Diegesis Discussion

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 4 Review

2012-11-09T11:50:00.003Z

In many cases there will be one seminal season of a television show. For all the episodes that constitute the label “best ever season”, there is usually one in amongst them all that is pivotal. It may be too early to say but The Walking Dead’s “Killer Within” may be that episode in a season that is arguably the “best ever”.

The last episode moved away from Rick and co’s story and drew attention on Michonne and Andrea and a new community they are invited into. Episode four switches back and forth between these arcs though the expected linkage between has yet to be seen.

“Killer Within” begins with the set-up of a zombie mousetrap where, instead of cheese, a deer carcass is strung up to attract and distract two walkers whilst an unknown figure breaks through the fence of the prison. As one gate is opened, the bloody heart of the deer is placed on the ground – bait for more walkers.

The prison is now officially home for Rick and his family and friends and so a clean-up is underway. This occupies most of Glenn, Daryl, T-Dog and Carol’s time though some attention is given to the two convicts left to live in a cell full of the “ghosts” of old prison-mates. The older, Southern man begs to be let in the group whilst his younger, black companion sees no point trying to bargain with the stern lot of newcomers. T-Dog is a little more open to inviting the pair in, thinking that “those two might actually have less blood on their hands than we do”. Nevertheless, Rick’s rules stand and the convicts are locked up. You often forget that Rick was a police officer and so his perception of criminals is largely distrustful; he tells the story of an boy he once arrested who once acquitted went on to shoot more people, giving credence to his opinion of consideration before care. The Southerner keeps trying to win over Daryl but to no avail, hoping Daryl would allow him to touch up his motorbike in one instance.

Back to Woodbury and Michonne is checking out the area by herself. She still feels perturbed about being under the rule of the mysterious Governor and is analysing the trucks and Humvees supposedly salvaged from the apparent zombie attack on the group of soldiers. As she sees bullets holes embedded in the side doors the Governor appears – she takes her opportunity to question the scenario. He manipulates the moment by praising Michonne and saying how the situation may have been different with her help and knowledge. Despite his efforts Michonne still has her reservations and shrugs off his tall tales and commendations. Back in her room with Andrea she tells her friend of her plan to get to the coast, find a boat and travel to an island. Andrea likes the romantic and possibly safe notion of this plan and decides to join Michonne.

Hershel’s health, meanwhile, has strengthened and he takes to using crutches to move around. Finding his new legs is a slow process but as he walks out into the prison yard he is looked on by all the others. It is a moment of cheerfulness that feels odd and alien to the show (forgetting the camp-fire scene in “Seed”). Some may not experience this uneasiness but for those that do, the shots of smiling faces brings on an anxious sweat. The slight fear you may feel is quite legitimate as soon dozens of walkers begin to flood the prison ground. Hershel is barely back on his feet and Lori is heavily pregnant – these two issues are made worse by the fact that help from Rick, Daryl and Glenn has to wait as they are on the other side of the prison yard. They sprint to their aid but are still too far away to get there in time and Lori, Carl, Maggie, Carol and T-Dog have to take shelter inside. Tension has surmounted in a few sequences so far but this is easily the most nerve-wracking; the jeopardy that so many core characters find themselves is shocking. As if matters couldn’t get worse T-Dog is bit and the prison alarm is raised, bringing walkers in from all surrounding areas.

Andrea says her goodbyes to Merle, though asks him whether he had ever thought about leaving. Andrea is offering to help Merle find his brother and with that and her query he starts to question his time in Woodbury. He goes to the Governor and talks about his wish to find his brother. The Governor continues to be manipulative and carefully shoots holes in Merle’s optimism, trying to advertise the settlement. Merle continues to give ideas of how he’ll find Daryl and the Governor finally states that if he gets more concrete evidence that he will go with him –hopeful that no extra information will come or that Merle changes his mind. Andrea later says her goodbyes to the Governor but decides to stick around for a day or two longer, much to Michonne’s annoyance.

Back with the main story and the alarm is sounding loudly throughout the prison. Glenn finds the lock cut with an axe and Rick and Daryl immediately think it’s the two convicts. The prisoners both vehemently deny it and the younger one offers guidance on how to shut off the alarm and where to find the generator – this earns the both of them a kind of reprieve. Inside the lower depths of the prison Lori, Carl and Maggie take sanctuary in the boiler room where Lori has gone into labour. Maggie tries to help but after finding blood during one of the pushes, realises more help is needed.

The other characters needing help are Carol and T-Dog, especially as the latter has been bit and is ready to turn. Unlike Carl, Lori and Maggie, they have been unable to find a place to hide safely. The walkers trudge through every corridor, making the labyrinth all the more deathly. T-Dog finds an exit and holds back the two walkers covering it in order for Carol to escape. Like I said in the review for episode one, there is something more repulsive about a living person getting ripped apart in the show than a walker. T-Dog’s horrible death includes his neck being bitten into – with the flesh ripped away and a gush of blood following that makes even the more desensitised viewer feel faint. His death may mean something to some fans but in general T-Dog is a weak, undeveloped character that only provides muscle and occasional opinion. The demise of T-Dog would not give the episode the full thwack of drama and so one more character must perish.

If T-Dog could die amid the scratches and snares of the zombies, so could anyone in the prison. Rick, Daryl and the black convict are equally vulnerable when routing their way to generators. As they reach the room they’re looking for the door can’t close with the walkers pounding up against it and as Rick asks for assistance on shutting the power off, only Daryl can hold the door. The walkers could break through is not the major worry though – the swing of an axe only just misses Rick and the one behind all the games is the one Rick left on the prison roofs. Realistically pissed off by the desertion he has tried to kill Rick and his group – successful in part. A close fight ends when the helpful convict shoots his past cell-mate in the head. As the gun still lies square at Rick’s head, Daryl creeps up ready to stab away. Fortunately, the black convict still wants to lend a hand and gives Rick back his gun. Maybe now he and the Southerner will be accepted.

The Caesarean that Lori thought she may need becomes a necessity. Lori is decisive that her baby is given its life whilst she loses hers. The relationship between Carl and his parents has lost most of its relevance and so Lori dying in Carl’s arms arguably doesn’t affect you as much you would have thought. As the baby is pulled out by Maggie it looks to be stillborn, adding to the tragedy that Lori died in vain. However, the baby soon lets out a cry and Maggie walks out of the boiler room with it. Carl is left to destroy his mother’s brain, lest she return as a walker. The shot that we hear as Maggie looks to go back for him is more saddening than her goodbye – it is a dilemma for Carl and a horrible choice he has to make. Before we hear the shot we see a flashback to an earlier episode where Rick tells his son how he’ll “never be ready” for the deaths and destruction the new world will bring. It reminds you more of Carl and Rick’s relationship, making the final scene heartbreaking.

As Rick, Daryl and Glenn find T-Dog’s chewed remains they see the exit that Carol escaped through (though they believe her to be dead also after finding only her head-cloth). Led back into the prison yard Rick asks for Lori, Carl and Maggie’s whereabouts. As Hershel and Beth tell them there’s no sign of them the faint cry of the baby immediately gets their attention. Maggie shakily walks out with the baby in her arms, Carl following solemnly behind. As Rick sees Maggie’s teary eyed face and finds no Lori walking behind he realises the worst has happened. This is one of the most devastating sequences in The Walking Dead and Andrew Lincoln and Lauren Cohan’s acting lifts the drama and desolation to new heights. Carl stands silently with watery eyes and Rick looks at him, bubbling “No, no no”. From the description it may not sound too upsetting but watching it does have you welling up – Rick is such a strong character so to see him broken down is harrowing.

It ends on the bleakest note in the series so far. I worry that the next few episodes will revert back to the slow, dreary pace of the second season when that dealt with death. My optimism in the third season does outweigh my pessimism but it’s too hard to tell how the season will now progress. Still, only on the fourth episode we are given a lot to deal with and hopefully the remaining episodes with dole out more interesting, entertaining and evocative material.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Flickering Myth

LFF: Four Review

2012-11-07T21:45:00.003Z

Director/ Writer: Joshua Sanchez

Starring: Wendell Pierce, Aja Naomi King, Emory Cohen, E.J. Bonilla, Yolonda Ross, Liam Benzvi

Synopsis: June (Cohen) wants to come out of the closet but fears for the possible aftermath. In order to test his feelings he arranges a date online with an older man called Joe (Pierce). As June and Joe spend a night together a corresponding love story is taking place between Joe’s daughter Abigayle (King) and her friend from school, Dexter (Bonilla).

Wendell Pierce may be best known for his aptly named “Bunk” character in The Wire, though is by no means keen on becoming typecast. Four finds him as a family man who has arranged to meet a teenage guy intent on losing his virginity. Pierce’s performance is fantastic – not unsurprising considering his part in the phenomenal Wire series – and tailored to his appearance. A formidable presence, he embodies the “first time” fears whilst also showing a caring, embraceable side to him. Pierce is a tremendous actor and eats up his scenes – one monologue, especially, showcasing his skill – who is trying out daring material and making it provocative and dramatic.

It is not only Wendell’s film and as the title suggests, there is a focus on four characters. Wendell shares his scenes with the lesser-known Emory Cohen. Cohen ignores any imitation that may come from standing alongside the burly frame of Pierce and adeptly adds the raw emotion of angst to Pierce’s soft and wistful portrayal.

The remaining two stories are of Joe’s (Pierce) daughter and her love interest. Moments of poignancy and tender conversations come and go through this section though this arc remains largely uninteresting. There are no issues with the pair’s acting ability but any statement Four aims to make is mostly found in Pierce and Cohen’s part.

Four has elements that are thought-provoking and dramatic – another valiant step forward in the gay cinema sphere. Pierce deserves some accolades but with the mediocre nature of the film that may not come to fruition.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: What Richard Did Review

2012-11-07T21:40:00.000Z

Director: Lenny Abrahamson

Writer: Malcolm Campbell

Starring: Jack Reynor, Roisin Murphy, Sam Keeley, Lars Mikkelsen, Padraic Delaney, Gavin Drea

Synopsis: Richard (Reynor) has just started dating Lara (Murphy) and their relationship is developing well. However, Lara’s ex-boyfriend stands in the way on a few occasions and on one particular night, a drunken brawl turns into a devastating tragedy.

The Irish film industry has not prospered as much it could over the last few decades (gems like Waking Ned, Hunger and The Guard being some of the exceptions) though when they produce something of good value it stands out. What Richard Did is not an exceptional film but it shows the strength of the country’s writers, actors and directors.

As the examples show, Irish film is most associated with comedies and stories of the IRA. It is a staple that often harms Ireland’s chances at becoming recognised in the field though with director Lenny Abrahamson that may change. Abrahamson’s last few films include a tragicomedy called Garage and the hard-hitting drama Adam & Paul. Soon he will make Frank, a comedy with Michael Fassbender, which will undoubtedly get him attention. As of now, What Richard Did stands to give him a credible name in the film industry as the film exudes a mature filmmaking technique.

