The Truffle Hunters [SGIFF2020]

 A quaint and charming little Italian documentary that was beautifully shot and languidly presented as we followed the lives of these mostly eccentric, sometimes curmudgeon, Italian old men as they waxed - and sang - lyrically or sometimes frustratingly about their livelihood and passion of being a tartufaio. But most importantly, also about their dogs. Which then begged the question, who or what are the titular truffle hunters - the men or the dogs? Or is it the consumer?

There was some education within the documentary on the shady business of truffle-trading but it was rudimentary and obviously not within the primary scope of the film makers. It will help to set the background for those who came into the film with nary an idea of what the heck is the deal with truffles. It also gave the audience a pseudo-villain, a cad really, in the main truffle dealer, to root against. Thereby giving this otherwise immersive documentary a sort of narrative structure which may be easier to follow/accept.  

However, for those already attuned to the illicit economy behind that white gold, then the real gem of the storytelling is the glimpse into the lives of the truffle hunters. Unfortunately, therein also laid the main critique of this docu. We only get a glimpse into the current lives of these fascinating men with occasional reflections to the past. But what we did not get is an insight into their lives, histories, impetus and drive. 

Visually, this film was beautiful. A lot of stunning wide-angled landscapes through the seasons interspersed with elegantly composed shots that often suggested playfulness and intimacy, or hinted at dodgy shadiness. There was also a fantastic use of a "dog cam" - a GoPro? - that provided one of the best visual sequences so apt for this film. 

The Truffle Hunters was an enjoyable and utterly charming film. You will be fascinated by these men and grown attached to their dogs by the end of  its 84 minutes. Kudos to the film makers who managed to get these men to be so open and inviting. What an invaluable opportunity to be allowed into these men's lives. Meanwhile, you may also learn a thing or two about truffles. 

Ammonite [SGIFF 2020]

 

Francis Lee's follow-up to his underrated gem God's Own Country was not exactly a sophomore slump, but where the latter had humour,  passion and "wore its heart on its sleeve",  Ammonite was cold, frigid and devoid of much levity. There were moments of tenderness and one scene of genuine warmth and love, but it was too little and too brief to ignite the flames - or even the loins. The crux was the lack of chemistry between its two leads, Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan. It was difficult to envisage them as lovers. 

Winslet was great, as usual, giving much weight and meaning to each glance, pinched lips and drag of her cigarette (she really ought to be in a Wong Kar Wai film), and that was extremely useful in Lee's sparse script. Her character was sort of an enigma but not difficult to relate to. An introverted yet sensitive person who dislikes social engagements and outward expressions of emotions, but is deeply passionate and empathetic.  Such characters would be described as stoic or reserved if they were a man, but as a woman, she would be termed frigid or cold or emotionless. And that was the brilliance of Lee and Winslet's creation. But I am not sure how many people will really see it as that. Winslet portrayed her with layers of complexity and she was fascinating to watch and follow.

Ronan, on the other hand, was given less to do, and we know she is capable of doing so much more! But unfortunately, those four Oscar nominations did not translate to her being convincingly enthralled - or besotted - with Winslet. Her character lacked dimensions and she seemed to exist only to drive the plot the forward rather than as a co-lead in a romance drama. Perhaps, this film may have worked better had another actress been cast as Ronan's character and Lee given her more of agency than just a young neglected wife who suffered a personal tragedy. 

There were also other problems other than the casting. Mainly, Lee's screenplay. This was a lot clunkier than God's Own Country and the paucity of dialogue did not disguise the many cringe-worthy lines spilling out of the characters' lips. The best bits actually seemed to be Winslet's improv-ed utterances. Surely not all serious period pieces need to be so muted and so glum. Thankfully, Winslet was able to translate and transcend those silences with a crinkling of her eyes or a slight twinge of the corners of her lips. 

And we also have the directing. By gosh, Lee really lacked subtlety here what with all the heavy handed foreshadowing and dramatic ironies. One could appreciate the cold dreariness of the Dorset coast without having to be constantly enveloped and suffocated by it? And surely, there must be warm blood flowing through Winslet's stone-cold heart. 

That being said, the cinematography by Stephane Fontaine - for all the directorial choices - was beautiful. Music was sparse, and although beautiful was used mainly to hammer in the emotional beats which felt manipulative. The costuming were gorgeous, but Ronan's wig less so. 

Lastly, we have to talk about that epilogue. That was too long. It could have ended just before that and it would have been great. 

(Mild Spoilers Ahead) Throughout the film, Lee had not hinted that the lovers could have had any chance beyond the plotted inevitability, and also, their lack of chemistry did not encourage the audience to actively root for them. Therefore, it could have ended just right before the epilogue and it would have been fitting. (End Spoilers)

But instead, we had to deal with an addition ten to fifteen minutes and three or four unnecessary scenes before the film actually ended. Although thankfully, the proper ending itself was a highlight of the film. That vague ambiguity ignited more passion than all the much-touted sex scenes. It also showed that those aforementioned unnecessary epilogue scenes were clearly there so that the characters, and the director, could S-P-E-L-L out exactly what they were supposed to be thinking/feeling. That felt like a studio note rather than an auteur choice.

Ammonite was a good film. It just was not a great film. It was enjoyable and Winslet was mesmerising. She might even get an Oscar nomination given how the year is going. However, it felt as cold as it looked and Lee could really have injected more warmth into it. Not all "serious" shows have to be brooding.

I'm Thinking of Ending Things [Netflix]

 

The best film of the year...thus far. A surreal fantasy masquerading as a tense psychological thriller, this was a quintessential and unabashed Charlie Kaufman film. It was bitingly smart and uncompromisingly intelligent (unlike, say, Tenet) but yet darkly funny, oppressingly tense/creepy and peppered with unexpected poignancy. But most of all, it was anchored by terrific performances from its two leads - Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons - and the scene-stealing Toni Collette and David Thewlis. If Wild Rose did not convince you that Buckley is a star, her superb, chameleonic performance here will; and Plemons has been underrated long enough! This was not a film for the casual viewer. It demands attention and it will reward you at the end, and stays with you even longer.

