American Made

A fun and frothy, summer-popcorn Tom Cruise film that was one of his better recent outings and will surely entertain the masses. However, for all of director Doug Liman's kinetically-charged and docu-like storytelling, and Cruise's high-energy performance and undeniable charm, this film lacked depth and only superficially glossed through the incredible true story of Barry Seal. For those looking for more complex characters and deeper narratives regarding the Medellin Cartel, drug smuggling and money laundering, you would be better off tuning in to Netflix's "Narcos" and "The Ozarks". 

The film was consistently and constantly fun. Gary Spinelli's script was easy and breezy and littered with references to 80s pop culture. Cruise and Domhnall Gleeson also had the best quips which kept the story light. 

However, despite all that - the superficiality of the narrative and the humour - the biggest problem with the film is the lack of a central conflict. Without that conflict, there is no build up to any sort of climax or even a climax for that matter. But yet Cruise's innate charisma and Liman's unique style, managed to ably obfuscate the audience enough to just go along with the ride. 

Like most of Cruise's non-ensemble based films, the other players/actors - and theirs characters - do not really matter. Perhaps only Caleb Landry Jones stood out, and with his recent outing in "Twin Peaks: The Return" , Jones is really nailing the tweaker loser. Nonetheless, the film is all about Cruise and his maniacal energy efficiently carried the paper-thin plot through all 117 minutes and distracts us from the lack of characterisation of his Seal. 

The cinematography by César Charlone was gorgeous and beautifully recreated the Instagram filter-like look of the 80s. 

A likely hit for Cruise but will unlikely bring in new fans or be fondly remembered in a few years. But at least it proved that Cruise and Liman are a great team and that hopefully bodes well for the much-anticipated sequel to "Edge of Tomorrow". 

God's Own Country

A tender and heartfelt coming-of-age love story by first time director (and writer) Francis Lee that was unequivocally sweet, charming and sincere. Comparisons with "Brokeback Mountain" will be inevitable but this film with its limited indie-budget and lesser known actors felt more visceral and more honest. 

As a first time director, Lee's showed a lot of potential but he definitely still fell prey to a couple of cliched tropes, some of which worked, but some did not. His pacing needed some work and some fats could be trimmed off that would not necessarily hurt the story. However, he excelled at the more intimate moments and managed to efficiently and successfully illustrate and evolve his complicated protagonist. 

Lead actor Josh O'Connor rose to the challenge of portraying the emotional walled off protagonist and it was rather beautiful seeing his defences slowly wear off as he embraced his future, his sexuality and the hand that fate had dealt him. 

Co-lead Alec Secareanu had the less flashy role but he brought a tenderness that did not seem forced and that really helped to sell the honesty of the relationship. 

An honest and tender film that wore its heart on its sleeve and forebodes a bright future for Lee. 

mother!

A polarising and confronting film that on the surface appeared like a "Rosemary's Baby"-esque psychological, horror thriller, but on a deeper level, it can be construed both as a religious allegory and a socio-political commentary. 

This was a technically superb film-making from writer/director Darren Aronofsky that constantly challenges, deliberately confronts and purposely confuses; beautifully shot by Matthew Libatique throughout and Aronofsky and Jóhann Jóhannsson's unique decision to abandon all musical cues only served to highlight the unsettling unease. 

Jennifer Lawrence anchored the film with another captivating and award-worthy performance. Michelle Pfeiffer was a spot-on casting and Javier Bardem's choice of portrayal took a bit of getting used to, but made a lot of sense on hindsight. 

The film's overall real awards chances will all depend on how it is ultimately received. "mother!" is brave film-making and really deserved to be watch with no foreknowledge (even what was above might be too much information). You will either love it or hate it, and you will likely come to a conclusion before the film ends. 

One of the most polarising films in a long time. 

Victoria & Abdul

A light and frothy, historical comedy of errors that was elevated by a fabulous performance from Judi Dench. Just like his previous film "Florence Foster Jenkins", Stephen Frears' latest was entertaining and fun with a superb lead actress that mined the depth of a superficial characterisation to give an illusion of prestige and complexity. 

Agreeably, Frears and Holland brought a little known bit of history to the forefront, but as much literary licence as one affords to such productions, we did not really learn much about Victoria. The main conflict derived from a relatively forced and generic class war, rather than on a personal or emotional front. Essentially, the story lacked bite and the 106 minutes run time was filled with gorgeous sets, witty English one-liners and put downs. 

Dench was, as usual, brilliant. In a vanity and make-up free role, she brought strength, grace and vulnerability as she commanded the screen. And Frears knew it with all the tight close ups and one-takes whenever Dench launches into one of her monologues that runs the gamut of emotions. She, like Meryl Streep in "Florence Foster Jenkins", might have a chance for a Best Actress nominee, depending on how this year's crop of actresses turn out. Although like FFJ, the film itself might also likely be looked past. 