Behind the camera may be one aspect of What Richard Did’s achievement, but its main triumph is found in the lead, Jack Reynor. Reynor takes the script, and the scenes of improvisation, with a confidence seldom found in young actors. One scene in particular where Richard contemplates what he did (without detailing in order to avoid spoilers) that quickly turns into a scene of hysteria is haunting in its brief moment. Many of Reynor’s co-stars have gone on to big projects and after this it should be the same for him. He has to carry a film dealing with issues of despair, morality and love; not an easy task but Reynor manages it with ease.

The downfall of the film is its steady pace that lulls you along its narrative. When a moment of violence or argument occurs it jolts the film out of its monotony but these are rare in the storyline, leaving the film to drag along. The running time is perhaps too long to render the minutia and the drama as effectively as the director may have hoped for. The pivotal plot point and the aftermath of it has been seen and played in many films and What Richard Did does not do that much differently with the subject matter. The relationship between Richard, his girlfriend and his parents after the incident is what compels you through this tried piece of disequilibrium.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

Seek Out Section: Blackthorn Review

2012-11-06T19:44:00.000Z

Director: Mateo Gil

Writer: Miguel Barros

Starring: Sam Shepard, Eduardo Noriega, Stephen Rea, Magaly Solier, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Padraic Delaney, Dominique McElligott

Synopsis: After supposedly being killed in Bolivia, Butch Cassidy (Shepard) managed to create a new identity after getting away. He lived as James Blackthorne and after looking for a new adventure he became aligned with a man named Eduardo (Noriega) whose fugitive status made both men targets for lawmen and gangs.

Due to the iconic and beloved film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, many films involving the two bank robbers that followed George Roy Hill’s classic seemed unnecessary and insubstantial. It was also down to the idea that Cassidy and the Kid died at the wrong end of countless Bolivian gun barrels, leaving their story with a definite end point. Nevertheless, research into the two crooks led to the discovery of their escape. Whilst the story of their survival has little evidence, Blackthorn concocts a brilliant story of “what if?” combined with some pieces of historical evidence.

Cassidy, as audiences of the popular Paul Newman/Robert Redford film understand, was a lovable rogue whose criminal activity was out of necessity rather than malice. Sam Shepard who now takes on the role imbues a faint charm under a weathered and rugged frame. He completely embodies the outlaw, gracing the film with great acting and a wonderful spirit. Depending on how Barros wrote the older Cassidy character in the script, Shepard certainly makes it his own. It cannot escape the comparison to Paul Newman’s embodiment but rightly alters it for the aged figure he became.

The story of Butch and Sundance back in their heyday is occasionally referenced with flashbacks – superb casting of Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as the younger Cassidy (who looks startling similar to Shepard) adds to the authentic feel of the film. The structure of the film is masterfully arranged, with Gil developing an engrossing story that plays upon the legend of the pair and the unknown adventures of a lone Cassidy.

Rather unbelievably this is a first feature picture. Gil previously directed TV movies and shorts, as well as writing a few screenplays, but brings sophistication to the entirety of Blackthorn. Casting has helped the film bring the story to life (which would fall flat on moments of dull dialogue were it not for the actors) and cinematography is impeccably majestic. Juan Ruiz Anchia’s camera work rivals that of Freddie Young’s or Roger Deakins’ when it comes to awe-inspiring scenes of beauty. Westerns rule the big screen; Blackthorn’s sequences on the barren landscapes are wonderfully nostalgic with touches of modern technical skill (camera rigs and near-unnoticeable computer effects) – Anchia celebrating what makes the genre recognisable.

Westerns are a forgotten and less admired genre nowadays leaving Blackthorn to linger in cult territory. It drags in sections of the third act with Stephen Rea’s undeveloped character yet overall it’s an entertaining film that had it had been made back in the John Ford era would be viewed as a highly stylish example of the genre. If you can borrow the Blu-ray do so – the picture enhancement adds a great deal to the viewing experience.

****

By Piers McCarthy

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 3 Review

2012-11-02T17:22:00.000Z

I finished Episode 2’s review with: “could an unexpected event take place in episode 3? I’d count on it.” Episode 3 of The Walking Dead verified my idea that more of the unexpected was it on its way. I never imagined that the show would take an entirely separate direction away from Rick and his group, though in “Walk With Me” the story is based solely on Andrea and Michonne.

The episode starts off with a few quick shots of silent landscapes, then, out of nowhere, a helicopter flies in. The disruption of what we have to come to know as the muted normality is quite striking. It is also relatively confusing and, at first, you may believe this to be a flashback scene. The helicopter struggles with turbulence and eventually plummets to the ground. We see the smoke waft up from a distance, with the camera behind Andrea and Michonne looking at it with disbelief – confirming its presence in the current story-line. They venture toward it with Andrea seemingly more enthused about the notion of survivors.

Michonne is more concerned about what the wreckage may mean and goes to inspect it. The first casualty found has been split in half by the helicopter blade. As the remaining episode will include only a few gruesome special effects, the SFX team emphasise their great work with moments like this. Michonne barely has time to look over the crash site before a few cars pull up. She dashes back to Andrea and they watch from behind the bushes as men step out of the vehicles and clear the space around them. Any zombies shuffling towards them get taken out instantly by the 5-men-strong crew.

They are an efficient bunch, but their motivations are unclear. Andrea and Michonne are even more uncertain as to what they want and how violent or helpful they may be. As the divided dead soldier turns into a zombie, the two women watch as the leader of the group plunges a knife into his/its skull. They are unaware of the virus that brings any dead person back to life and so seeing them kill what they think to be a severely injured man has them petrified.

The two chained up zombies of Michonne’s cause too much noise and she is forced to cut off their heads. The men look into the bushes to look for where the noise may have come from before deciding to “roll out.” Just as Andrea and Michonne think they’re safe a familiar voice emerges from the trees behind them. Andrea knows the voice and anxiously turns around. She comes face to face with Merle Dixon, Daryl’s brother, last seen on the rooftop of an Atlanta building sawing his hand off. As a zombie comes from his behind he thrusts his knife (attached to his metallic stub on his handless right arm) under its mouth and into its brain. He stands before them asking Andrea for a hug, smiling satanically with his gun and bloodied bayonet.

Andrea and Michonne are taken back to hold-up where a nurse is on hand to help with any sickness. Andrea has little energy left and thankfully accepts the aid. Merle comes in and explains what happens to him and asks about his brother. Andrea only tells him so much – she is still clearly worried about him. Michonne says nothing throughout this interaction. The mystery of Michonne is highlighted throughout this episode, along with many of the new characters – incentives and agendas are foggy. The man who was calling the shots at the helicopter wreckage comes in to tell them how things are run. Both women are put off by the exaggerated authority but are told they are free to leave if they choose. Curiosity gets the better of Andrea and it’s mostly her decision to find out more that keeps them in the new sanctuary.

The leader of the scout group is known as the Governor. He is the head of the Woodbury household – a community gated off from walkers. He has built up a fortress where scores of people stay and survive. The first introduction to the area is in the dead of night and so you aren’t able to get a good idea of the place. What is clear, however, is the community is under a secure hold and rules and sanctions show Woodbury as a safe haven.

The next morning we see a bustling town deemed as a “working process” though it certainly seems perfect. At times it all appears too perfect, like a Truman Show or Pleasantville pastiche – and as those films showed, a perfect community has some skeletons in the closet. Michonne is the most sceptical, consistently frowning at every sight.

The pilot of the helicopter lies in one room with the nurse and the Governor watching over him. He tells the Governor the story of his society’s outbreak and mentions the few soldiers remaining close by. The Governor reassures the wounded man that he will find them and bring them to safety. The shot of this scene is mostly a low-angle take that makes the Governor seem foreboding. The other is a high-angle shot that has the pilot looking weak and vulnerable. In each case, the camera is telling us more about the Governor character and how he has power and control – perhaps a dangerous amount.

Before the Governor seeks out the pilot’s colleagues, he joins his friend Milton in examining Michonne’s zombie pets. The inspection of the zombies proves insightful – not only for the Governor but also the audience – mentioning how they lack of jaw leaves them with little motivation to feed, and “docile”. They also act as “repellent” and camouflage for Michonne – something we may have guessed but now give extra credence to her ingenuity, finally verified by other characters. As Milton and the Governor “impose logic on the chaos”, the world of the The Walking Dead begins to make more sense.

Andrea and Michonne have breakfast with the Governor and Milton, the latter two obviously wanting to learn more about their history and their experience in the outside world. Milton tries to ask Michonne about her two walkers but is given a silent stare as a retort. She understands that something is wrong about the entire situation and the constant questioning is worrying. Breakfast finishes and Andrea and Michonne discuss Woodbury and its controlling inhabitants – the latter is still distrustful whilst Andrea can’t understand why.

The Governor heads off to find the military left behind by the chopper. He pulls up to their guard-point and explains to one man how they have found the surviving pilot. As the troops get excited by the retrieval of their companion the Governor fires a bullet into one of their hearts. As the Governor is on his own we wonder, if only for a second, how he will escape unharmed. However, the bullet he fires is quickly followed by back-up’s coming from the surrounding grassland. Here is where our slight doubt of the Governor’s amicability is given standing. He is a callous and unflinching murderer who wants to rule the land now that the opportunity to revise it is there. The music that plays quietly under the dialogue is ominous; an extra feature that signals the Governor’s malice.

He and his team return to Woodbury to inform the community of the ill-fated troop that were killed by zombies. His ability to lie openly to 73 people is innate – he tells them a tall tale to keep them willing to stay within the Woodbury walls. The townspeople have no idea of what type of man he is other than his helpful guise. Andrea is also enamoured by his apparent hospitable nature and some flirting takes place, making the audience wonder if she will stay in Woodbury. The final scene shows the Governor walking around his apartment after sleeping with some random female civilian. He takes a short glance at a photo of him and what we imagine to be his wife and daughter – he shows little emotion upon looking at it, further adding to his mystery. That is before he steps into a dark room that he lights up with aquarium tanks full of severed heads. The top one is belonged to the pilot whilst two others were Michonne’s chained-up walkers. Why he has them is not explained but one can read into it as his trophies. He sits in front of them captivated by their ghostly eyes.

The Walking Dead’s third season is getting off to a tremendous start. Episodes like this where an alternate plot-point can be explored is a staple of great TV, especially when it entertains you as much as the regular narrative crux. The Governor looks to be a great villain and the point where hopefully Rick and him meet will make for some excitement.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Flickering Myth

LFF: For No Good Reason Review

2012-10-29T19:24:00.001Z

Director: Charlie Paul

Starring: Ralph Steadman, Johnny Depp, Richard E. Grant, Terry Gilliam, Hunter S. Thompson, Jann Wenner

Synopsis: A documentary about Ralph Steadman, the artist behind many Hunter S. Thompson illustrations, along with decades of unique and revolutionary artwork.