It is always a privilege to be able to glimpse into the mind of Kaufman, and no one else would have been able to translate his screenplay (from the book by Iain Reid) as well as he could. Kaufman's directing and writing was in sync and so capably transported the audience into this world. 

Similarly, kudos to the production design team, the cinematographer, Łukasz Żal, who also worked on the equally sumptuous Cold War, and the music composer Jay Wedley. The whole team had created a brilliant visual landscape and aural soundscape that enveloped the viewer. The confusion, the unease, the sense of dread, the fear, the longing, the sadness, the lost, the happiness, the acceptance, all these and more were heightened and enriched by Kaufman and team. 

Saying anything more about the plot will ruin the film, but safe to say, it was similar yet different from its source material, and really only something that Kaufman could have imagined. This was truly Kaufman's best work since Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless mind sixteen years ago (and Being John Malkovich was 21 years ago!).

Buckley remained astounding and it was a crime she was not nominated for an Oscar for Wild Rose last year (at least she got a BAFTA nomination; her Oscar nom likely went to Cynthia Erivo and perhaps either Saoirse Ronan or Charlize Theron should have given up their spot...just saying). Nonetheless, Buckley turned in a fearless performance here all while spouting Kaufman's long monologues that ranged a multitude of topic. Her face was a canvas for the myriad emotions that her character had to go through and never once did it ring false. As ostensibly the audience surrogate, we tracked her journey through this one surreal evening and we felt what she felt. We were seldom ahead of her and that feeling could be very confusing. 

Plemons needs to be recognised by the mainstream audience and be rewarded for his consistently good performances in all mediums. In television, he broke out in Breaking Bad and was great in the second season of Fargo and the USS Callister episode of Black Mirror; and in films, he had multiple small yet pivotal roles in Vice, The Irishman, Bridge of Spies, The Post, amongst many other award-winning films. He is such an underrated actor and perhaps that is his charm. His character appeared unassuming but yet we see flickers of a multi-faceted, complex human being. The layers of complexity that Plemons brought to this role was amazing.

Collette and Thewlis made a perfect pair. They seemed to be having so much fun in their scenes especially Collette. They are fascinating to watch, and the dinner scene with all four of them was easily one of the best scene in the film. The effortless transition showed all of their mastery in the craft.

This was easily, hands down, one of the best films in a long time. A smart, uncompromising film that delivered. An Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay and Cinematography will be likely, but given its high brow nature and esoteric storytelling, anything more will be a surprise, albeit a very welcomed one.

This film absolutely deserved repeat viewing - like all good Kaufman's films - and what else is there to do under lockdown in these unprecedented times? Stay through the credits and read them for some nuggets and easter eggs.

Tenet [IMAX]

 

Expectations were high for this film given the immense success that was Dunkirk and how it was the first major blockbuster to hit the cinema since COVID struck. But Christopher Nolan's time-travelling, heist-flick, action-thriller failed to lived up to those expectations. 

Granted, the timey-wimey concept was interesting. However, the execution was tedious and predictable, and for fans familiar with the sci-fi genre or time-travel trope, it felt unexciting and rote. Nolan never delivered upon the promise of the first act and the film never got more exciting than the prologue. The clunky dialogue and heavy-handed monologuing did not help. 

And to add salt to the wound, this was perhaps Nolan's most emotionally hollow and contrived film. There was absolutely no emotional weight or purpose in this whole 150 minutes. Perhaps he should have leaned more into the bromance and banter between John David Washington and Robert Pattinson who had good chemistry together, and ditch the saviour-complex, with a hint of romance, between Washington and Elizabeth Debicki. 

Washington was a standout in his breakout film BlacKkKlansman, but here, although he managed to hold his own, he seemed overwhelmed by the story and never really shone through as an individual. He was charismatic at times but dull more often. He really did not appear like he was having fun.

Pattinson, on the other hand, seemed to be enjoying his role. Pattinson is a much better actor than most people give him credit for and his performance here proved that his Batman could be something worth anticipating. 

As for Debicki she deserved so much more. She tried her best but the script and the directing failed her. Her character was so shallowly written and her motivations so contrived that she was essentially nothing more than a pretty face face masquerading as a plot device. At least she and Kenneth Branagh played well opposite each other. More than what we can say for her chemistry withWashington. Ever since she broke out in The Night Manager and The Kettering Incident, she seemed to have been typecast, i.e. the tall, fragile-looking blonde that had inner strength that was yet to be discovered. Hopefully, as the next Princess Diana she can once again shin. 

Nolan really has no idea how to write for women. Which could explain why his films always have so little women in them. And if they are there, they are either tropes or used to subvert expectations, e.g. Dimple Kapadia in this film. There really was no reason why Washington's or Pattinson's characters could not have been female.

Tenet absolutely failed the Bechdel Test. Also, other than Washington, there was also no other BIPOC character of note throughout the film.

Nolan might have to learn a few things from his brother and sister-in-law, Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy, the duo behind the HBO series Westworld, or even James Cameron, and consider allowing his ideas to be turned into a mini-series or a multi-part film franchise. With more time and breathing space, and better writing, Tenet could have been so much better. The concept could have been more richly explored and the characters deepened and their complexities fleshed out. Look at the Netflix series Dark. Similar concept, so much more better executed over three seasons.

And Nolan should also consider having a co-writer to help write better dialogue rather than the clunky and clanky pesudo-science, pop-philosophy and oblique references that peppered throughout the film.

