When the name of a film can be translated as 'The Devils' or 'The Fiends', you may think you’ll be dealing with a clear embodiment of evil but that’s not what Les Diaboliques offers. The film may be shot in black and white but the characters and narrative are anything but.
For example, we may be in support of the wife that teams up with her husband’s mistress to put a permanent end to his abusive and adulterous ways, even if the method is murder. Sure murder is wrong, but so are unrepentant patterns of abusive behaviour. At what point do two wrongs make a right? That is the first question begged of the audience. To what extent can we support this crime? We are sucked into a place of sympathy for the female leads, putting us on their side, so as their sadness becomes sinister, we are taken along for the ride.
It’s an ingenious ploy; the audience become culpable, a co-conspirator and supporter of the murderous act so when the body vanishes, we share the anxiety of our cinematic sisters in crime. For the rest of the film we’re stuck in a paranoid frenzy, pointing fingers in all manner of directions, piecing together an ever expanding puzzle to convince ourselves that Michel has not risen from the dead. But the shadows in the hall and faces in windows tell a different story as does Michel’s freshly dry cleaned jacket.
It’s a masterclass of suspenseful story telling. It lures the viewer into a murder plot, a tale of vengeful women, and then slaps them into the middle of a psychological thriller. Director Henri-Georges Clouzot feeds crumbs of information to his audience, teasing their hunger for answers but starving them of the full truth, at least until the film climaxes with a shocking final scene when all is revealed. It rewards the viewer for sticking it out, but it is a nervous job doing so. The uncomfortable uncertainty installs a quiet panic, feeding on a desperation for resolution, and as the tension builds, so do our apprehensions. Simply put, it’s a thrilling, perfectly timed and executed adrenaline ride.
A film that inspired Hitchcock’s Psycho, but certainly not a lesser film by any means. Les Diaboliques is daring, bold, and brave. A French phenomenon filled with fear, just like a good horror should be.
3 Days of Peace and Music. That’s how the now notorious Woodstock festival was advertised and its legacy has lived on as a defining part of the 'hippy' movement; it even lent its name to a whole generation. But it also caused a state of emergency to be issued by the local county. Military airforce transport was recruited to ferry people in and out. There had to be notifications from the main stage about bad acid going around and the schedule was so badly delayed, The Who played at 5 am and Jimi Hendrix played the morning after the festival was due to finish.
Woodstock is a documentary that follows the festival from its hopeful beginning to the wet, muddy, and worn out end with every naked, tripping, loving moment in between. From building the stage to serious warnings about it collapsing on the festival goers. From the optimism of the fresh faced youngsters turning up for the festivities, to those in the medical tent, searching for the ones they love. There’s joy and there’s sadness. Pain and hope. There’s no real narrative, no dominant message or active voice, just a camera drifting through the peace loving chaos that was Woodstock.
It’s a testament to how narratively gripping life can be when pushed to the extreme; when, in essence, you voluntarily create a third world country within wealthy America for the purpose of celebrating peace and love through music. 400,000 people descend on New York which naturally brings with it health issues, social conflict with surrounding areas, and huge practical obstacles for everyone, from the festival organisers up to the government, to have to cope with and we get to watch selected highlights of these unique dramas. Intersperse this with some performances from legendary musicians, and you have three hours of utterly breathtaking film making.
As the morning sun gently shines down on Jimi Hendrix playing his psychedelic, ground breaking, era defining version of Star spangled Banner, you realise you’ve witnessed something historic. This was an event that defined a generation and, like the now diminished crowd on screen, you’re emotionally drained; you’re amazed that this incredibly ambitious event, plagued by almost every challenge known to mankind, came to fruition. More than that, the documentary demonstrates unprecedented foresight and intuition. Released a year after the festival, it captured something powerful on film - something inimitable, a once in a lifetime event. It had its fingers on America’s pulse and sensed the magnitude of what was coming and fought to ensure it was documented.
We talk about capturing the current zeitgeist in good documentaries but none have done it more successfully and, arguably, more powerfully than Woodstock. Woodstock the festival was legendary but fleeting, Woodstock the film: unforgettable.