The Gonzo visionaries were famous mainly for all the wrong reasons; they defied convention, acted out unmorally and set daring new trends. Ralph Steadman was one such visionary whose work has, up until this day, provoked millions of people. In Charlie Paul’s documentary, the genius and novelty of Steadman’s work is sought to be explored.

Paul brings along Johnny Depp (a close friend of Steadman and his notorious partner, Hunter S. Thompson) as interviewer/narrator, making this film seem like a project among friends (also giving it a commercial boost). In this regard the niceties of close companionship fog the more introspective aspects of documentary filmmaking. Fortunately, with Steadman feeling comfortable with Paul and Depp, he does delve into some more personal recollections, though maybe not as often as one would hope. It succeeds in foregrounding a figure many may not know of – a name that only appears at the bottom of his art, without any indication of his personality – as well as detailing the style of his strange yet beautiful art.

Steadman rose to fame when he was employed to work alongside Hunter S. Thompson to illustrate Hunter’s articles and book. This relationship is, as one expect from knowing about the infamous Gonzo journalist, was chaotic. It had its ups and downs throughout the adventures the pair had together – something Paul focuses on heavily. With Hunter being such a larger-than-life figure, the documentary does become fixed on him in parts. It’s something that is perhaps unavoidable but does make you pine for more material and anecdotes about Hunter, fatefully putting Steadman in the corner.

Thanks to Steadman’s time in Hunter’s company he has developed a sharp and wicked wit that, for when he gets his limelight, elevates his profile. He isn’t just some pale and crotchety artist who lingers by the side; he has an intense voice and morale that justifies a film about him. Moving past Hunter, we hear and see Steadman in the company of Richard E. Grant, Terry Gilliam and William Burroughs. He has lived a fascinating life in the company of great artists (much like himself), educated through each experience and meeting.

Steadman’s interests lie not only in art but political activism. The two endeavours are collected in a great montage that flicks through dozens of drawings – some animated at points – giving another life to the works of a smart and creative set of art. It’s a moment that sets you in great awe of the man – there are literally hundreds of drawings, all with a unique flavour.

Not only exposing the agenda and history of Steadman, the film must magnify that distinctive flair; it does in sections of the film, and they are among some of the most seminal sequences of the documentary. Watching Steadman work is a thrill. Many documentaries about artists flash through their life and merely present to you the final piece, in For No Good Reason the process is explored. The smears and harsh splatters of Steadman’s brush reflect a realm of emotions and messages. As Steadman paints a few new pieces he runs his own commentary over what a certain flick of the brush, or what a change in colour, may mean. What’s more, he reveals the technique of his design that for artists is exceptionally enchanting.

All great documentaries implore you to seek out the work of the person in focus and this film achieves that. You leave the cinema determined to read the stories Steadman illustrated, find the collections and even try your hand at some of the art. There is only a niche demographic for For No Good Reason which, whilst distressing, is perfectly understandable for a film about the wacky Gonzo personalities.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 2 Review

2012-10-28T16:07:00.002Z

The five watchful eyes of the shadowy prisoners may be a concern of the audience's but for not for Rick and those trying to help out the wounded Hershel. Daryl carefully targets the unknown bunch but only for the brief moments Rick and the explorers stay in that room. As suddenly as the convicts are introduced they are quickly ignored in light of Hershel's injuries. It is a fantastic U-turn of events, highlighting the shining feature of Season 3's "Sick": Subversion of expectation.

Of course the imprisoned survivors are not totally forgotten and as Hershel is brought to the cell-base, the five follow. As a brief conversation has informed us, the five do not know the extent of damage and ruin of the outside world. They had thought the group were a rescue team but quickly realise that that isn’t the case. Their insecurity leads to a hostility (and fear) of what Rick and co want from them and their prison refuge.

The leader of the prisoners is an unnamed muscular Mexican-looking guy, hell-bent on exercising his power. Rick’s gruff voice and forceful demeanour, aside his fiery troop consisting of T-Dog and Daryl, is a definite threat. Nevertheless, Rick wants to stay in the prison for security reasons and talks the Latino aggressor out of a fight. The prisoners’ naivety is not something Rick feels like exploiting and whereas he could tell them to find a new life in the empty world (to which their 10 month incarceration has denied them any awareness of), sending them off to inevitable demise, he teaches them about the state of affairs.

“It’s all gone.” Rick explains. The look of disbelief on each of their faces leaves the audience to imagine how they experienced the outbreak and how they slowly came to realise the dead were walking. “Have you got a cell phone or something, that we can call our families?” one of the convicts asked to which Daryl assertively responds, “You just don’t get it, do you?” The caged men have a startling innocence toward the epidemic which later leads to a chaotic run in with the walkers.

As the men step out into the sunshine to witness the destruction and death all around, they still have little motivation to venture out. The leader is adamant that now that they know of some safety (as the intrusive Rick and co have found it in their old cell) that the prison will become their kingdom and their cell returned. Daryl becomes increasingly irritated by the pushy nature of the convicts and holds his crossbow to the eye of the leader, telling him, “You could try your luck out on the road”. Eventually a compromise is met as, trying not to lose face, the head criminal says, “If these three pussies can do all this, the least we can is take out another cell block.” They just need some weapons to do so. Negotiations go well and both teams will help one another out to keep everyone unharmed or, worse, from dying.

The food is the bargaining chip; the five have clearly “not been starving” from their appearance and so food from the cafeteria should understandably be divided (“if you pay, we’ll play” states Rick). At least with both parties getting what they want, they will have no need to stay in each other’s company. The “little left” claimed to remain is more food than the lead survivors have seen or consumed in years and they gladly take all they can.

As one half of the episodes deals with the clash of co-inhabitants, the other keeps a watchful eye over Hershel. The frail old man, whose expertise in medicine and doctorial procedures is a necessity to the groups’ wellbeing, needs to stay alive. However, the extremity of his injury, not to mention the lack of supplies to keep him well (save some provisions Carl single-handedly gets), makes his survival very uncertain. Had this scenario taken place in Season 2, the solemnity of the moment may have smothered the show’s pace. Fortunately, Season 3 has (so far) got a better handle on structure and tone meaning that Hershel on his death-bed is a harrowing and dramatic event, given just the right amount of attention. His daughter Maggie is understandably distraught and worried of what “we’ll do without him” whilst Glenn and the others think more positively. Neither side can be sure of Hershel’s outcome so the moments of laboured breath are distressing.

As said, moments like these are not lingered on for too long and as they take up chunks of the run-time, they do in sections (editing through cross-cutting to keep the momentum). It allows for the relationship of Rick and Lori to have some analysis – the complexity of their feelings toward one another are interesting enough for the minutes captured yet any more reflections on the matter could become dull (Bill Gierhant, the episode’s director, capably cuts through this multiple moments).

As far as we’re aware, this season will include several explorations of the prison perimeters. Episode 2 changes it up slightly by adding the company of the convicts. These men would know the layout very well but their handle on killing the walkers that have taken over it is laughable. As Rick, T-Dog and Daryl stand back, the five rush the walkers screaming, punching and shanking their way through the undead. They do little damage to the already-maimed corpses but give the audience something to chuckle about. They get the hang of it eventually but one guy’s insecurity about the situation leads to him getting infected (by a disgustingly hand-less walker). He needs putting down and as he pleads the leader violently hacks him down (almost as if saying to Rick, “Watch your back”).

Before a sudden turn of events with Rick’s band versus the prisoners, Carol asks Glenn to her out with Lori’s expected caesarean by having a walker’s body to practice on. However Hershel makes it out of his run-in, he won’t be able to carry out the C-Section and Carol’s idea is “sane” (to quote Glenn).

For what they've been through, our lead survivors have had to put up with a lot. They have endured the harshest environments and the most perilous situations and so some overly aggressive alpha male will not be tolerated. The sparring of stares between Rick and the Latino has made their rivalry dangerously volatile. As they break through another room, the convict leader throws a walker at Rick who escapes thanks to Daryl. Having ignored Rick’s governing about only opening one door (and stupidly pulling open both), aside the attempt to slash Rick with a knife, and have his head chewed off by a zombie, the Latino is pushing his luck. In a moment of unbridled antagonism Rick takes his machete and plunges it into the head of the leader. Pushing a zombie into and on top of him was a cruel attempt to thwart Rick's move into the prison; stupid also as the convicts are outnumbered and outgunned. The remaining lot are shocked and scared (as are the audience who perhaps weren’t expecting it); one runs away and is left to be mauled by a group of walkers, whilst the other two are given their own cell and left to live their lives away from Rick et al.

The last scenes include Hershel waking back up (after a frightening gasp during Lori’s mouth-to-mouth resuscitation), Rick and Lori almost finalising their marriage and Carol cutting open her zombie in lull of practice. The latter scene is seen through a shaky and unknown point of view, ending on a sense of mystery and dread - could an unexpected event take place in episode 3? I’d count on it.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Flickering Myth. Episode 1, "Seed", was also reviewed here.

LFF: Crossfire Hurricane Review

2012-10-27T20:30:00.000+01:00

Director/Writer: Brett Morgen

Starring: Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood, Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones

Synopsis: A documentary chronicling The Rolling Stones – from their humble beginnings to their 50^th anniversary.

It has been a fantastic year for British institutions – the Royal family celebrated a diamond jubilee and a wedding, Britain swept the board at the Olympics, and James Bond turned 50. Aside the televised and cinematic commemorations, the music of The Rolling Stones floated through the air waves of countless radio stations in light of their 50^th anniversary. The Greatest Rock and Roll Band are back and to honour their decades of hits, a come-back was enthusiastically announced and a new documentary, Crossfire Hurricane, has been made to tell their story.

Documentaries on The Rolling Stones are a dime a dozen yet Crossfire Hurricane boasts the exclusive productive partnership of each member (discounting the late Brian Jones). The headline treatment of Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wood, Wyman and Taylor’s input appears like a salacious pull for this film, however, the audio-only interviews are disappointingly infrequent and only moderately insightful. To have each Stones member giving their two cents about their time in the band should warrant near-interrogative questioning from Morgen. Alas, the director conducts his Q&As with a distinct lack of fervour; he rarely probes into the thoughts of the rock stars, leaving you with nothing new to reflect upon.

Fans of the Stones can watch Crossfire Hurricane and see new behind-the-scene footage, but learn nothing new beyond that. The said footage has been closeted for good reasons, mainly due to the tawdry quality of it. The remaining scenes are recycled videos and newsreels seen dozens of times – all suffocating what should be introspective interviews. Many television and radio programmes from this year, that have told the same story, utilized the significant Gimme Shelter recordings along with the same snippets from infamous concerts, making this documentary insufficiently original. On occasion, Crossfire Hurricane gladly gives you information repressed up until now (quick notes on their “exile”, testimony from Charlie that he follows Keith’s lead guitar, and confessions about relationships over the years) though these are few and fleeting.