Having said all that, there were things to like about the film. The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema was excellent. The IMAX-shot sequences were great and the final climax - for all its messiness - was amazingly shot. The editing by Jennifer Lame who did Hereditary was top notch. And of course the score by Ludwig Goransson really helped to drive the film forward and through the dull patches. There is a chance that they could get some awards recognition in these three categories and also for Special Effects and Sound Design. 

Watching this film in IMAX was great, especially for the prologue and some of the action sequences like the final climax. And the sound system in an IMAX theatre really helped with the bass-heavy score. However, given the 2.5 hours film length and mediocrity of the film, that extra cost may not have been so worth it. But at least it was fun to be back in a cinema, only wished it had been better.

The Old Guard [Netflix]

A fairly engaging film by Gina Prince-Bythewood that mildly subverted the superhero film genre. It had great action, hand-on-hand sequences and a good performance by lead actress Charlize Theron. But at just over 2-hours long, the screenplay by Greg Rucka, who also wrote the original comic book this was based on, did tend to dawdle and the plotting and writing was inconsistent and occasionally clunky with many logic lapses and contrivances in the service of plot momentum and twists. The rest of the cast was also a mixed bag, with Luca Marinelli and Marwan Kenzari as standouts (even their characters tend to the steal the show), together with the brooding Matthias Schoenearts. Unfortunately, the two Black characters played by KiKi Layne and Chiwetel Ejiofor were uninteresting and underused respectively. 

Prince-Bythewood's directing was assured and for a first-time action and genre director, she competently executed the terrific open sequence that hooked the audience in and also the climatic big finale fight. Even the hand-on-hand fights, mainly showcasing Theron, were beautifully choreographed, kinetically energetic and believably deadly without the showy slow-mos that was all pretty but usually ridiculous.

On the dramatic front, Theron again shone with her authentic portrayal of an old immortal who has grown world weary and jaded. Similarly, the relationship between Marinelli and Kenzari was a highlight - it was highly refreshing to see queer superheroes in a relationship but not having that queerness highlighted. However, the origin story of Layne's newbie immortal lacked character depth and a sense of urgency. Layne was so good in If Beale Street Could Talk but her talents are kind of wasted here. 

As for the bad guys. they really were of the cupboard-variety, one-dimensional villainy with no ounce of redemption (at least Henry Melling seemed to be having fun, whereas Ejiofor appeared to struggle to give his character a believable purpose).

The music by Hauschka and Dustin O'Halloran was perhaps a bit too on the nose, with lots of #SadPiano and #PlaintiveCello, but otherwise it did help to move the story along. Although perhaps the soundtrack was more apt and memorable than the score. 

The powers-that-be clearly wants this to be a new franchise, and with Rucka already releasing a comic sequel to the first series and the mid-credits easter egg, it is highly likely and inevitable that we will get a franchise soon. Although hopefully the creative team will all be back and maybe hire a co-writer to help Rucka fine tune his screenplay.

Palm Springs [Hulu]

This was a genuinely funny (some great laugh out loud moments), light and frothy rom-com that would have been an excellent Summer escapist film. But now, as we are all more or less stuck in quarantine, this film has added a layer of ironic realism to its existentialism leanings. Thankfully, philosophy and quantum physics were not its priority, instead its focus was on the fantastic chemistry between its two lead - Andy Samberg (who was the right amount of cringiness here) and Cristin Milioti (she of the wide-eyed, not-so manic-pixie foil). 

Written by Andy Siara and Directed by Max Barbakow, this was a trim and unfussy 90 minutes film that held your attention from the beginning to the end. But to me, I wished it ended 2 minutes earlier, that would have been perfect. The epilogue and the mid-credits scene kinda lost a bit of the magic spelled by the preceding 88. Nonetheless, kudos to Barbakow for daftly balancing comedy, romance and existentialism without nary missing a beat. The tonal shifts from fun to dread to wonder to drama to contemplative to hopeful and back to fun again were done very well.

Samberg - reminiscence of Jesse Eisenberg from Zombieland - was a great casting choice. He has the earnesty and sincerity that made him relatable, and also a great timing for comedy (see Brooklyn Nine-Nine). Although, thankfully, Barbakow managed to rein him  an we barely had much slapstick schtick or cringey expressions of frat-humour.

Milioti was a great foil for Samberg, and her journey was a delight to follow. Her transformation through the stages of grief was extremely fun especially as she worked through her denial and anger before arriving at acceptance.

J.K. Simmons played a small but pivotal role and it is hard to see any other actor inhabit this role. Maybe Christopher Walken? Or Sir Ian McKellen? You get the type. 

My only real gripe was the ending. I wonder if the studios had anything to do with it or was it Siara's, or Barbakow's, plan all along. 

Another gripe will be the lack of representation in the film. We have the one token Black actor and the one token Asian guy. It was also a definite fail on the Bechdel Test. And the LGBTQ angle was played for laughs. Gotta work harder, Hollywood.

Nonetheless, this was a great 90 minutes escapism. It brought the laughs and the awwww-shucks, and could be a long shot for an Original Screenplay nomination.

The Vast of Night [Amazon]

A fun, thrilling, little indie sci-fi film from first time film director and writer Andrew Patterson. It is always amazing what some talented film makers can do and come up with on a small budget, and that really gives you a sense of what kind of talent they are and what they can possibly achieve. In this case, Patterson direction and storytelling were his stronger suits than his actual writing.

This was a talky, 50s-era film set like an episode on Twilight Zone, and although there was a lot of bantering and rapid-fire cross-talking between the two leads - played by Sierra McCormick and Jake Horowitz - the quality of the banter lacked the energy, adrenaline, punchiness and zing of the likes of Joss Whedon or Amy Sherman-Palladino. 