The largest loss of human life in modern history can almost be directly attributed to one man. A man that instructed the killing of Jewish people by the thousands and started a war with such devestating consequences, we still feel them today. Adolf Hitler was guilty of atrocious crimes against humanity yet was, without doubt, one of the pioneers of political celebrity. He understood the power of the filmed image and even produced astonishing, well crafted, films to push his agenda. How fitting, then, that the medium of film is also one that weakens him and his memory.
Whilst many may only know it for it's famously parodied bunker scene, in full, Downfall portrays an unsettling balance, a likely truth that we would rather not believe. It draws out Hitler the monster but also, even more so, Hitler the man. A man that was kind to his secretaries and loved his dog. A man that suffered from several health issues, physically and mentally. A man that felt the stinging arrow of a friend's betrayal penetrate the vulnerability of his emotional armour. All this to remind us of the horror that it was not, in fact, a monster that thought Jewish people were a plague on the face of the Earth, but a man.
It takes a truly brilliant screenplay to portray Adolf Hitler sympathetically, but that's what we have here. We hear him discuss his plans for the new Berlin, a hub of culture and art, and its not the embodiment of evil that we've come to think of when we think of the Nazi party leader. He's gentle and kind, frail and ill. But he's also madly paranoid, quick to anger, unrepentant in his treatment of those that disappoint him and proud of his headway in the annihilation of the Jewish race. Bruno Ganz plays the Führer constantly on the edge of this kind fragility and mania to make him unpredictable, adding menace to his meltdowns but also a softness in his quieter moments.
It's a delicate balance and one that's needed. The audience need to care for Hitler to keep them in the story, they have to be emotionally involved with his titular downfall, but also distant enough that they're not saddened by it. At the end of it all, Hitler's death is human and deserved. There's no superhuman death matching the superhuman evil, just a bundled up body in a blanket (note - something that the Harry Potter books nailed with Voldemort's death and the films completely missed. A helpful point to see why the slumped body is so effective in the narrative of Downfall) and that's it. After all he seemed to be, after the devastation he instigated, after the hatred he fuelled, here he is: a lifeless lump doused in gasoline to be burned by his final remaining followers.
Do not be mistaken when I describe the treatment as sympathetic - there is nothing here to suggest Hitler and his cohort are redeemable. The mass suicides, family deaths, child soldiers, and violent anti-semitism are all presented here as brutal reality and there's no pretence that the war produced anything positive. But we have to see the humanity of the great dictator to be reminded of the painful truth that it wasn't a supernatural evil that inflicted these terrible events on man, but man itself.
Back in 2010, I bought a book. It was a big book and I had no real purpose for buying such a large book, but there was a check list in the first few pages that I was desperate to put a pen to. I remember sitting on a sailing boat, pen in hand ticking as many boxes as I could but shortly became demoralised at how few that actually was. Disappointed, the book ended up on a shelf collecting dust. However, when I moved house last summer, it was rediscovered and much to my wife's frustration, a new mission came with it.
That book was, of course, '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die', the check list of all of the movies it contained which defeated me back in 2010 still bearing my few ticks and looking hauntingly incomplete. The book is frivolously and unnecessarily updated with a new edition every year with films being removed and added to the list, and as such, has actually hosted closer to 1200 films if we count all additions and removals.
That is a lot of films to watch. In fact, if you had all of the films and watched one a day, it would take you close to three and a half years to get through them all. That being said, many have tried and then help one another in trying to complete the list. Me? I took the list of all films that have ever been on the list (the full 1211 at time of writing) and put them in a spreadsheet. A few colour coded rules later and my checklist has been upgraded from some sad pen marks in a book to a system that is mobile, pretty and, as basic as it is, keeps track of where films can be watched.
While I want to complete the list, I'm not in any rush to work through it. I'm currently at 26% complete at 319 films, but some are harder to locate than others. But why tell you all of this? I'm planning to write something short about films of note, the ones that you may not have seen or even heard of, and hopefully encourage you to expand your cinematic horizon without having to work through 1200 films. I've made a page here where you can see anything I have already reviewed from the list and these new posts.
