Shyamalan, Steve Desmond and Michael Sherman Based on The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul G. Tremblay
Produced by: M. Night Shyamalan, Marc Bienstock, Ashwin Rajan
Main cast: Dave Bautista, Jonathan Groff, Ben Aldridge, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Kristen Cui, Abby Quinn, Rupert Grint etc.
Cinematography: Jarin Blaschke, Lowell A. Meyer
*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ***
M. Night Shyamalan is arguably one of the most critically divisive directors working today. Not because his films are particularly controversial, but mainly because he is a risk-taker that tests the boundaries of genre expectations. He has so many different ideas and concepts that quite often his movies have back-fired spectacularly, however, when he gets it right his genre films are highly entertaining and compelling. Superior genre films such as: The Sixth Sense (1999), Unbreakable (2000), Signs (2002), andThe Village (2004), were full of invention, suspense and wicked twists. Many people felt The Village stretched the limits of suspending disbelief, but it was a masterpiece compared to his filmic failures like: The Lady in the Water (2006), The Happening (2008) and The Last Airbender (2010).
I missed seeing the apparent disaster that was After Earth (2013), yet it was opined that Shyamalan returned to some essence of form with the horror film The Visit (2015). However, I still felt there were some dodgy creative decisions in that, such as the story-filler-white-middle-class-rapping kid in amidst a creepy thriller. Yet, with Split (2016), Shyamalan was back to his best, weaving an exploitational B-movie kidnap-plot with a searing psycho-performance from James McAvoy. The ending, which found Anya Taylor-Joy’s ultra resilient Casey fighting back against McAvoy’s twenty-plus split-personality maniac, then brilliantly linked the film to Shyamalan’s Unbreakable (2000). Glass (2019), was a solid finale to the unlikely trilogy and his adaptation of the novel, Sandcastle, titled Old (2021), received mixed reviews. However, despite the over-cooked ending, I thought it was a brilliant Twilight Zone infused ensemble suspense twister.
Shyamalan’s latest cinema offering,Knock at the Cabin (2023) is another literary adaptation and contains a simple yet compelling premise. As same-sex couple, Eric and Andrew, plus their adopted daughter, Wen, are enjoying a relaxing getaway in a peaceful and bucolic wood, four strangers carrying home made medieval-type weapons arrive and give them a horrific choice. If they do not sacrifice and kill one of their family, the end of the world will begin. This apocalyptic game of “would you rather” immediately raises the drama and stakes to a critical point, after which events become darker and tense. I was immediately drawn in as I really enjoy narratives where the characters have unenviable choices to make. What would I do in that situation?
As the family are tied up and threatened, the four strangers introduce themselves and how they came to the cabin. The tension increases as the world events seem to back up what the seemingly crazy people are saying. Interspersed with the scenes in the cabin are some moving flashbacks which establish the humanity and relationships of the victims. This creates empathy and texture to the middle-class every-couple family unit. They are not action stars or superheroes, but are us, the audience, facing a hard-to-stomach decision. Of course, a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is asked by Knock at the Cabin (2023). However, I was certainly gripped by the narrative throughout.
M. Night Shyamalan’s films often contain social commentary or reference to larger external forces impacting the characters. Here my interpretation was that, the book it is adapted from and the script, are dealing with themes relating to environmental allegory. If we, as a species, are all prepared to make a sacrifice we can ultimately save the world from disaster. Yet, Shyamalan succeeds here where The Happening (2008) failed because the message is more subtle, without bludgeoning us over the head with a massive weapon. Talking of which Dave Bautista gives a revelatory performance as the gentle giant, Leonard, a man cursed to carry out the portentous visions which haunt him and his group of deadly seers. His performance, some fascinating frame and shot choices, and Shyamalan’s ability to create psychological tension without resorting to shock tactics are all great reasons to answer the door to this apocalyptic thriller.
The Cinema Fix presents 