However, Patterson really shone with the directing. The tension was ratcheted up appropriately and maintained, and the mystery unfolded slowly and with enough creepiness and dread to be engaging. The limited budget possibly forced him to limit the number of shoots and edits so there were lots of one takes and long, tracking shots which were used effectively rather than gimmicky. Although, somewhere between Act 1 and Act 2, there was an exhilarating, long, racing, tracking shot that was superbly done and sure to be Patterson's calling card for the big leagues. 

Similarly, his cinematographer, M. I. Littin-Menz will be a name to watch out for in the future. His lensing of the film was gorgeous and effectively fit the atmospheric mood of the film. 

It is quite exciting to spot talent early on in their career.

Acting wise, McCormick and Horowitz had chemistry together, but neither of them broke out. However, to give them credit, they did hold the film together in the opening minutes and before the film kicked into high-gear. And to be honest, the script itself was more narrative-based rather than character-based, therefore they had not much to work with. In addition, Patterson's direction to McCormick seemed to require her to be more reactive rather than being; and with Horowitz, it was more channel Dana Scully's sensibilities with Fox Mulder's dryness. It was the camera work that helped sell the story rather than the characters. 

At at breezy 89 minutes, this was an easy film to watch. It could even feel like, in this day and age, an extended episode of Black Mirror or Twilight Zone. But what Patterson and his team had achieved from their limited resources was incredible, and it will be very exciting to see what else he will come up with next.

Bad Education [HBO]

Fantastic performances by Hugh Jackman and Allison Janney, who had superb onscreen chemistry, in this dramatisation of the largest public school embezzlement in American history. If this was a theatrical release, both Jackman and Janney will be definite shoo-ins for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominees. 

The film, on the other hand, was weaker than its stars. As with most true-story retelling (and even adaptations of popular novels), the cinematic tension and conflict will have to come from within the narrative or the characters, given that the audience would most likely already be aware of the final outcome. And in this case, director Cory Finley and screenwriter Mike Makowsky were not able to find a hook to fully engage the audience for them to care. Sure, Jackman's character was the lead but we never really got inside his head except for a few fleeting moments that were more due to Jackman's abilities rather than the story itself. It was the same for Janney's case, who had slightly more histrionic scenes and sold it much better than the materials that was handed her. 

The pacing was appropriate but it never felt like the story had any emotional or dramatic beats. It was more a retelling of an event rather than a fictional dramatisation of one; the premise was interesting, but the execution was flat. Other than the writing for the two stars, the rest of the of the writing was alternating between clunky, heavy exposition, and cringeworthy cliched.

Jackman was stellar. He held the screen and story together through all the faults. It was a perfectly fine-tuned, nuanced performance and a certainly a career best for him. He was a sociopath that was equally smarmy, charming, deceitful, manipulative, loving, caring and passionate. It was possible to believe all that in his portrayal of Dr Frank Tassone. Most people just think of Jackman as another Marvel superhero or that guy from Les Miserables, but many also forgot that his Logan was one of the memorable incarnation of a superhero and that Jean Valjean gave him his only Best Actor Oscar nomination. Not only that, he also gave great performances in The Prestige, Prisoners and even Eddie the Eagle. However, come the Emmys, his biggest challenger for the Best Actor in a TV Movie/Limited Series will be fellow Marvel superhero, the green-man himself, Mark Ruffalo for a fellow HBO production, I Know This Much Is True (one of the most devastating, perpetually sad and inconceivably heavy series about life, lost, death, mistakes...and ultimately hope).

Janney was ostensibly the lead actress in this film, but really she was a supporting character to Jackman. The early scenes between these two actors were the highlights of the film and Janney's downward spiral was a sight to marvel. However, it is hard not to feel like we have seen all that from her already. From her multiple Emmy wins as CJ in The West Wing and her most recent Oscar-winning turn in I. Tonya, it is almost starting to feel like we want another breakthrough from this undeniably thespian, and for her not to get typecast into a particular sort of role. There is a good chance she will get nominated for an Emmy for this role, but winning it will be challenging as she will most likely be up against the phenomenal ladies of Mrs America (a superb series that was riveting and educational given its subject matter - the Equal Rights Amendment - and had a seriously stacked cast of actress who all brought their A-plus game; Cate Blanchett might just get the Best Actress in a TV Movie/Limited Series for her turn as Phyllis Schlafly). 

The other main supporting cast included Geraldine Viswanathan who felt out of her league acting against Jackman and Janney, Ray Romano giving a very Romano-esque performance, and Annaleigh Ashford who did the best she could with what she was given.

The score was by Michael Abels and it was quite memorable although might not be entirely fitting for the film as a lot of time it stood out distinctively rather than assimilating with the look and texture of the screen. 

It is debatable whether it was the right decision for HBO to acquire this film. Given the current climate, it seemed likely that it will reach a bigger audience than a theatrical release. However, its cast did have a good chance of Oscar nominations which could have given the film legs to carry it through Oscar seasons.  Nonetheless, at a trim 108 minutes, this film was an easy and entertaining watch buoyed by great performances from its two leads.

13th [Netflix]

Educate yourself. Educate your children. Educate the people around you.

Bracing. Harsh. Terrifying. Honest. Brutal. Unbelievable. Shocking. Disgusted. Disbelief. Informative. Educational. Hopeful. These are just a few of the many words that suitably described this 2016 documentary by Ava DuVernay. And now, 4 years later, it is still relevant. Chillingly relevant.

As the documentary's tagline highlighted, "From slave to criminal with one amendment" and DuVernay and her interviewees strived to illuminate how America has gotten itself to its current - albeit 2016, although still extremely relevant in 2020 - state. There was a lot of information here and DuVernay had presented them in a clear, but not always concise, chronological order featuring a rotating cast of talking heads. 