Every member of The Rolling Stones has (and had) an electric personality that deserves attention. Brian Jones, in particular, had such a sadly short life – most of it spent in The Stones – and a memorable personality that many want to learn more about. Crossfire Hurricane’s main strength is talking about Jones at some length, with additional remembrances from the band. Keith’s recollections are beautifully illustrated by personal photographs showing the two laughing and joking around, highlighting the brotherhood of the band with tremendous poignancy. Despite Morgen favouring TV and tour clips instead of explorative interviewing, the documentary still has the ability to instil a sense of adulation and respect for The Stones – Jones’ quasi-eulogy certainly helps in this regard.

With half a century of stories, Brett Morgen foolishly dwindled down the extensive history of The Rolling Stones to a 111 minute documentary. Had this material been in the hands of someone like Martin Scorsese (a huge fan of The Stones and director of previous documentary/live gig Shine a Light), and perhaps broken up into two or three parts, this would constitute as the ultimate chronicle of the band. Ronnie Wood – a key member since 1975 – is only given scraps of screen-time to tell us about his part. Furthermore, post-1975 is barely spoken about, reminding you that Crossfire Hurricane should have had the subtitle “Part 1” attached to the project title.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: The Central Park Five Review

2012-10-27T17:54:00.003+01:00

Directors/Writers: Ken Burns, Sarah Burns, David McMahon

Starring: Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana Jr, Kharey Wise, Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray, Jim Dwyer

Synopsis: A documentary exploring the “Central Park jogger” case about the rape and assault of a young woman supposedly by five young boys. Focusing mainly on the mistakes made in the case and the false accusations against each boy.

In 1989 the “Central Park Jogger” case was one of the biggest news stories in America. It overshadowed any other crime cases (as mentioned by some of the interviewees) and took weeks of interrogation until 5 innocent boys were charged with the crime. In 2002 a convicted serial rapist, Matias Reyes, spoke to one of the convicts in prison and vowed to vacate the 5 boys’ (now men) convictions by confessing to the crime. It is an interesting and long-spanning chain of events that makes this documentary very insightful.

The three filmmakers get interviews with each of the 5 sentenced men and, one by one, recall and analyse the poor validity of their conviction. The only member of the Central Park Five we don’t see is Antron McCray who preferred not to be filmed; the rest of the group are graciously given plenty of screen time. They are an interesting bunch of personalities, all matured by their traumatic experience in their mid-teens, who garner a great deal of empathy.

It is a very scrutinising look at this historic case and kudos to Ken and Sarah Burns and David McMahon for compiling extraordinary research and material (photographic, print or film). Anyone unaware of this event are given detailed descriptions of what was thought to have happened and what actually did. The alternating sides of the story – news footage from 1989 and 1990 countered with testimonies from today – generate a fantastic diagram of right and wrong. The impetus of this documentary is to highlight the intermittent unjust procedure of law, which is does to fine effect. You can often see the Central Park Five welling up in tapes from back then and from today, making you very aware of their unwarranted punishment.

Incidents like this happen all-too-often; Central Park Five vindicates the in depth analysis of a case rather than the mob-culture uproar that leads to hasty and tawdry investigations. The directors do not just focus on the boys’ discriminatory treatment from the police, but the entire New York state (branching out to the entire country and beyond at points). It serves to reflect the frightening sensationalist aspect of some crimes, and the shocking aftermath.

It is overwhelmingly exhaustive in its aim to educate you on this infamous story (albeit, running slightly too long in sections). The fear that this can happen is made intensely aware by the statement: “Confessions will trump DNA; confessions will change witnesses’ testimony; confessions are irresistibly persuasive and almost the effects can’t be reversed.” The spoken word is a powerful tool in any means of life and whether or not it’s truthful, it can have a striking effect. Central Park Five implores you to think before you judge as under the surface of this trial in 1989/90 were five scared young boys who had done nothing wrong. It is a timeless piece of filmmaking that would serve as a great argument for cases similar to this.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Seven Psychopaths Review

2012-10-22T18:15:00.000+01:00

Director/Writer: Martin McDonagh

Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Harry Dean Stanton, Olga Kurylenko, Linda Bright Clay

Plot: Martin (Farrell) is an alcoholic screenwriter whose latest idea for film called “Seven Psychopaths” is lacking inspiration. His friend Billy (Rockwell) tries to lend a hand but instead gets him involved in a kidnapping, murder and the company of psychopaths. Suddenly Marty’s story starts gaining some frighteningly real inspiration...

Martin McDonagh’s knack for dialogue has served him well with retaining an audience. It is clear that since In Bruges, he has become a man people desperately want to work with. Cut to Seven Psychopaths four years after In Bruges and that notion has been substantiated with an all-star cast including Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell and Colin Farrell. Along with a spectacular cast, McDonagh has moved over to the seemingly glamorous turf of Hollywood, California. His success is well-earned and with his second directorial feature McDonagh looks to become the new celebrated screenwriter.

Brimming with ideas, Seven Psychopaths is not your average popcorn movie. Instead, McDonagh crafts a wildly irreverent black-comedy that proves to be a successful pastiche of the Coen brothers, Quentin Tarantino and Charlie Kaufman’s style. There is originality within his script and whilst some may find his muses scattered knowingly throughout the film, McDonagh highlights his own uniqueness. Inane chit-chat of a Seinfeldian sort is nothing new but the brazen way in which McDonagh uses it is. For instance, Rockwell’s Billy constantly speaks of trivial and clandestine affairs as if secrecy is a fabled idea – regularly mentioning his illegal activity or maniacal alter-ego as if no one would worry. The same strange openness is also reflect in the criminal activity with characters sporting guns in public or discussing murders with total disregard for discretion.

In Bruges handled refinement in the same way, by throwing it out the window. It makes the films wildly fun and memorable. We are privy to an alternate way of life where people say and do what they feel. The most appealing characters are the ones who flaunt their frankness (such as Rockwell, who outshines everybody in this film) and the opposing conventional ones (like Farrell) who are of less interest. McDonagh tries not to sour the film with too much normality, even though it understandably needs to stay grounded from time to time, and gladly adds a torrent of violence and chaos to keep the momentum running.

The narrative is relatively linear but interruptions in the story are superfluous at points. The presentation of the seven psychopaths is not always etched into the story neatly, leading to moments of messy punctuation. This issue is partly a result of the self-reflexive arc that some may find too smart for its own good. McDonagh wryly makes you aware of the issues in the screenplay but this can be a dangerous artistic move. Trying to laugh off the inconsistencies does not negate them completely. Nevertheless, it is a film attempting to bring some ingenuity to the art form and that should be embraced.

Watching Seven Psychopaths is a hugely fun experience that boasts hilarious set-pieces and dialogue, along with an astounding ensemble of actors giving it their all to a project that is clearly exciting and entertaining them as much as it is the audience. McDonagh packs the film full of energy and moments of uproarious comedy, giving you incentive to watch it again and again. Problems do occur in the film such as ideas that may have looked good on the page but barely work in practice, and an ironic tone that sometimes appears aloof. Despite this though, McDonagh’s remarkable drive to pull it off makes it a greatly commendable and magnetic film.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Hyde Park on Hudson Review

2012-10-21T21:50:00.000+01:00

Director: Roger Michell

Writer: Richard Nelson

Starring: Bill Murray, Laura Linney, Olivia Williams, Olivia Colman, Samuel West, Elizabeth Wilson

Plot: Margaret Suckley (Linney) has never much thought about her distant relation to President Franklin D. Roosevelt until one afternoon he requests her presence. FDR tells her she helps him relax and continues to invite her over to Hyde Park on Hudson. Soon the two become great friends but certain tension arise during the first American visit of Monarchs – King George VI (West) and Queen Elizabeth (Colman).

Many of the American Presidents had fantastically rich stories – public or private – that lend themselves well to TV, Film and books. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one such Commander in Chief whose personal life interested many people. His strive alone (getting into office even with a paralyzing form of polio) warrants a full biopic though Hyde Park on Hudson is more focused on his adulterous alter-ego and one pivotal weekend with the Royals.

Only on few occasions in the film is FDR seen as cruel for his wayward manner with women. Instead, Bill Murray’s portrayal of the 32^nd President demonstrates charm, wit and kindness. With alternate casting this persona may not have been as noticeable as the affair angle of Roosevelt’s life was recurrent and would certainly sully the man’s image. Murray’s innate allure enables the film to remain jovial and tread past the sinful implications of FDR’s secret life.

It shares many similarities with The King’s Speech; a happy air to the film, a drama under the surface and the presence of “Bertie” and Queen Elizabeth. In some ways this comparison damages the film’s credibility as it becomes a dreary side-piece to Tom Hooper’s Oscar-winner. Samuel West and Olivia Colman are terrific as King and Queen but you cannot help but think of them in regard to Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter. They do bring a distinct edge to their portrayals though are all too often caricaturised as posh buffoons. West’s Bertie stands out only when he is the company of Roosevelt; these are the scenes where the film has an original pull and spark.

Too much attention is set on Laura Linney’s Margaret Suckely (though with it being inspired by Suckley’s letters and diary entries it’s understandable) and her interaction with Roosevelt which has very little chemistry or drama. Murray could have easily carried this film on his own, centred only on FDR. What spoils the film is having him surrounded by lacklustre familial and staff characters; only the monarchs prove fascinating company.

Whereas Roger Michell has an interesting CV that flaunts his ability to present memorable relationships (Notting Hill, Enduring Love and Venus), his last effort (Morning Glory) and Hyde Park on Hudson see him losing his touch. Even with a short run-time, it boils down to Murray and the pleasing soundtrack as the only single two elements keeping the audience entertained.

**

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Eat, Sleep, Die Review

2012-10-21T19:44:00.005+01:00

Director/Writer: Gabriela Pichler

Starring: Nermina Lukac, Milan Dragisic, Jonathan Lampinen, Peter Fält

Plot: Rasa (Lukac) and her father (Dragisic) are teetering on the edge of poverty, with work meaning everything to their survival. Once Rasa is laid off from her factory she must search and search for new employment before and her and her ill father lose their house and ability to live.

Eat, Sleep, Die begins with a thunderously loud synth beat and the flash of “Eat”, “Sleep”, and “Die”, very reminiscent of Gasper Noe’s title sequences. The first scene has a similar quality to something like Irreversible (though with less pizzazz), introducing a tone that is quickly lost. The remaining 100 minutes consist of long, raw scenes following the main character, Rasa.

To follow Rasa throughout the whole film requires empathy which is not always apparent with the brash young woman. Nevertheless, however she appears to the audience, there is always a reason to support her action. Rasa is a tough and caring person whose ambition in life is nothing more than providing money for her and her father to live on – an admirable if saddening set of motivations. The film speaks of the plights of race and immigration that lead to problems in employability, along with issues of economy and the difficulty of getting by.