The first post is coming soon, but in the meantime, happy film watching!
I normally don't do this as I don't lock my predictions in until the red carpet but for the first time ever, I am publishing my predictions for the Oscars. But more than that - as telling you who I think will win doesn't really tell you what you should be watching - I will also tell you who I think should win, with reasoning, so you can make informed decisions yourself on what to go see next. So without further ado, we'll start at the smaller categories and work up to the biggies. Shorts:
The shorts are probably the most difficult three categories to predict this year and we're going to spend a bit of time on them as they're often under valued but here we go:
Best Animated Short Predictions here are pretty mixed between Kobe Bryant's Dear Basketball and toad-tastic Garden Party. One is a hand-drawn love letter to the glory of professional sports, one is a beautifully animated slow-burn mystery filled with frogs. The Hollywood Reporter's brutally honest voters found Dear Basketball to be narcissistic whilst the unconventional story-telling of Garden Party and the realism of its animation be worthy of the prize.
Lou was a typical feel-good Pixar short but ultimately too predictable whilst Revolting Rhymes nicely brought classic children's literature to life but the under appreciated stop-motion stand out of the bunch was Negative Space. An impressively animated short poem about a man's relationship with his father with beautiful imagery brought to life in the animation. It's what the animated genre is created to do.
Will Win: Garden Party
Should Win: Negative Space
Best Live Action Short
This year's shorts include a psychiatrist's worst nightmare, a retelling of one of America's most brutal lynchings, a true story of a bus attacked by terrorists, a deaf child's struggle to communicate, and a potential school shooter. The last two in that list, DeKalb Elementary and The Silent Child respectively, are the front runners in this category. The only other one in some contention is The Eleven O'Clock which involves one psychiatrist treating a patient who thinks he is a psychiatrist, but it's unclear who is the doctor and who is the patient. Despite being a lot of fun and possibly the best performed of the nominees, The Eleven O'Clock will likely lose out to either the very politically timely DeKalb Elementary or The Silent Child. Frankly, as the former doesn't really offer much in the way of commentary on gun control, just passively watches the situation play out, the edge has to be given to The Silent Child which is not only tells the most effective story, but also portrays a powerful message (and even more powerful without subtitles though these are available to understand the signing).
Will Win: DeKalb Elementary Should Win: The Silent Child
Best Documentary Short
The documentary short subjects are a point of contestation this year. Sad films tend to succeed in this category so Edith + Eddie and Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405 have the best shot at taking home a statue but the former is clunky and is too narrow in its sights. It doesn't offer a grander narrative and too much information is portrayed in title cards. Traffic Stop is an important story of police attitudes towards the black community but the elements here just don't work. There are so many stories that could make this point more clearly and poignantly but their subjects, tragically, are no longer alive to offer commentary. Traffic Stop feels watered down by necessity but to hit hard, it needs to be bolder. The real winners here are Heroin(e), which stands a slim chance of coming out top and Knife Skills which doesn't. The former shows female first responders to heroin overdoses going about their daily business as well as the drug courts that support those suffering from addictions. The latter follows ex-convicts on their journey to graduate from a culinary masterclass and run a restaurant. These are stories of hope, of support for the ill-treated and the suffering and they should be rewarded as such. Will Win: Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405 Should Win: Heroin(e)
Technical Categories: Best Cinematography There are five beautifully shot films nominated here. Dunkirk captured the immensity of the situation out at war, whilst Darkest Hour captured the isolation, intimacy, and conflict. Anyone who tells you that Darkest Hour puts too much reliance on men talking is simply wrong. That being said, this battle comes between The Shape of Water and Blade Runner - Mudbound will likely not get much notice not least because of it's release via Netflix which older voters are likely to disregard as not 'real cinema'. Blade Runner 2049 captured a new world in strong greys and strong colours a like. Arguably, that's more difficult than beautifully capturing the world that already exists which pushes aside The Shape of Water but it's still a close call. All in all, for me, Darkest Hour used its camera most in its story telling, but Blade Runner 2049 most effectively in world building. Will Win: Blade Runner 2049 Should Win: Darkest Hour
Best Costume Design There's little discussion to be had. It would be nigh on insulting to not reward Phantom Thread with this award. It's a film about glamorous dresses; the dresses are a character in this film and like any good casting, the dresses are spot on.