The information provided comes from both sides of the partisan benches but not necessarily from both sides of the argument. DuVernay did try to insert some counter-balance into the documentary, but it was apparent from the editing that she had proportioned less weightage to those interviews. This document was an educational tool that leaned heavily on her point-of-view, which undeniably was where my own politics laid, but there was no space given for counter-rhetorics.  Nonetheless, it effectively accomplished its role in a brisk 100 minutes, i.e. to educate. Anything longer than that might strain the attention span of the ignorants, the casually curious, the on-the-fencers and lose recruits to her side.

Do listen to what DuVarney's interviewees have to say. They are not your typical celebrity activists, but, as their titles suggest, smart and invested people who are passionate about what they are saying and what they believe in. Perhaps, the only true "celebrity" will be Angela Davis, an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.

Do also watch the 30 minutes, Netflix-produced Oprah Winfrey interview with DuVernay after the documentary. It was equally illuminating and reassuring, and may answer a few questions that you may have had whilst watching 13th. Although DuVernany's mildly-rehearsed answer to Oprah questioning her about the ending of the documentary did help me to understand why it was ended that way, albeit I am still not entirely convinced that it was the right ending. 

Educate. Learn. Be Better.

Zombieland: Double Tap [Netflix]

Missed this when it was on the big screen but looks like I did not actually missed much. The chemistry between our foursome was still intact and remained the main draw of the film. However, this sequel lacked the ingenuity and irreverence that marked the first film. The final act was great and the final action sequence kicked ass, but it was the meandering journey to that point that dragged. 

The spirit of the franchise was maintained but in its search for a deeper meaning, director Ruben Fleischer and his team of writer resorted to cliches and recycled tropes that were neither exciting or engaging. If not for the excellent banter (and chemistry) between Jesse Eisenberger and Woody Harrelson, and Emma Stone's droll, dry delivery, a lot of the lines would not have worked. 

Rosario Dawon was a welcomed addition and Zoey Deutch was surprisingly effective despite being annoying. Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch were thankfully only deployed for a limited period of time before they ran out of their welcome. 

Thankfully, the film only ran 99 minutes and had a strong ending, but another film to make this a trilogy is not necessary although the ending sure did leave that door open.

Stay through the credits for a great (seriously, better than film itself) mid-credits scene and post-credits scene. 

Network

Having had watched the fantastic stage play starring Bryan Cranston in Broadway last year, it was inevitable that comparisons would be made whilst watching this scarily prescient 1976 pitch-black satire. The biggest difference was that in Sidney Lumet's film, the three leads - Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch and William Holden - shared the screen almost equally with possibly Dunaway as the first lead. Whereas in the stage play, Cranston was ostensibly the lead with Tatiana Maslany and Tony Goldwyn (who has been aged down compared to Holden) as supporting characters. But what remained constant was the biting screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky which has hauntingly remained relevant now and chillingly foretold our current situation 40 years later. That was what made Network the play so relevant when it was staged.

Chayefsky's screenplay remained, to this day, a staggering tour de force. A bitingly funny satire not only about the newsroom, but also about how we consume culture and information. And the most piercing thing about it was that it was staggeringly relevant back in the 70s and still so bloody accurate in the new-20s! Our obsession with social media, the internet and fast culture simply replaced the 70s preoccupation with television and the burgeoning pop culture. So many great lines in the film and so many of them remained prescient and true till now.

Lumet's direction kept the film going at a brisk pace. The emotional entanglements never bogged down the satirical commentary and the supporting players like Robert Duvall (so very Duvall!), Ned Beatty and Marlene Warfield helped to keep the tempo going in their own scenes. Although Lumet did tend to veer towards the melodramatic at some points. 

Finch, a Best Actor Oscar winner for this role, was great in his role as Howard Beale who brought a different energy to Beale as compared to Cranston. Finch appeared to be more of a desperate, resigned revolutionary compared to Cranston's angry and ready-for-change prophet. Regardless, Finch was arresting and when he rants, he commanded the screen and everybody's attention.

Dunaway, also an Oscar winner for Best Actress, stole the show. For all of Finch's bluster and showboating, he was decidedly one-note. Dunaway, on the other hand, was a full blown concerto, a heady mixture of adjectives: brassy, uncompromising, brash, rash, sexual, smart, vulnerable, cynical. Here was a female character way ahead of her time and unapologetic for it. Kudos to Lumet, Chayefsky and Dunaway for giving life to this amazing character! Dunaway owned this film and very much deserved for Oscar for it. It was a pity they did not match her up against Finch. 

Holden, a fellow Best Actor nominee, had the quieter role. His Max Schumacher was more reserved and less showy, but was the emotional heart of the film. He represented the people of the older time who still cherished real emotional connect and not just the fleeting highs (and lows) offered by pop culture (and internet binges). His breakup scenes with Dunaway and Beatrice Straight (a Best Supporting Actress winner for an emotionally showy 5-minutes appearance) was an achingly honest bit of emotional vulnerability in a bleak tragicomedic satire.

Network was an utterly engaging and fascinating film to watch with a solid cast to match. A bleakly dark satire that delivered an emotional gut punch and (uncomfortable) laughs as it sent chills with its breathtakingly prescient insights.

North by Northwest [AppleTV]

One of Alfred Hitchcock's later films, this 1959 adventure-caper could have been the progenitor of the James Bond spy-thrillers (first film Dr No was in 1962) and Ethan Hunt's TV and movie Mission: Impossible franchises. It had spies, mistaken identity, a femme fatale, an evil international mastermind, menacing henchmen, a romance, some comedy, multiple (exotic) locales - Mt Rushmore! In a train!- and, most importantly, a dashing hero! All it needed was a wise-cracking sidekick and some gadgets! 

From a modern POV, the plot was rather predictable. However, back in the 50s this was likely to have been rather exciting and new to the audience. And, again, Hitchcock was great at milking the tension and tightening the suspense. The train sequence was well-done and the Mt Rushmore climax was tremendously exciting. Equally riveting was the rapid-fire dialogue by screenwriter Ernest Lehman, it calls to mind Amy Sherman-Palladino's and Aaron Sorkin's highly patterned, ping-pong dialogue style.