Rasa is constantly faced with monotony and an assembly line of everyday events and issues, although it seldom distresses her. She is a unique role-model in contemporary cinema – always trying to work even when the prospect is fruitless. Audience’s pathos with what Rasa and her father have to go through (alongside characters in a similar situation) is profound. By the end, bitterness is all that can be tasted yet a sweet sentimentality has evolved since perhaps viewing Rasa as a boisterous youth. Nermina Lukac, only an upcoming actress and not that experienced with acting, gives a powerful performance with direction equally accomplished from the additionally inexperienced director, Pichler.

It is a long chronicle of Rasa’s tedious livelihood but has moments where new paths are seemingly opening, giving the audience something to hope for. It is, in summary, a tale of hope and even though it’s never realised, Rasa’s story is uplifting and poignant. The film closes on the prospect of struggle juxtaposed with spirit; an accurate representation of life and the wonders and problems of it all.

***
By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Sightseers Review

2012-10-21T17:57:00.002+01:00

Director: Ben Wheatley

Writers: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe, Amy Jump

Starring: Steve Oram, Alice Lowe, Jonathan Aris, Monica Dolan, Tony Way, Richard Glover, Richard Lumsden

Plot: Chris (Oram) and Tina (Lowe) have only been dating three months and the time has come for the pair to have a holiday together. They embark on a journey around England to see the sights and visit museums. However, the trip slowly evolves into a cross-country murder spree brought about by Chris’ irritation with the general public and Tina’s desire to please her boyfriend.

Americans rarely score with dark comedies; those most critically acclaimed (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Frighteners, and God Bless America, for example) are more cult hits than box office successes. Whilst the Americans hesitate with showing their morbid side, the British revel in their understanding and enjoyment of it. In the U.K the darkest comedies are usually the most favoured and this adoration for the macabre allows for an influx of this kind of material. It’s one of the reasons we so lovingly adopted Tim Burton into our country, view Chris Morris as an iconic anti-hero and enable someone like Ben Wheatley to carry on making films.

Attempt to navigate your way through the musings of Mr. Wheatley and you will inevitably get caught and cut on barbed wire. His twisted, sharp mind is a dangerous realm but still interesting and amusing. His second feature, Kill List, was an unforgettable mash-up of popular genres that highlighted a knack for comedy and, most of all, horror and violence. His third film, Sightseers, may not have been penned by the man himself but it has his style all over it.

Operatic in some senses (slow motion rendering of tense moments – also seen in Kill List) with gory scenes of death blended with jokes you shouldn’t laugh at but can do nothing but, are staples of what we have become to know of Wheatley. There’s a charm to Wheatley’s unabashed way of viewing the world – and giving his opinions on it (“He’s not a person...he’s a Daily Mail reader”) – which is side-splitting now and then. Sightseers is wickedly funny but may prove too sinister for others.

There’s no doubt that the film will divide audiences (as much as Kill List did) as the black humour will either be guiltily pleasurable or appalling for certain viewers. Some may be un-tickled by the bursts of brutality that are graphic and unflinching yet beyond the bloodshed, however, is a twee love-story that is authentic and sweet in some scenes. It is an inviting film – wanting you to be entertained with the comedy and also the romantic aspects (that can be bizarre at points) – although it may not succeed completely as Wheatley’s odd approach to presenting these motifs can be alienating to the general movie-going public.

Through the editing an uncanny atmosphere is introduced that runs through until the end of film – masterful at points but perhaps too weird for some viewers. Not totally finished with the pagan fascination, Wheatley includes a sequence using a smart Eisensteinian montage between a murder and a ritualistic sacrifice – the best indication of Sightseers’ puzzling panache.

The two lead characters are additionally enigmatic – almost emotionally inebriated in some instances. Both Chris and Tina are terrifically portrayed by Steve Oram and Alice Lowe, yet have such hazy psychologies that the audience can never truly connect to them. They are childlike to an extent, leaving them untrustworthy and petty on occasion. The moral ambiguity of their actions is never resolved and whilst it does not have to be, some inkling of how we are to perceive the two could help with our conception of Sightseers’ chain of events. Despite these flaws, you cannot turn away from watching them – whatever’s going through their mind it’s intriguing.

Strange at times, Sightseers will not be for everybody, but for those captivated by the murderous road-trip (complete with some beautiful shots of the English countryside) it will become another great example of the darkest brand of British humour.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 1 Review

2012-10-19T23:51:00.001+01:00

Season Two of The Walking Dead was exceptional at points but never seemed as exciting as the first. There were a few amazing set pieces (notably the season’s finale) and some wonderful characters introduced, but the pace was ultimately too slow at points. As much as The Walking Dead’s (alternate) realism can be admired, to have the audience gripped by every episode requires an even balance. That’s why as Season 3 starts, it looks to be checking all the right boxes.

Major spoilers follow

We begin a few months after Hershel’s farm was attacked by a hoard of re-re-animated zombies and Rick and the group are searching for a new sanctuary. Lori is heavily pregnant and so a secure spot is ardently needed – somewhere that is not too vulnerable to attacks. A brilliant dialogue-free opening showing Rick, Daryl, T-Dog and an older, stronger Carl searching and clearing a house is as tense any of the memorable sequences from the show’s start. It’s also fantastically gory, giving you a taste of what the next 40 minutes will include. The world around the main group is becoming increasingly feral, highlighting their peril in a wilderness of zombies and showing the passage of time to first-rate effect. In amongst the long grass, overgrown bushes and sprouting trees are countless zombies. As the group think of settling in to the new house (if only briefly) one look out the window onto a shuffling score of zombies tells them to head off.

The new credit sequence rolls (now using infamous imagery from the past 2 seasons) and we return to the band of survivors deliberating over which direction to take. A short but detailed discussion tells the audience of how far they’ve travelled and for how long. Not needing to have seen all this enables the writers to move on swiftly whilst still retaining the notion of measured time (an improvement on the trudging tempo of some of Season 2). As quickly as they have set off again Daryl and Rick spot a prison facility overrun with zombies; “That’s a shame” Darly states whilst looking over the walls and gates of the secure prison, but Rick is far more optimistic. Cut to Rick et al snipping through the fence and boldly entering the zombie-ridden grounds. If any fans were deterred by sluggish sequences in Season 2, the whole fight through the prison yard impressively wins back their hearts. Every stab, slice and slam that the walkers receive is gloriously visceral. Some may grow tired of the monotonous kills but for the true zombie buffs, its gore-galore!

Having placed their figurative flag in the prison yard, the group relax for the evening, happy in the safety of the chain-wired fences. As if careful not to dull the drama and excitement of the past 15 minutes, the solemn scene is not drenched in dialogue but some poignant singing from Beth and her sister Maggie. It’s a scene of splendour as the family sit around the fire having found a great new location to camp, also felt by the viewers who are looking forward to the following morning’s further exploration.

Before the next morning’s search we cut to a plot line we’ve been dying to see – the mysterious Michonne (last seen helping Andrea as she fled the farm) and her zombie escorts, armless, jawless and chained together like two dogs. She’s similarly going through houses and shops searching for food and medicine – equipped with a slick samurai sword that cuts the heads off the undead with ease. Still remaining an enigma, the only inkling we get of her character is through her interaction with Andrea later on, to whom she gives aspirin and cares for like a sister...or lover (though that may be reading into their relationship a little too unwisely).

Ramping up the tension and action again, the writer and director craft an excellent scene involving Rick, T-Dog, Daryl, Maggie and Glenn pushing through multiple zombies the next day – swiping with machetes, shooting with arrows and bullets, and stabbing with poles and pokers – in order to gain more ground. Special effects are bettered with every episode and in amongst the skull spearing comes some truly horrific (but pleasing) kills. As one would expect in a prison environment, armoured guards roam around – the group have never come across an armoured zombie before and slight confusion into how to destroy the brain is humorously illustrated. Daryl tries to shoot an arrow through the helmet with no luck, and Maggie furiously attempts to bash through it. It’s only when they realise to thrust their sharp weapons underneath the visor that danger is avoided. It also leads to the group taking the gear for themselves – Rick pulls off one helmet, yanking the skin off the zombie skull in the process (one of the most graphic and nerve-pinching effects-work seen up till now in the show). After defeating what they can of the outside zombies, they venture into the actual prison. This is where Frank Darabont’s presence is missed as the Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile director could have brought his own expertise to this narrative crux. Fortunately, Ernest Dickerson, whose filmography includes directing episodes of The Wire (notably the fourth season’s fantastic finale), Dexter and some previous Walking Dead episodes (interestingly Season 2’s “Seed” which was also about the discovery of a new base – the Hershel farm), has a lot of talent and stylistically brings the group and audience through the new habitat.

After the blood-stained prison cells becoming the rooms for a night’s rest, the next day still includes roaming the darkened corridors. Before those moments Lorie and Hershel have a pivotal discussion about the baby. Lori thinks, as the virus is in everyone, that the baby could be a still-born or worse, that it “rips me apart” from the inside. Hershel offers sound advice saying, “Don’t let fear control you” (a great mantra not only for a story such as this, but in general) and tries to lighten Lori of each of her worries. Lori, due to her affair with Shane, was largely unlikeable throughout last season but it now seems that she’s gaining some empathy from the audience. Fears of a dead/zombie baby or her dying during childbirth and becoming a walker are ideas that, in terms of the show’s reality, are frighteningly distressing.

The last 5 minutes are thrilling and shot beautifully – torch light breaking through the dusty atmosphere and point of view perspectives adding to the tremendous tension. Zombies fill the subterranean spaces, entrapping the group in a maze of death. Hershel trips momentarily and viewers’ nails begin to be chewed off. Then Maggie and Glenn get momentarily separated and audiences’ hairs begin to stand on end. Finally, Hershel gets bitten in the ankle and our hearts pound furiously. It took a whole season for action like this to be witnessed last year and now fans are being given a gift – adrenaline-fuelled catastrophe blended with new adventure. As Hershel is lifted to a secure room, Rick takes initiative and hacks off the old man’s infected leg. We’ve seen blood splattered all throughout this programme but something about the living’s pulsating palates being poured out onto the floor disgusts. It’s an effective way for the SFX department to put their expertise to use for a more cringe-inducing outcome.

Five more heads appear from the lower end of the room as Hershel lies unconscious; Daryl hops up with his crossbow at the ready. He pauses momentarily and the camera closes in on a bearded man and he exclaims, “Holy shit”; more survivors and now more characters. Dickerson’s direction is masterful and his ability to combine crucial genres into one episode – drama, action, horror, thriller and comedy (odd lines here and there) – highlights his ability to entertain. As long as future episodes are like this, Season 3 could be the best season yet. The episode received 9.2 out of 10 on IGN, with a viewership of 10.9 million viewers. From the trailers Season 3 did look like an exhilarating launch into new territory and episode 1 proudly presented that.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Flickering Myth. Check out Episode 2 Review here.