Will Win: Phantom Thread Should Win: Phantom Thread
Best Make-up and Hairstyling
Much like the dresses in Phantom Thread, the make up is integral in Darkest Hour. There's just no way it can't win despite the good work in Wonder. Will Win: Darkest Hour Should Win: Darkest Hour Best Production Design
Production design is physical world building. Beauty and the Beast had the advantage that they could copy what was done before (though they did it very well). Similarly, Blade Runner 2049 draws inspiration from its predecessor but builds on it, making it its own. The Academy loves a period piece, so Dunkirk and Darkest Hour stand a chance but this also gives an advantage to Cold War-set The Shape of Water, which has an added bonus of mysticism and fantasy, combining the period with a whole new world. Will Win: The Shape of Water Should Win: The Shape of Water
Best Visual Effects This is an award that is rightly due to the apes and how it could go any other way would be a mockery. Though that being said, it has happened before (remember when The Iron Lady beat out Harry Potter in the make-up category?) and Guardians of the Galaxy could sneak in to take the prize. Both films take place in an almost entirely technically generated world, but War for the Planet of the Apes was 1) a better film and 2) had a motion capture lead who managed a performance worthy of an acting nomination. Will Win: War for the Planet of the Apes Should Win: War for the Planet of the Apes
Best Film Editing
Film editing is famously a tell for Best Picture, but with only three shared nominations here, there's a bit more room for guessing. Some found Dunkirk's timelines confusing, some found it revolutionary which gives it a very good shot. I, Tonya, The Shape of Water, and Three Billboards were all great but weren't screaming something special. Baby Driver however was made by its editing. It was perfectly crafted and edited to the millisecond with layer after layer of visual and audio information. It's a tough one to call.
Will Win: Dunkirk Should Win: Baby Driver Best Sound Editing
The Academy voters are famous for not knowing the difference between sound editing and sound mixing so there's a huge possibility the two awards could go to the film that 'sounds coolest' but most know that editing is about making sounds so action heavy films tend to win this category. Considering how sensory it was Dunkirk seems a shoo in here, and rightly so. Sound was integral to the film and most of them were produced off set. Will Win: Dunkirk Should Win: Dunkirk
Best Sound Mixing
This is a more tricky one. For the reasons stated above, Dunkirk could take home the gold for mixing as well because the visceral environment the film creates is precisely layered and played with for maximum impact. However, Baby Driver is a film designed around its soundscape. Every second in the film is timed to a beat and Edgar Wright's passion project should be recognised for that. The Academy may be of the same thinking and if they vote as per my predictions, they may vote Baby Driver here as a consolation prize if nothing else. Will Win: Dunkirk Should Win: Baby Driver Music: Best Original Song It's easy to write off the songs that don't play a huge part in their films so three of the nominees can be eliminated. That leaves us with 'Remember Me' from Coco and 'This is Me' from The Greatest Showman. Honestly its too close to call clearly. One has become a mainstream anthem, but the other is more integral to its story - you can't have Coco without 'Remember Me'. I think for that reason it will have to go to Coco. Will Win: 'Remember Me' from Coco Should Win: 'Remember Me' from Coco Best Original Score There are big names on this ballot. Hans Zimmer, John Williams and Carter Burwell but the film where the score's presence was most actively felt was The Shape of Water. The Cold War fantasy world was strengthened endlessly by Alexandre Desplat's score and whilst all the other nominees helped develop their worlds, none were so influential as Desplat. Will Win: The Shape of Water Should Win: The Shape of Water
Writing: Best Adapted Screenplay
In a category that could be Sorkin's for the taking on a normal day, Molly's Game was simply too wordy to compete with the slow brilliance of the likes of Call Me By Your Name or the noir adaptation of a superhero movie in Logan. The Disaster Artist should also not go without praise as the surprise stand out of the Oscar season, a season where rib-tickling comedy doesn't often get a look-in. That being said, one of the five is nominated for Best Picture. Will Win: Call Me By Your Name Should Win: Call Me By Your Name Best Original Screenplay
Four Best Picture Nominees here and a rom-com that most people caught on Amazon Prime. Unfortunately for The Big Sick and Lady Bird (which were excellent) this is a year of revolutionary horrors, love stories, and billboard messages. Narrowing the top three down will come, probably, to the one that has failed to gain any other awards - often the case for the screen play award. Will Win: Get Out Should Win: Lady Bird
Fringe Films: Best Animated Feature