Cary Grant was a great leading man for a spy thriller. He was ruggedly handsome, utterly charismatic and looked damn fine in a suit. Although the tendency to cast a not-so-age-appropriate actress as the love interest seemed to already be a thing in Hollywood. Eva Marie Saint looked like she could have been Grant's daughter. Regardless, Saint was a great counter to Grant and they had good chemistry together. Pity, eventually she still had to fulfill the role of damsel-in-distress.

The music was by Bernard Herrmann, who also scored a few other Hitchcock films. The score was appropriately exciting and definitely helped to raise the tension. Although, unfortunately, it was not very memorable. However, the cinematography by Robert Burks looked amazing. The shots out in the desert and the plane crash was beautiful, as was the entire last act up in Mt Rushmore at night.

North by Northwest was a great watch. It was entertaining and exciting, albeit predictable to modern eyes. Nonetheless, Grant had a great screen presence, and Hitchcock really knew how to hook in his audience. Now, can somebody please explain the title? 

Ordinary People

This 1981 Best Picture/Best Director winner was the directorial debut of Robert Redford and his background as an actor-turned-director really showed here. He gave the actors time to develop a scene and allowed them to shine and produce full, complex characters. 

The plot was relatively straightforward, and perhaps with the lens of the 21st century it seemed rather pedestrian. However, it was because of this simplicity that forced the actors to be front and center and carry the weight of the film. And the actors - Timothy Hutton (Best Supporting Actor winner), Mary Tyler Moore (Best Actress nominee), Donald Sutherland (robbed of a nomination!) and Judd Hirsch (Best Supporting Actor nominee) - were definitely up to the task, elevating this film to an actor's showcase.

Redford deserved kudos, especially as a first time director, for being able to wrangle such intense portrayals from his cast. 

Moore did an amazing, nuanced and measured performance, contrary to her usual The Mary Tyler Moore Show persona, and Sutherland, who was given the more showy role, had great moments and a truly, genuine and heartfelt catharsis at the end. 

Hutton, in his first film role, was a revelation. His performance contained multiple layers and the peeling of those defences to the true vulnerability and eventually to acceptance was believable and felt authentic, barring some histrionics during the therapy scenes, but mostly he did come across as a truly struggling teenager. Although Hutton may have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, he was, in my opinion, truly the lead and main focus of the film. 

Therein laid the biggest issue of this film. It could have benefited more if Redford and Oscar-winning writer Alvin Sargent had decided clearly who were the film's main focus. Is the film going to be about Hutton's teenage character suffering from PTSD and survivor's guilt, and finding his way out, or will it be more abut Moore and Sutherland's disintegrating marriage as they navigate the aftermath of a family tragedy (or two). 

Redford as a first time director made some rather cliched choices especially in terms of music (it's Pachebel's Canon in D again...and again...and again), costume choices (all the beige!) and cinematography (lots of wide-angled shots followed by a zoom-in), but in all, his effectiveness in getting great performances from his cast trumped all that. 

Ordinary People still held up almost 40 years later, however, its portrayal of mental health illnesses and male-centric storytelling may have to be brushed up a bit.

Amadeus (Director's Cut)

Directed by Miloš Forman who also brought us One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this film was not what I was expecting from a Best Picture (1984) winner, regardless that the Director's Cut was 20 minutes longer than the theatrical release. This was a film that was technically impressive and lavishly produced, the directing, cinematography, production design, editing, hair, make-up and costume design, music (and dance!) were top notched, but the acting and the cast was inconsistent, and the story - adapted by Peter Shaffer from his own Broadway production - was challenging to say the least.  Amadeus was, surprisingly, a rather broad comedy, light on the histrionics and overt dramatics, and more fictionally dramatised than biographically factual. Nonetheless, even at 3 hours long, this film never felt long or boring. Forman's directing was superb and the storytelling - for all its challenges - was intriguing and engaging. 

Lead actors F Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce were at two opposite ends of the spectrum of greatness Abraham was great from the moment he was introduced and held it together as the tortured maestro who felt that God had betrayed him as he lied and schemed to ensure Mozart's failure. On the other hand, Hulce's performance deepened as the film progressed. His infantile portrayal of Mozart started off grating but as the story unfolded and Mozart's fortune reversed, Hulce gained depth and dimension. Mozart's final moments were extraordinary.

However, the rest of the cast with their broad American accents - especially female lead Elizabeth Berridege as Constanze Mozart - was intrusive and weirdly disjointed. Also, why did some then speak with horribly bad Italian/German accents?

Mozart's music was phenomenal and arresting, and one would expect nothing less from a film about his life. Cinematography was by Forman's fellow Czech, Miroslav Ondříček, and was beautiful especially the interior, candle-lit shots. Twyla Tharp choreographed the dance/ballet/opera sequences and they were equally beautiful.

Amadeus was a fascinating, albeit more fictionalised than factual, look into Mozart's life and music. It definitely made Mozart a more intriguing character than what most lay person would assumed, and gave a resurgence to Antonio Salieri that he - allegedly - so desperately craved when he was alive.

Rear Window

What a masterpiece! A phenomenal masterclass in tension and suspense and directing. Through 112 minutes, the story telling was simple but the tension was unrelentless. Truly, you never knew who to trust, who to believe and who is telling the truth until the final few moments. And even then, who will survive? Who will make it out?

Simply, masterful!

Also ironically, this was the perfect self-quarantine, lock-down, shelter-at-home, circuit-breaker movie. Stuck at home, with nowhere to go? Have your lobster thermidor delivered, your daily nursing care coming in to give you a massage and your telephoto-lens and/or binoculars handy for some neighbourly spying.

And of course, make sure you have the gorgeous, stunning, absolutely lovely Grace Kelly coming to visit you daily, dressed to the nines (thank you Costume Designer Edith Head!). Has she ever been more beautiful in a film?