LFF: The Sapphires Gala Report

2012-10-19T00:36:00.000+01:00

As Chris O’Dowd and his beautiful female co-stars walked up the blue, sequined carpet at the London Film Festival, it was clear that the night ahead was to be a terrific fun. Before the film actually got screened audiences where party to a showing of young director Nick Pratt’s Summer In The City, the winning entry of Nintendo 3DS: 'A Vision In 3D'. It was a short, well crafted 3D celebration of the very British year gone by.

After the eye-popping 3D, more of what we see on the big screen was to appear right before us as the director and cast of The Sapphires made their way on stage to discuss how they got their role in the film, as well as some history of the play and inspiration behind it. O’Dowd, now used to the red carpets, junkets and premieres was casual and funny but his co-stars were brimming with excitement about the whole event. It was nice to see such passion and gratitude from the female stars, all very humble in what they said about themselves whilst vehemently stressing the fabulousness of the film.

Once the film had finished certain members of the audiences were invited to the after party at Aqua Neuva in Oxford Circus. True to form, O’Dowd was there kindly welcoming and thanking fans as well as graciously embracing all those who wanted an autograph or photo. I spoke to him briefly and thinking he would have already answered an insane amount of questions on The Sapphires, wanted to find out about his new project, Calvary (directed by The Guard’s John Michael McDonagh). His first words on the film were “It’s very, very dark” (Calvary described by the director as a black comedy), whilst mentioning he had actually shot some of it this morning – “you must be tired” I said, “Not with this happening” replied the Gala’s main man. He couldn’t remember when Calvary started shooting, or how much was left, as his TV programme Moone Boy was shot around the same time and had confused his idea of scheduling, but he was excited about each project and how well they were coming along.

As everyone had apparently been welcomed in to the party Jessica Mauboy got on a small stage and belted out a few classic soul songs. After two solo performances she invited up the rest of the Sapphires and Mr. O’Dowd in a performance of “Can’t Help Myself”. Afterwards, the four girls finished with a recital of an aborigine song that nicely mellowed everyone out before the DJ started shuffling through some classic Motown.

As the room filled with people some moved outside onto the cool terrace. Taking in the magnificent view of the London skyline, I found myself standing next to Miranda Tapsell doing the same thing. I congratulated her on the film and the amazing performances, both with acting and singing. She was incredibly genial and spent 10 minutes chatting with me on the experience and reception of the film. “I had always wanted to be part of this project in some way after seeing the play” Tapsell stated. “I still can’t believe all this.” She was very sweet about a new-found stardom but as I asked about new parts being sent in for her she answered, “Well, the film is only a small Australian production. It’s not the same situation as with someone like Jennifer Lawrence who can be in a big Hollywood film like The Hunger Games and immediately be called up after it premieres. I have gone to a few auditions but the film honestly hasn’t had a huge impact just yet. Maybe soon though...” she modestly pondered. I expect her phone won’t stop ringing after this film’s general release.

Inside, Jessica Maulboy stood close to the stage, as if primed to get up once more to sing. Surrounding her were partiers wanting to shake her hand and praise her for part in the film. I got a few moments with her and, like with Tapsell, asked her what was next. “I’m actually working on my third studio album. I mainly work within music and try to act whenever the opportunity arises. That’s why when The Sapphires auditions came about I jumped at the chance – combining two things I love in a story so inspirational”.

Before I left I quickly shook hands with Deborah Mailman and Shari Sebbens, the former answering a quick question on the release of the soundtrack – “Sometime in November, I think. It’s very exciting; I hope it does well” Judging from a few more people asking the same question to Maulboy as I said goodbye, there’s no doubt it will be just as popular as the film.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Blogomatic3000. Review for the film can be found here.

LFF: The Sapphires Review

2012-10-19T00:18:00.002+01:00

Director: Wayne Blair

Writer: Tony Briggs, Keith Thompson

Starring: Chris O’Dowd, Deborah Mailman, Jessica Maulboy, Shari Sebbens, Miranda Tapsell, Tory Kittles

Plot: Four aborigine women with a great talent for singing struggle during the turbulent era of the late 1960s when it comes to equal rights. Their own country won’t accept them for who they are but when an Irish talent scout, Dave (O’Dowd), stumbles upon them, he brings them to Vietnam to perform for the troops (without the matter of race preventing their success).

The stage show of The Sapphires is lovingly referred to in many sequences of the film adaptation. Blair’s direction is very theatrical – whether it is in framing, sets, or prop and character positioning – and completely befitting of this type of film. The story based on factual events is extraordinary and at times seems hard to believe; this is where the artificial aspects of the aesthetic are incorporated appropriately. It’s a tale of magical talent and spirit – juxtaposing natural acting and a fantastically phenomenal plot.

The Sapphires in an exercise in exuberance and often it seems tough to restrain yourself from getting up in the cinema audience and applauding after song numbers. Watching the film is like being in seats of an archaic theatre, watching a story unfolds partly through set decoration but also from your imagination. As the four ladies get up to sing on stage your mind does envisage a bigger band, a larger audience, and a grander stage all around the Sapphires – as much as you may do seeing it as a play. On occasion the feigned elements bleed through and some characterisations of the Sapphire sisterhood drifts into token territory but this is even satirically noted by Dave giving each band member a title (“the lead singer”, “the pretty one”, “dance captain”).

With moments of political commentary the film is not completely light and entertaining. What makes the four singers’ story so interesting are the hardships they had to face in order to achieve something. Where the emotional punches are made (as well as some actual punches thrown in one scene) they ring strong and true. The tonality has, after years of stage tours and receptions, been tidied to both entertain and inform.

O’Dowd plays a part uncommon in his opus so far – advertising his funny bone as normal but also a terrific singing voice. The most attention-grabbing aspect is, however, the new talent in the form of the Sapphire actresses. The women all bring their own history and experience to their roles, giving the film enormous vitality and allure. Deborah Mailman (who has played the role of Gail for a number of years already) secures the drama whilst the rest of the women dance around with genuine joy. The soul that Dave strives for in the Sapphires’ performance is so evident and infectious thanks to the actresses obvious adoration of the music. Jessica Mauboy has in real life released two solo albums and her casting as the lead vocalist was very smart. Shari Sebbens and Miranda Tapsell are given less grounding within the narrative but can still outshine the other cast members if need be, as well as taking over vocals when the occasion calls for it. Tapsell, especially, has a fiery quality that immediately takes the edge off some of the more gloomy issues of discrimination that her character and supporting family face.

The Sapphires is unexpectedly superb for a film based on the monotonous under-achiever story arc. It could have become overpowered by cliché and dainty sentimentality but it remains focused in telling a dramatic story mixed with tremendous soul. The music has been chosen fantastically well and the soundtrack elevates the film to new heights (far beyond the tripe of ABBA in Mamma Mia and criminal covers in Glee). The acting and direction is great, and even with some tedious plot points its aim to delight is completely accomplished. It certainly won’t be for everyone, but for those wanting a fun trip to the cinema it will certainly pass the hours well; this film is an absolute crowd-pleaser that will have you toe-tapping and finger-clicking all the way through.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Blogomatic3000. The Gala report for The Sapphires can be found here

Rastamouse Singalong Microphone (Google Affiliate Ad)

LFF: Everybody Has A Plan Review

2012-10-18T00:39:00.004+01:00

Director/Writer: Ana Piterbarg

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Soledad Villamil, Daniel Fanego, Sofia Gala, Javier Godino

Plot: After being part of the murder of a local man, a cancer-stricken Pedro (Mortensen) flees his rural home in order to find his doctor brother, Agustin (also Mortensen), and hopefully get some help. After Agustin kills his brother (somewhat out of anger and compassion to save Pedro from dying slowly and painfully from cancer) he takes his identity and goes back to Pedro’s rural shack in hope of starting a new life and writing all his brother’s wrongs.

When an actor completely subverts their star persona the result(s) can be either eye-opening or gravely disastrous. Viggo Mortensen is not regularly associated with one genre or character type though it’s still a wonder as to how he decided to adopt the Spanish language for his latest film, Everybody Has a Plan. His part in the film is (true to form) excellent however it’s enveloped in a mediocre story that is entirely forgetful.

Chances of this film succeeding without the Lord of the Rings and History of Violence star are minimal as it offers nothing beyond the odd story of an identity swap and criminal activity. The story sounds interesting enough but it’s a banal series of events that occur in the narrative, erasing all intrigue and attention.

The cast are all adept, Mortensen especially, and attempt to flesh out their one-dimensional characters as much as they can. Mortensen can hold the film by his own but it’s nice to see others getting opportunity; sadly the only cast member allowed that within the script is Sofia Gala’s Rosa – Agustin’s love interest once he enters the marshy landscape of Tigre. The villain, Adrian (appealingly brought to life by Daniel Fanego), could lift this film out of the figurative mud but he gets very little screen time.

Perhaps with a lot more work Everybody Has a Plan could have been something great. The environment, dark, damp and dangerous is a richly textured setting that could have been explored to a degree. Odd side-plots that try and distract you from the tedious story should have been replaced with greater attention to the leading characters. The film almost becomes a warning for actors not to tread foreign waters and whilst this should not be the case it is worryingly apparent.

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Argo Review

2012-10-17T23:36:00.003+01:00

Director: Ben Affleck

Writer: Chris Terrio, Joshuah Bearman (original article)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall, Shoot McNairy, Rory Cochrane, Kyle Chandler

Plot: After the American coup d’état of the Iranian government in 1968, Iranian civilians revolt and hold several American embassy workers hostage. 6 escape and hold up, secretly, in the Canadian embassy. As their sanctuary becomes compromised it’s up to the CIA and one agent’s hare-brained scheme to get them out.

In some circles it’s known as the “McTiernan run” – three consecutive films wildly popular, highly regarded and sudden classics. Based on John McTiernan’s trio of grade-A films – Predator in 1987, Die Hard in 1988 and The Hunt for Red October in 1990 – the film-critic category is something to be favoured for those understanding the reference. Ben Affleck has just been added to the group, scoring a hattrick with Gone Baby Gone, The Town and new-release, Argo. Affleck always suffered some criticism with parts in Pearl Harbour and Jersey Girl though his move into directing has left him invulnerable to any further attacks. The man has clearly found his better calling and whilst he still acts (and decently, for that matter), his skill in the business is quite clearly calling the shots.

Affleck didn’t exactly need to mature with new project choices as Gone Baby Gone and The Town were equally profound and tough movies to make, yet he has not backed down in spotlighting his knack for storytelling. Behind and in front of the camera, Affleck is a commanding presence though never in an egotistical manner. In fact, Argo seems him as the lead but a quiet and restrained one at that. The main pull for the film are Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, and Scoot McNairy who superbly support Affleck’s efforts as the protagonist. Most of the elements fit together wonderfully and if any criticism is to be made its the middle part of the film has less input from the characters of Cranston, Arkin and Goodman than what would be desired. As Affleck’s Dave travels off to Iran, all three are left behind in the States to manage the mission from home turf. When we see a more balanced set of storylines (cutting back and forth between Dave abroad and the CIA and Hollywood personnel) the film seems gloriously energised but the occasional departure of this formula does drain the film of some drama.