When two nominations in a category are just barely okay (see Ferdinand and The Boss Baby), one is recognised more for its medium (Loving Vincent), and one is too sad for the animated medium (The Breadwinner), it makes predicting the winner easy. Coco was not just the best of the bunch though, it was a magical journey into a new world and was full of heart, family, comedy, death, life, music. Boy, those boys at Pixar still know what they're doing. Will Win: Coco Should win: Coco Best Documentary Feature
This category often has a couple of great movies and a few others. This year is no different. Last Men in Aleppo, Strong Island, and Abacus: Small Enough to Jail all do well, but offer nothing ground breaking. Some talking heads here, some statistics there. Whereas Faces Places, is an uplifting road trip movie about art and the stories behind the people on display. It's intimate and moving. On the other side of the coin, Icarus, easily the better film,is a thrill ride and the most exciting thing to happen to documentary film making in years. Will the Academy reward art or storytelling? Your bet is as good as mine here. Will Win: Faces Places Should Win: Icarus Best Foreign Language Film
Okay so full disclosure. At the point of writing, I am part way through The Insult so I cannot make an 100% fair decision here. But that being said, On Body and Soul and Loveless will not win; the former is too odd and the latter too Russian for the older American Academy members. The Square is an engaging commentary on the art community but asks too much of its audience. A Fantastic Woman is a league above these. A brutal and harsh reminder of the discrimination and hatred that still exists in our society so that someone can't even mourn for the loved ones they've lost. A hard watch, but a powerful one. Will Win: A Fantastic Woman Should Win: A Fantastic Woman
The Big Five: Best Supporting Actor This race has been dominated throughout the award season and whilst some people have predicted an upset in the form of Willem Dafoe, this is Sam Rockwell's year and well deserved. Though Richard Jenkins is a dark horse here. All three would be worthy winners but I can't see anyone knocking Rockwell from his podium Will Win: Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards) Should win: Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards) Best Supporting Actress Like Rockwell, Janney has dominated this season but in the supporting actress, I forsee a more likely upset and rightly so. Laurie Metcalf was astonishing in Lady Bird and brough the film to life. People love a bad guy (Janney) but they also love an under-dog. So could that win it? Will Win: Allison Janney (I, Tonya) Should Win: Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird) Best Actress All the acting awards this year have been dominated and I don't see this changing that trend either. Frances McDormand portrayed rage with pain and hurt. The real Mildred was buried under the layers of anger and that is hard to do. The silent Sally Hawkins could rock the boat, but otherwise, this is McDormand's year (again). Will Win: Frances McDormand (Three Billboards) Should Win: Frances McDormand (Three Billboards)
Best Actor Here we go again. Despite great performances all round, Gary Oldman was incredible. A transformative, powerful, heartfelt, and funny performance. This isn't mimicry (as the critics of Oldman's performance were keen to point out) as it is not close enough to the real Churchill. This is an artistic recreation and it is wonderful. Will Win: Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) Should Win: Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) Best Director
One film about war, one about coming of age, one satirical horror, one about a dressmaker, and one a bout a mute lady falling in love with a giant fish. On premise alone, the Best Director race is sorted. Will Win: Guillermo Del Toro (The Shape of Water) Should Win: Guillermo Del Toro (The Shape of Water) Best Picture
The big one. Despite the big awards being spread out over several films, any of the nominees would be worthy winners. All have big pros and big cons. But lets think like the Academy. The Shape of Water is a love story, check. It's nostalgic and patriotic, check. It has a classic Hollywood musical number and tap dancing, check. It's innovative and new, check. It's a good vs bad story. It's amazing. Simply put, it has to be this year's winner as it's the least flawed in many senses. It's the safe option. If it's not a voter's first choice, it will surely be in the top three and those votes will add up. That being said I can't get Call Me By Your Name off of my mind. It was a beautiful film with incredible performance and it was the only film of the nominees that really took my breath away. I feel it will be overlooked tonight but this blogger will not forget it. I could go into great, objective or subjective detail on why this was a great movie and why it should win but I won't be heartbroken when it doesn't. Will Win: The Shape of Water Should Win: Call Me By Your Name
Three-time Oscar winner (and seventeen-time Oscar loser, technically) Meryl Streep takes on the challenge of publishing a news story. What sounds like a relatively unexciting premise turns out to be a relatively unexciting film. Despite Tom Hanks by Streep's side giving it his best shot, he's unable to make the film what it could be.