Plot-wise, Rear Window was deceptively simple, but looking deeper, John Michael Hayes' screenplay also examined the concepts of stereotypes and inherent biasness, the evolution of relationships, emotional dependency, herd mentality, truth vs fiction, the voyeurism of film, and to put a modern spin, toxic-masculinity and liberal feminism. This film was truly fascinating. It has aged well and worked incredibly on so many levels.

However, the real gem was Hitchcock's masterful direction. No blood, no violence yet a violent crime has been (or has it?) been committed. We see what James Stewart's crippled, home-bound, photographer / photojournalist sees and our information is as limited as his and our view point as shaped as what Hitchcock wanted us to know. Every other speaking-character was the perfect foil for Stewart's conspiracy theory, throwing in doubts and providing reasonable counter-arguments...that is until they too were convinced by the circumstantial evidence and the story told by Stewart. It was like a lawyer weaving the best story of the evidence available to convince the jury of their case. Simple but so effective.

Stewart was a great everyday man to be put in this scenario. He had that sensibility that allowed him to be highly relatable, yet just a hint of danger to be make every man want to be him. Of course, having Kelly has his paramour definitely helped his allure. But Kelly was more than just a pretty face here - and that poise!!! - and like most Hitchcockian leading ladies, she also served to propel the narrative and incite character development in the leading man. Notwithstanding, she was also shown to be smart, brave and resourceful, but as the times had it, also dependent on the man.

Music was by Franz Waxman, who also did Sunset Boulevard, and it really helped to enliven the lived-in feeling of being in a NYC neighbourhood and tightened the screw of suspense and melancholy.

Rear Window was utterly riveting and unbelievably tensed. Hitchcock achieved so much with seemingly so little. Brilliant!

Casablanca

Casablanca is a film that stood the test of time. It gave us a pair of leading actors that sizzled with on-screen chemistry and a Romance for the ages. It also gifted us with two immortal lines that are still oft-quoted these days, some sixty years later, and an iconic love song/theme that still echoes a great love and the promise it held.

At a surprisingly brisk 102 minutes, Casablanca had a tightly paced story of love, intrigue, spy-games, politicking and patriotism. There was nary an ounce of fat on it, and sometimes that could be detrimental as we see in a few scenes where director Michael Curtiz fell prey to expositional dumping to move the plot along. Thankfully, these narrative hand-holdings were usually brief and the actors competent enough to deliver them without losing interest.

However, the opposite was true for Humphrey Bogart's Rick who, throughout the film, maintained a mysterious backstory that only served to make him an even more interesting character and his motivations less clear cut.

Similarly, the luminous and stunningly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, was also not the archetypal damsel-in-distress. She was a well-rounded character that had her own agency and had to made difficult choices. It was never clear until the final moment who she would choose, although some would argue, that the choice was made for her. But, she could have not gone along with it - we have seen her being headstrong.

Together, Bogart and Bergman were electrifying and their chemistry utterly palpable.

Also outstanding, was fellow Best Supporting Actor nominee Claude Rains who delivered a number of the funniest lines in the film.

Max Steiner's score for the film was sublime and the refrains and variations of As Time Goes By was so effective in conveying the emotional weight of the Llsa and Rick's varying relationship. And that scene of the dueling National Anthems, was equal beats rousing and emotionally resonant.

A 1942 Best Picture winner, Casablanca is a classic that remained very watchable now. Great Romances never go out of style. "Here's looking at your, kid! We will always Paris!"

Never Rarely Sometimes Always [VOD]

Superbly written and directed by Eliza Hittman (go watch Beach Rats on Netflix), with a star-making turn by Sidney Flanigan, supported by an equally impressive Talia Ryder, this Sundance Special Jury Prize winner and Berlin Silver Bear winner was a harrowing, highly affective and emotionally draining film. It will definitely not be for everyone for this was clearly a pro-choice, libber flag-waving film. But, boy, was this film powerful! This film should be watched by as many people as possible, but for all those who believe in a woman's choice over her own body and that termination of pregnancy is a healthcare right,  then this film should be essential. It made me feel so proud of the strong, powerful, proud women amongst us and so damn ashamed of my gender.

All the male characters in the film were of varying degree of nastiness, i.e. all men are creeps but some are more so and some are less so, but creeps nonetheless. That might turn some male viewers off, but is your male ego really that fragile? Although some brutal honesty might make you a more honest man. And, only a female-led creative team could have pushed this message out, so kudos to them!

Hittman's directing was riveting. Filmed in a 70s docu-like style, the honesty of the narrative was brutal. Quite frequently dialogue-free, the emotional and physical journey of Flanigan's character was brought out through her raw acting (her acting debut!) and Hittman's intimate yet tender and non-intrusive camera work. We were always with her and that emotional resonance and empathy was electrifying, yet also sometimes scarily suffocating.

Towards the end of Act Two, where the title of the movie gets repeated (and it all made so much sense...no spoiler here), Hittman and Flanigan absolutely knocked it out of the park in that one long take that was a roller coaster ride of emotions and catharsis. Absolutely brilliant.

Yes, there was a bit of meandering in the middle where the film got a bit less tight, especially the subplot with Ryder's character and a boy; and yes, there were times when you would just want to grab Flanigan through the screen and lead her to the right decision. But then that would be missing the film's point, that our lead character is a flawed character, however for all her flaws, it was not her fault that she ended up where she was. True, she made choices but similarly she should also be allowed to be all other choices. As the film's tagline goes, it is her journey and her choice.

Flanigan and Ryder will have exciting careers to come and definitely two young stars to look out for.

And with Beach Rats and Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Hittman is definitely on the brink of a big breakout. Both films, so different in subject matter, yet similar in approach, felt honest, authentic and sincere. Will she go the way of Lynne Ramsay or Katherine Bigelow? Hopefully, both.