Ali Fazal held his own as the charming Abdul and made him a protagonist likeable enough to root for against the snobbery of the English aristocratic delightfully brought alive by a well-cast Eddie Izzard and delicious Olivia Williams. But he ain't Hugh Grant. And the character of Abdul itself lacked dimension and was presented in such ambiguous terms that it appeared that Frears and writer Lee Holland had no clear idea how to present him or his relationship with Queen Victoria. Was he just a simple man in awe with his Queen? Or was he a devious schemer just in it for his own gains? But if it was the latter, then why did he not work harder? 

Cinematography was pretty and by Danny Cohen; music was by Thomas Newman experimenting with a hint of Indian folk but never really straying from generic Newman. 

A good film with a solid cast that was utterly entertaining but also easily forgettable come next year. Stay for Dench and a slice of history, and leave with a knowing smile. 

The Beguiled

This film belonged to three women: the superbly nuanced Nicole Kidman who is on a red-hot streak this year, the restrained luminosity of Kirsten Dunst and brilliant writer/director Sofia Coppola who transformed a simple story into this gorgeous, tightly-paced, Southern Gothic/noir-ish and atmospheric film that focused on the characters rather than the more sensational aspects of the story.

Coppola's directed this film with a very assured hand. The story moved at a clipped pace and nary a scene was extraneous or longer than necessary. She captured the complexity of the women (Kidman and Dunst) and the innocence of the girls (especially standout actress Oona Laurence), and also the tumultuous paradox of a teenager (brought petulantly to life by Elle Fanning, the other named-actress who had decidedly much less to do than the publicity/marketing would suggest).

The film has two distinct acts and the change and evolution of Kidman's and Dunst's characters were fascinating to watch. They were definitely not one-dimensional characters but neither were they written, or portrayed as, stereotypical cliches. They were what Ryan Murphy would wish he could have written for Jessica Lange and his bevy of film stars back in the early days of American Horror Story. 

Actually, The Beguiled does have its sensibilities within the realm of AHS' reality but the difference is that Coppala effortlessly elevated the material above camp. And it would be fascinating, in this day and age of Peak TV, to envision Coppala and co bringing this to the small screen as a limited event mini-series. Four to five episodes to adequately flash out the characters, and maybe even add more layers to poor Colin Farrell's single white male Macguffin.

The lack of coloured characters was simply written off as "the slaves ran away", and I do not think it was as a big a deal as most made it out to be. It was logical. It made sense. Most importantly, it was not part of this contained, almost bottleneck-like, story, and neither would Coppala be the most appropriate director to tell that story.

Kidman commanded the screen. Her nuanced performance added layers to her character whom we never really fully understood, but so desperately wanted to find out more. Who is she?  Who was she? What is she really thinking? 2017 has really been Kidman's year. First we had Big Little Lies, then her scene-stealing performance in Top of the Lake: China Girl, and next up will be another team-up between her and Farrell in Yorgos Lanthimos' The Killing of a Sacred Deer and between her and John Cameron Mitchell in How To Talk to Girls at Parties. Whether any of these roles will win her any awards will be hard to say, but she is definitely on a streak/resurgence as her Botox wears off.

Dunst, like Kidman, is also having a resurgence of sort which can tracked back to her astounding performance in Lars Von Trier's 2011 Melancholia, which was then followed by her breathtaking turn in season two of Noah Hawley's Fargo. Here, Dunst was an epitome of restrained beauty. Despite not having being told much about her character's backstory, Dunst still managed, like Kidman, to imbue her character with so much mystery. And yet, when she breaks out of her usual confinement, it was not surprising, but seemed so entirely true to character. Bravo to Dunst and Coppola.

Farrell had much less to do here. But his charming Irish roots definitely helped to sell his character. However, Coppola obviously paid less attention in rounding out his character than her female cast, which is understandable given the limited length of a feature film. And especially in this case, where Coppola chose condensed brevity over indulgent expansiveness.

Like aforesaid, Fanning role though pivotal, was actually much less in comparison to Kidman and Dunst. And fellow actress, the standout Laurence (of Southpaw and Matilda fame) definitely had a meatier role than her.

Cinematography was by Philippe Le Sourd and was gorgeous. Coppola and Le Sourd chose to film much of the film with as naturalistic a light as possible, and the result was an intimate aesthetic. But yet, it gave the audience, so used to modern day lights and electricity an oddly contrary sense of unfamiliarity.

Music was by the french rockers Phoenix (frontman, Thomas Mars, is married to Coppola), and with an excerpt from Monteverdi's Magnificat. The result of which, was like the lighting, something familiar to modern audience yet juxtaposed in a foreign setting.

The Beguiled was simply a beautiful film to watch. Yes, it may be superficial in its scope, but in its simplicity and brevity (94 minutes in total), it engages and it challenges, and it very definitely entertains. Let the Oscar season begin!

It

Disclaimer: Let's be clear about this upfront. I am a fan of the original 1990 miniseries. I had watched it at least four to five times, and unashamedly, TIm Curry's Pennywise is the personification of all my childhood - and adult-life - fear. I HATE clowns. Consequently, comparisons will be inevitable.