Slight flaws can be excused for the sheer satisfaction you get from watching Argo. The plot almost seems overtly ridiculous but you must remind yourself of the “based on a true story” subtitle at the very beginning. Few alterations have been made to this extraordinary story and all the way through you sit there in stupefaction at the bravado of the plan. Even as you may know how the story ends – with it being a semi-autobiographical representation – the tension never wanes one bit.

As a film and a movie – to study and enjoy – it can please on all levels. Aesthetically, it’s gorgeous; with Affleck referencing the classic 70s political thrillers (i.e. All The President’s Men and The China Syndrome) and enhancing that idea by shooting on regular film and magnifying it widescreen in age of digital presentation. Soundtrack would be up to par with the visuals were it not for some non-diegetic tracks getting cut short (The Dire Straits’ “Sultans of Swing” being one example) and a score that has little to add to the already-fantastic sound of the snappy dialogue. More often than not, every part of Argo is polished, demonstrating Affleck’s natural gift for crafting a film.

Argo is a pure triumph in every way; expertly written, directed and acted. Unexpectedly hilarious at points, making it not only intriguing and compelling, put amusing too (“It’s the best bad idea we have” is one example in a flurry of laugh-out-loud lines). All recognition must go towards Affleck who compiled a top- troupe of cast and crew without making it a display in blowing one’s own trumpet. Affleck knows what works and the finale of the film greatly advertises that notion. Cinematography and editing is tremendous throughout but by the end it’s in a whole different league – awards-worthy directorial technique. You leave Argo astonished by what you have seen and completely in awe of the cast and crew’s proficient contribution to filmmaking.

*****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Accession Review

2012-10-17T00:32:00.000+01:00

Director/Writer: Michael J. Rix

Starring: Pethro Themba Mbole, Vusumuzi Ndumo

Plot: After finding out a one-night stand has led to him contracting HIV, John (Mbole) tries everything in his power to rid himself of the virus.

During Irreversible’s shocking rape scene, many cinema-goers fainted, threw up or walked out – it was a reminder of how powerful film can be at times. Chances are Accession will garner similar reactions as it unflinchingly shows two rape scenes, both with minors (minor in the most extreme sense of the word).

Following the main character John with a hand-held camera up close leads to believe we understand the man. At points, you can often see expressions in his face that allow you some insight into his mind but otherwise, he is a mystery. What he plans to do is never expected and the two scenes that will generate great discussion and debate are horrifyingly sudden.

It is a film that runs its course very fast and with too many static shots of little to no action it’s easy to think of the film as a strung-out short. Many sequences with heavy dialogue are cut up recklessly adding no value to the film and making the pace uneven. One interesting aspect to the film is its colour that fades from bright oranges/reds of the sand to a grainy black and white as John gets more ill and more desperate. It’s a very subtle piece of aesthetic engineering that once noticed adds to the moral message reflected throughout.

Pethro Themba Mbole and Michael J. Rix are very bold and brave for making this film though it’s too rough around the edges to make it seem special. It’s certainly memorable through the pivotal scene but other than that it’s too bland.

*
By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: End Of Watch Review

2012-10-16T23:05:00.001+01:00

Director/Writer: David Ayer

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Natalie Martinez, Anna Kendrick, David Harbour, Frank Grillo, America Ferrera

Plot: After suspecting one civilian of drug-running, officers Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Peña) pull over the possible criminal only to find themselves arresting a member of a dangerous drug cartel whose associates will stop at nothing to kill them.

After writing the Academy Award-winning Training Day, David Ayer seemed like a promising and powerful new voice in Hollywood. His next few films that included Harsh Times and Street Kings capitalised on his knowledge of L.A. crime and the police but both were quite dull movies. After a four-year hiatus he is back with End of Watch and once more proving his skills when it comes to examining the relationship between police partners and the dangerous work that is required of them. Ayer’s new release focuses (yet again) on a white and Hispanic police duo whose close bond and lives are forever jeopardised by the hostile environment of a crime-ridden South Central L.A.

Harsh Times’ biggest error was placing too much emphasis on the cultural clash between Christian Bale and Freddy Rodriguez as well as centering much of the film on the extremely unlikeable Bale character. End of Watch is far more removed from that agenda yet still maintains the gritty and tough aesthetic that elevates tension and drama. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Brian and Michael Peña’s Mike are habitually joking around about their altering ethnicities (without tediously pontificating on the subject) and never fall under the category of unlikeable. On the contrary, what makes End of Watch so engaging is the pair’s clear chemistry, affability and believable evolution through the film. Ayer’s script is either incredibly taut and authentic or Gyllenhaal and Peña’s improvisation is expert – in whichever case, the dialogue always seems natural.

The level of realism is additionally brought forth with the hand-held camera work advocated perhaps superfluously. Brian is supposedly working on a project which, for exposition’s sake, means he carries a camera around with him almost constantly, along with two small ones clipped on to his and Mike’s uniforms. These particular set of viewpoints do not appear distracting to begin with and it’s only when Ayer adds a barrage of various other shot types to set up a scene that the film’s design becomes questionable. What stigmatises it completely is the rival, villainous drug cartel also recording their day-to-day lives, which includes confidential discussions of all their drive-bys and executions, along with footage of the events themselves. Ayer’s idea to see both sides from the perspective of home-video cameras is frankly messy once the criminal’s document everything and anything that could easily get them imprisoned.

The depiction of the villains is not as enthralling as Ayer may have hoped (though the two main criminals are incredibly repulsive and malignant to an effective degree) though it sets up an array of nail-biting scenes. The notion that danger lurks around every corner is exemplified throughout the scenes on the streets as Brian and Mike get themselves into horribly perilous situations, all pinned with the thought that the cartel are waiting all around. These sequences are where the buttoned cameras are acceptable – worryingly close to the action and bringing tremendous atmosphere to the scene in which they're used.

As a film it boasts some fantastic performances, an impressive script and striking visuals. It never fails to entertain and, if anything, it runs too short. The arresting (no pun intended) portrayal of Brian and Mike from Gyllenhaal and Peña that drives End of Watch is a refreshing and captivating spin on the “buddy cop” relationship; one would hope the two act together again in the future as you honestly can’t get enough of their charisma. All in all, one of the best cop dramas/thrillers to come out in recent years and one that deserves a huge audience.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: After Lucia Review

2012-10-16T20:01:00.001+01:00

Director: Michel Franco

Starring: Tessa la Gonzalez Norvind, Hernan Mendoza, Gonzola Vega Sisto, Tamara Yazbek Bernal, Paloma Cervantes, Juan Carlos Barranco

Plot: Trying for a new life after the death of Roberto’s (Mendoza) wife/Alejandra’s (Norvind) mother, Lucia, father and daughter move to a new city and try and ease into a new job and school, respectively. Alejandra is welcomed to her new school to begin with but after a one night stand with a boy in her class she becomes the victim or malicious bullying. Without telling any of the teachers or her father, Alejandra suffers silently.

A tale of bullying could be exploitative if the writer(s)/director(s) felt like compiling a list of disturbing scenarios to add drama to their film. After Lucia could almost be seen as a melodramatic representation of bullies at their worst but it never feels manipulative, and what is shown is believable...horribly so. Tension amounts from the very first scene up until the end with long, static shots that build up a sense of “Where is this going? What may happen in the next second or two?” It is an unflinching depiction of torment, secrecy and bravery that will stay with you for hours, days, and weeks after.

Michel Franco’s first feature-length film (Daniel & Ana) similarly dealt with issues of confrontation and extreme disruptions of happy living. He is quite masterful at crafting uncomfortable atmospheres where the frame is regularly filled with frantic action. The notion that something horrendous may occur is then contrasted with moments of solemnity where you start to question any degree of comfort. After Lucia painstakingly ticks through moments of tension and toils that are outstandingly dramatic.

Chaos could easily ensue with a story like this and with all that Alejandro goes through many may think, “She’s bound to commit suicide” or “She will eventually lash out”. Nevertheless, what becomes more troubling is how the character bottles up all her emotion and never once cries. It is a testament to Tessa la Gonzalez Norvind who is simply stunning in this film. What she has to go through – physically and emotionally – to portray Alejandra requires a lot of skill and she is remarkable. What we can only assume is going through her mind as she is assaulted, insulted and even raped (or so we believe) is frightfully disturbing. Franco does not explore the psychology and instead leaves it, craftily, for the audience to experience the pain themselves in some ways. As Alejandra silently takes all of the bullies’ taunts and slaps, it is mostly up to the audience to channel the despair.

It is, at points, a dangerously affecting film that boils your blood. The bullies become increasingly evil with each new ordeal they put Alejandra through, to a point where you want karma to strike them down as unmercifully as possible. One bully is reprimanded with fatalistic results and never seems morally questionable but, in fact, justified for the little bastard. Not all elements of the story are fittingly resolved yet it has no effect on the merit of the film, it just makes you yearn for an additional 30 minutes in the run-time. The story is as open-ended as it serves to highlight the everyday nature of this behaviour; bullies usually never get as disciplined as they should, possibly because the victim is as a quiet as someone like Alejandra.

A compelling and powerful film that stresses the disgusting aspects of human nature as well the troubling issue of stoic victims who are too forgiving/apathetic to do anything about their plight. As instructive as it is engaging – leaving you with various things to think about and a burning desire to help stop anything like After Lucia’s events from happening.

*****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Wasteland Review

2012-10-13T23:10:00.003+01:00

Director/Writer: Rowan Athale

Starring: Luke Treadaway, Iwan Rheon, Matthew Lewis, Gerard Kearns, Vanessa Kirby, Timothy Spall, Neil Maskell, Paul Clayton

Plot: After Harvey (Treadaway) returns from a year in the slammer, he starts plotting revenge against the bastard that set him up and got him imprisoned – local psychopath, Steven Roper (Maskell). Getting the help of his friends, they plan a heist that will leave Roper with nothing left in the bank and allow them a clean and tidy getaway abroad...or so they hope.

Bringing the glitz and glamour of Hollywood to British films is never an easy task. It worked for Hot Fuzz and, to a degree, Snatch, but British film is based mostly around the tried and tested models of period pictures, kitchen-sink dramas and comedies with a notable British voice. Rowan Athale’s attempt is, at times, clumsy and jarring yet it can be forgiven for the sheer bravado of what he’s trying to pull off. Athale has deemed Wasteland “a British Ocean’s Eleven” which, let’s be fair, it cannot be (Soderbergh’s film has been copied a few times since – the most conspicuous effort being Confidence – and it always reminds us as to how slick the 2001 all-star caper was) yet it maintains the crisp dialogue and sharp quality that the first Ocean’s film had.