Emma.

If nothing else this was one of the most stylish Jane Austen adaptation, but that was about all it had going for it. Then again, the period in its title should have clued us in that this Autumn de Wilde adaptation would be more style over substance. The costumes were the real star of this film and if still remains in the conversation at year-end, it might get a nomination for Best Costume Design. Anya Taylor-Joy and Austen's prose were a tied-second. The former had large, expressive eyes and wore the period fashion beautifully, while the latter's prose made the film came alive although there was a strong discordant with the rest of the screenplay by acclaimed novelist Eleanor Catton which unfortunately seemed clunky and inelegant next to Austen's rhythmic monologues.

De Wilde told the story aptly and succinctly, but other than gorgeous costumes and sumptuous production designs, she did not elicit anything new from the source novel that has not already been done. Consequently, this iteration might appeal more to newer audience who are unfamiliar with the novel or the previous films.

Taylor-Joy portrayed Emma with bright-eyed confidence and it was not difficult to imagine that her Emma was as Austen described: clever, handsome and rich. However, she seemed to lack the inherent wit that characterised Austen's heroines and which was so wonderfully personified by the likes of Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley.

The boys, played by Johnny Flynn and Callum Turner, appeared to match, physically at least, with Taylor-Joy and the period itself, but neither had the flair or charisma to light up the screen or ignite genuine chemistry with Taylor-Joy.

Bill Nighy was hilarious and he and Josh O'Connor got the best laughs with their physical comedy.

Also getting some laughs were the mostly-silent manservants and maids.

Cinematography was by Christopher Blauvelt who did a great job with a lot of the indoor scenes; music was by Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) and David Schweitzer, and it was time-period appropriate but also not entirely memorable.

Emma. was a beautiful film that offered little to seasoned movie-goers and Janeites, however it will be a good, simple introduction to Austen's works and the beauty of her language.

Onward

This was a mid-to-lower tier Pixar animated film that had the usual Disney/Pixar heart but lacked the innovation or originality that elevated the best of pre-merger Pixar. It was a G-rated fantasy/action quest that was solely targeted at children and hence the simplicity of the story, the emotions, and the action. Also, its lead characters -  though capably and convincingly voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt - lacked depth and were more annoying than endearing. Their quips, some good ones by Pratt, also felt more juvenile than layered. Then again, it could have been a directorial choice for realistic teenage portrayal, but in that case, Dan Scanlon failed to connect that angst with audience's empathy.

The animation here was nothing to shout at and I highly doubt that this film will even crack the Best Animated Film Oscar shortlist next year. It was a 103 minutes long child-friendly animation that seemed like yet another placeholder until Pete Doctor's Soul arrives later in the year.

The story was straightforward and uncomplicated, but the journey was littered with well-tread tropes that could seem refreshing to young viewers, but for adults it bordered on tediousness and repetitiveness. Thematically, the film was on-brand for Disney/Pixar and the bright colours, large-eyes, cuteness factors will surely enchant the younglings, and the lesson was definitely worth learning for them. Accompanying parents and other adults will not be utterly bored. At least the film was brisk.

The voice cast was a highlight. Holland, with his Peter Parker/Spider Man, could be the embodiment of America's awkward male teenage angst. Pratt was more Andy Dwyer than Star Lord which suits him better. Julia Louis-Dreyfus seemed to be having fun, but not more so than Octavia Spencer who sounded like she was on some sort of sugar-rush!

Music was by Mychael and Jeff Danna, and unfortunately it was unmemorable. Similarly, the title song, "Carried Me with You" by Brandi Charlie was also forgettable. They  will not be getting any Oscar nominations next year.

Onwards was a watchable Pixar film - as they all are - but it was definitely not one to remember. Although I will not be surprised if a sequel comes along.

The Invisible Man

Elizabeth Moss is the main reason to watch this film. Leigh Whannell wrote and directed this modern reiteration of the classic story and he definitely gave it a refreshing spin. However, after an excellent opening sequence, the story started to drag and Moss played the victim for far too long. Unfortunately, when she started kicking-ass, the movie was almost over. As brilliant and as enrapturing as Moss was, her character was too passive to be totally engaging. And Whannell also succumbed to the M Night Shyamalan syndrome with an unnecessary double-ending (hint hint...no spoilers).

Whannell is a great horror director and the first Saw and Insidious can rightfully be claimed as cornerstones of the modern horror genre. And he used his skill to great effect here with long, wandering shots and wide-angles, daring you to blink or take a breath just in case you missed something.

However as a writer, Whannell tended to be indulgent and clunky. His storylines lacked depth and his characters lacked substance. They all appear as stock characters with default emotions and storyline. If it was not for Moss, this film would have been even flatter.

This film ran just over two hours (124 minutes) and it could have been shorter and tighter. The story is well known so there is no surprise there regarding who/what the antagonist was, and in that case the narrative had to focus on the journey, but in that regard it just meandered. Whannell's screenplay was too simplistic and predictable to be effective, so thankfully we had Moss to make it all worth it.

Moss is going to win an Oscar one day. With Mad Men, Top of the Lake and The Handmaid's Tale, she has established herself as a tremendous actress with incredible range and depth. And once Handmaid's is over, perhaps she can focus fully on her feature film career and that might lead to a lot more exciting projects.

In The Invisible Man, Moss commanded the screen and her emotional breakdown was spectacular. A pity Whannell did not harness that raw power to his advantage. Everybody else around her were less spectacular, so luckily the antagonist was invisible and Moss really only had to act against herself.

This film was a showcase for Moss and reaffirmed Whannell as an accomplished, albeit unexciting, genre director. But it will be so much more exciting if we paired Moss with Hereditary/Midsommar's Ari Aster or The Witch/The Lighthouse's Robert Eggers.