This 2017 remake was definitely not as creepy or scary as the 1990 mini-series and I doubt it will spark a new generation of coulrophobia. Without the breadth of a mini-series, the film lacked the time to properly develop all the characters and the central core identity of The Losers Club loses its depth and complexity. That, ultimately, led to a narrative that lacked urgency and empathetic investment. Pennywise v2017 was also designed (and presented) as clearly evil and monstrous, whereas the success of the original It mini-series could be heavily attributed to Tim Curry's portrayal of Pennywise as a benign-looking clown (an oxymoron!) with the evil/madness only bubbling beneath the surface...till the end.

Objectively, this film was a decent horror movie. A decent and typical Hollywood horror flick that served its scares through jump shocks and ratchet-up strings. It mostly eschewed mood and atmosphere for horror tropes and sets. That being said, there were two well-directed scenes that served up genuine scares and would have been even more effective had director, Andres Muschietti, followed it through with an eye for pure terror a la Hideo Nakata (Ring リング) or even James Wan (Insidious or The Conjuring).

The screenplay is credited to Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga - the original director of this remake, and it is hard not to imagine how his vision might have been instead - and Gary Dauberman, and the non-horror moments of the film served to propel the narrative, but again lacked depth and purpose. Themes of abuse, racism, ignorance, evil and loss of innocence were briefly prodded but never explored. Gender, racial and religious stereotypes, though not milked for laughter, was still apparent and attempts on subversion was futile.

Kudos to the young actors though. They were all great and inhabited their characters suitably. But as aforesaid, some of them got short-changed by the restrictions of film-storytelling. Nonetheless, our central quartet definitely stood out especially Sophia Lillis as Beverely. I can see Amy Adams as the adult version of her.

Bill Skarsgard looked terrifying in his makeup and he did imbue his Pennywise with a manic, diabolical energy. However, it lacked subtlety. We see his Pennywise as evil from the get go and something clearly to fear. The obfuscation of a friendly clown veneer was lost.

There was also an over-reliance on CGI which worked for some key moments, like the depiction of It's lair, but most other times, it felt distracting and lacked the visceral punch of practical effects.

This film was an update of the classic 1990 mini-series, but instead of making it fresh and updated, it just felt like a tired, modern retelling - with better CGI - of what most would have already known.

Tulip Fever

The only thing that this film served up in the end was a desire to get some tulips for home. That was how distracted my mind was as I sat through 107 minutes of badly written dialogue, poorly conceived characters, unfocused directing, chemistry-less romance and narration; yes, let-me-tell-you-what-is-happening-and-what-will-be-happening-as-it-unfolds narration.

From the get go, we were introduced to a clunky introduction. If just based on the words themselves, by writers Tom Shepard and Deborah Moggach (also author of the book the film is based on), it would have been an impactful and mysterious prologue, but director Justin Chadwick chose to underscore that with heavy-handed, hit-you-on-the-head-with-a-sledge-hammer imageries, such that within the first minute or so, practically the whole plot is known. It was all downhill from there.

Furthermore, the insistence of having so many characters and subplots, but yet not adequately servicing any of them enough, made the plot paper thin and the characters under-baked. Things happen, accept it. Barely any moment was utilised to explore the motivations of these characters.

But at least the production value seemed high. And everybody looked good.

Tulip Fever was shot in 2014 and the reason why its released was delayed till now is abundantly clear: to capitalise on Alicia Vikander's post-Oscar fame. And here, Vikander showed why she was earmarked - and clearly destined - for bigger things. Pre-Ex Machina and The Danish Girl, Vikander brought a fragile vulnerability to her character that hinted at greater depths and complexity, not that Chadwick put that into much use.

Poor Dane DeHaan is not having a good year. Or even a great run of years. After his breakthrough role in Chronicles and a promising turn in The Place Beyond the Pines, he kind of made a left turn culminating in this year's duds Valerian and A Cure for Wellness. Interestingly, these dud were by respectable directors, who clearly see something in him, but sadly neither could bring it out of him. And similarly here, DeHaan barely had any chemistry with Vikander, and spent most of his time behaving more like an infatuated puppy dog than a man in love.

Holiday Grainger and Jack O'Connell rounded out the other pair of lovers in this tale. Grainger was lovely and perhaps her character should have been the lead. Maybe she was, but the edits and marketing, post-Oscar 2016, decided to focus on Vikander instead. O'Connell stood out in Jodie Foster's Money Monster, and like DeHaan, Hollywood still do not really know what to do with him.

Christoph Waltz was a delight. As was Judi Dench. But, inevitably, this film felt beneath them. Tom Hollander and Zach Galifianakis rounded out the supporting cast. With Cara Delevigne (oh, hey Laureline) and Matthew Morrison (Mr Shue!) in cameos.

There is a very good story, and possibly a great Romance, somewhere within this film, but perhaps we can find it in the book instead.