The unique idea of placing recognisable characters from council estate-based films into a genre piece that contains an intricate plot, twists/red-herrings and a run-of-the-mill reveal is, like the pay-off at the end of a heist caper, an extraordinary feat. The scale of Wasteland is not substantial in any regard yet it can, in moments, evolve beyond its limits. At points the screen wipes that accompany the montage of planning seems tawdry but it also feels fun. It isn’t totally unbelievable that a job like Harvey’s could be executed, nor is it far-fetched to understand the motivation – it sometimes wanders into territory it could get lost in but then thankfully turns back towards the workable setting.

Blending the gritty crime story that foregrounds Kill List’s Neil Maskell as the crook, and the heist thriller with the motley crew of some of Britain’s brightest new actors, manages to steer the film far away from the family genre. It is something to be enjoyed by people aged 15 – 40 (which is still a healthy demographic) and taken slightly more seriously that Clooney and co’s escapades. The script is penned in the style of sombre Shane Meadows and jokey Guy Ritchie yet adds a few diverse touches to the form of noughties Brit-flicks. The actors embellish the dialogue with low-key acting that keeps the film grounded to another degree; afraid of becoming a failed replica of the heist-genre, the tone has been meticulously fine-tuned.

With no fixed way to depict the events of a heist film, and in order to smartly show the heist in full, Athale has chosen a structure that drifts back and forth from the interrogation of Harvey, bloody and beaten, and the story of how he ended up in the police station. Athale takes care not to make too many cuts from past to present, keeping the momentum at a steady pace whenever possible. Waiting for the inevitable “reveal” does undermine some of the drama and tension but it’s nothing that could be helped with the formula as it is.

Without outstretching its reach, Wasteland enjoyably creates a U.K crime caper adequately similar Ocean’s Eleven, Bandits and The Bank Job. It’s a shame about the title though; it has little pertinence and could drive people away from what they may think is a gloomy hard-boiled drama.

***

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: Lore Review

2012-10-13T20:40:00.001+01:00

Director/Writer: Cate Shortland

Starring: Saskia Rosendahl, Kai Malina, Nele Trebs, Andre Fird, Mika Seidel, Ursina Lardi, Hans-Jochen Wagner

Plot: After their father and mother are taken to prison for involvement in the Nazi regime, Lore (Rosendahl) and her brothers and sister venture to Hamberg on foot to find sanctuary at their auntie’s house. Along their journey a mysterious young man (Malina) follows behind, eventually trying to join their group for indefinite reasons.

It is not always a sin to exploit the rich history of Germany in film – when the outcome is good more people can become educated and opinionated about the most pivotal area of Germanic history, World War II. Even some of the bravest directors opt out of making their own Holocaust film (Kubrick famously gave up after months of nightmare-inducing research) and so when one director tactfully shines a light on that particular period, it is usually noteworthy. For Cate Shortland’s Lore the result is quite astounding, especially as Shortland is an Australian director whose previous experience has only included three films, two television programmes and three shorts. The level of detail in Lore – artistically – is up to par with legendary European directors such as Michael Haneke and Andrey Tarkovskiy, doubtlessly bound to do wonders for Shortland’s career. Tarkovskiy is an obvious inspiration for Lore and sweeping shots of fields, matched with the finer close-ups of materials and movement is agreeably reminiscent of 1975’s Mirror.

Visually, Lore is a feast of textures, incredibly atmospheric and involving. Its major fault is the various cracks in the narrative’s momentum that can often leave shots lingering too long (however dazzling they may be). As much as performance is intrinsic to the success and fascination of this film, shots are meticulously crafted to reflect the closeness of the brothers and sisters, aside the substantial ruin of a post-war Germany – resulting in wonderful photographic close-ups and panoramic wide-shots.

It is, at points, a slow film that requires a lot of attention – the pictorial cinematography acting partly as a photographic companion to the heavy, novelistic journey of Lore and her siblings. Some sequences are focused upon for too long but by and large it is a compelling story. Saskia Rosendahl and Kai Malina give awards-worthy performances to maintain the thrills and drama throughout (through no fault of their own their allure is jeopardised by slow or ambiguous moments in the film’s screenplay). Malina is an enigmatic but striking screen presence with a piercing glance that emotes his diffident character more than words ever could. His supposed Jewish heritage is often ignored as to not become a cheap dramatic device, but on the occasion when it is brought under scrutiny the shock of the country’s feigned defensive prejudice (or, more specifically, Lore’s) stresses the fragility of the country’s mind to great effect. What’s more, the ambivalent relationship he shares with Lore is intriguing aspect to Lore’s already-complex life. Rosendahl as the eponymous character is the strongest aspect of the whole film; she can do no wrong for the film and carries it with sensational grace and skill. Big things will emerge for each child star in this film and with Rosendahl even able to speak English and having a genuine, wholesome beauty, she will triumph in a number of ways thanks to her starring role.

Such a confident, intelligent and mature piece of cinema; it is a pleasant surprise to learn of its elementary genus. In for the Official Competition at the London Film Festival it may come out on top for its sophisticated exploration of maturity, loss, life and family – rivalled perhaps by Haneke’s Amour looking at similar themes. No matter how it fares for the 56^th LFF, Lore will be a new classic from Germany; one to study and share with film, literature and history fanatics.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

LFF: The Wall Review

2012-10-13T16:36:00.002+01:00

Director/Writer: Julian Polsler

Starring: Martina Gedeck, Wolfgang M. Bauer, Ulrike Beimpold, Karlheinz Hackl

Plot: Up in the Austrian mountains, away on a short holiday, Frau (Gedeck) finds herself trapped in an invisible fortress of unseen walls. As she realises that there is no escape, she strives to survive with only the company of a dog, a cat and cow.

The picturesque landscapes beautifully captured by the cinematographers serve to highlight the Walden/Thoreau-esque aspect of this story, whilst also illuminating the fantastical side of it. Much of The Wall appears transcendent beyond comprehension and cleverly draws upon the uncanny nature of the film; many will note a Kafka-type plot revolving around unexplained happenings and the introspective narration of the lead character. Despite the complex readings that can and will come out of seeing The Wall, it never seems overly complicated in its mode of address, nor does it tire you from the exploration of the human psyche and the subject of nature.

Bookended with the protagonist chronicling her time trapped within an imperceptible bubble, there are indications as to how long Frau has spent isolated in the mountains. In this regard, the story has a straight and simple direction that enables you to work through sequences of drama or solemnity knowing they are intrinsic to the narrative. In an odd way, the story also appears believable – or at least Frau’s reaction to it is – which garners your attention. For instance, her approach to hunting is based on necessity rather than animalistic instinct which is articulated throughout the script. Every movement and every idea is never brushed over and even though this sounds banal, it fits into the pensive manner of the film impeccably.

The strange sci-fi idea of a possible giant glass wall barricading you into a closed space is interesting but not what this film is about. Posler’s screenplay delves deep into the issue of survival and duty – how to maintain a point in your life where structure and society disappear and how to care for those that may need you (like her adopted pets: Lynx the dog, a cat and a cow). The existential tone of the film may bore some, and in one or two moments it can drag, yet the writing is poetic and honest enough to maintain your concentration.

Gedeck in the main role is fantastic; subtly showing the alterations in a person once things drastically change. Though she shows little change in appearance (hair shortened and skin darkened by the sun) her disposition gradually alters throughout to credibly create a heroine. From the timidity seen in the first act, and her caution around Lynx, great strides are taken in her performance to form a different persona. Her bond with Lynx is so profound by the end - noted by the pair’s interaction and the soliloquies about the hound – that their journey together is lovingly followed by the audience.

The first two acts that magnify the evolution of Frau are stimulating pieces of cinema. It is only the last 20 minutes that may displease viewers who are given a brash new revelation and striking tonal shift all of which appears awkwardly rushed in light on the rest. In any other hands, in or any other country, this material could be treated with gross misconduct (a Hollywood remark would inevitably strip every piece of intellect from it) yet the Austrian tact for philosophy and psychology helps create The Wall as a smart and memorable film.

****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on LiveForFilms

Skyfall Review

2012-10-13T00:34:00.002+01:00

Director: Sam Mendes

Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan

Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Berenice Marlohe, Albert Finney

Plot: After a botched mission in Turkey, James Bond (Craig) is assumed dead. Meanwhile, back in London, M (Dench) struggles with a terrorist hacker who brings about destruction and death. Bond returns to the U.K to help find and reprimand the villain, Raoul Silva (Bardem), but finds the criminal to be smarter and more cunning than MI6 imagined.

Often seeped in a golden hue, reminding audiences of Bond’s 50th anniversary, Skyfall magnificently envisions everything prized for a James Bond outing. From beginning to end director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Rodger Deakins highlight the famous styles of this series with sterling poise. As Casino Royale fitfully revitalised the character, to which Quantum of Solace jeopardised once more, Skyfall recaptures what Craig’s portrayal has meant for the continuation, and how tradition works far more efficiently than atypical experiments with the form.

Quantum was condemned for its likeness to the other spy series, Bourne, and whilst one scene of Bond “enjoying death” appears like a rehashed clip from The Bourne Supremacy, everything else about Skyfall harks back to the treasured design. The music, the costumes and the exotic locations are all rightfully embedded into the movie whilst the British spirit reigns tremendously throughout. It’s not so common to see Bond running around London (most chase sequences set in a foreign country) but something about the U.K capital becoming the hot-spot for action feels extremely exciting.

Set pieces all throughout Bond’s 23rd adventure are full of heart-pounding tension, drama and conflict. One scene in particular where Javier Bardem’s Raol Silva runs amok through London is a pure edge-of-your-seat moment. What makes that particular scene excellent is Bardem as the ruthless villain. His Oscar win for No Country Old Men showed us how well he can embody evil and whilst Silva is not as heartless as Chigurh, Silva’s just as relentless and unstoppable. He fits into the Bond universe perfectly – devilishly candid and menacing about what he means to inflict on MI6. The only issue with Skyfall’s presentation of the baddie is there is too little of him – Bardem laps up every scene with his cattish tongue and impacts the story with great omnipotence and is sorely missed when off screen.

The team at MI6, who are given much more ground to tread in Mendes’ film, create a comforting and likeable environment that makes their peril all the more worrying. Ben Whishaw joining as the new Q and Naomie Harris as field agent Eve are given deliciously sarcastic and witty dialogue to become great foils to Bond’s ego, building up a humanity that, since Craig’s start, grows more realistic and touching as the story progresses.

Mendes’ take on Bond is full of loving reminders to what makes the series so adored and adorned. After getting used to Craig as James Bond, Skyfall confidently explores the character’s back-story (if only partially), brings back his beloved Aston Martin DB5 and celebrates him for the British icon that he justifiably has become. Perhaps not as special as Casino Royale but like Craig’s first outing as Bond, you will want to revisit it time and time again. Skyfall is superbly directed, written and acted and gracefully opens the door for more; to quote the start of the end credits, “James Bond will return”...and hooray for that.

*****

By Piers McCarthy. Also posted on Flickering Myth