What the film could be is a great newsroom melodrama, landing somewhere between All The President's Men and Spotlightbut in reality falling short of both of them. It is well trodden ground and nothing new is added in The Post except some great characterisations from the likes of Hanks and Odenkirk.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Imagine a world painted in grey. That is the world that Martin McDonagh has consistently portrayed in his films (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) and is most fully realised in Three Billboards. Ultimately a story of revenge but how far is too far in the search for justice? That is the question posed by McDonagh here and it is a difficult pill to swallow.
Blurring the lines by removing the 'good' from the 'good guys' and adding humanity and pain to the anger and resentment, and in many senses ignorance, McDonagh brings something darkly unique to his film. Despite being side-splittingly funny, Three Billboards is a hard watch. It's narrative is grounded in the unspeakable - rape, brutal murder, suicide, cancer - but few films about these issues could be so entertaining without making light of its subject matter. There's no tidy resolutions here, but then again, when are there in life?
Lady Bird
Growing up is something that everyone has to face, whether they'd like to or not, so the having that reflected in film is something we can all relate to and none do it better than Greta Gerwig with Lady Bird.
The complexity of relationships and reputations in teenage years is hard to grasp on film, not just for the young protagonist, but also for their families. Set against the backdrop of Christian doctrines and American poverty, the conflicts are all the more real, all the more touching. The film boasts outstanding performances by Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf who make the film what it is, the mother daughter relationship/ conflict being central to the narrative (and in a more subtle sense, the name of the film). It's hard to be heartfelt and heartwarming but this does just that and makes it seem effortless.
Darkest Hour
Whilst its easy to write a biopic of Winston Churchill off as pure 'Oscar Bait' (and many have - or at least described it as such - more on this another day), that would be to overlook the feat that is Darkest Hour. Gary Oldman's performance is the selling point here, which isn't wrong, but it is a pity.
What's being overlooked here is a powerful visual story teller in Joe Wright. As darkness descends over Britain, darkness surrounds Churchill on screen. Wright is not fearful of negative space claustrophobic space, an under-rated quality in an age of mega-Marvel cinematic universes, and despite the darkness, he creates something that is often funny, engaging, and moving. Is it cliched, yes. Is it predictably structured, yes. But most importantly, does it still manage to be innovative and fresh. The answer is still yes. The Shape of Water
The Oscars are no stranger to an all out romance film, but they don't normally involve swamp men. Guillermo del Toro creates something sinister yet beautiful in his lagoon-loving monster and builds a world around him that emphasises that. Michael Shannon, the testosterone fuelled patriot, presents the sinister whilst Sally Hawkins, the mute monster lover, is the beautiful.
There are clear senses of right and wrong on display here; it is an ultimately moral film. It's easy to get your teeth into - which is certainly helpful considering the absurdity of the central romance - which only goes to demonstrate how brilliantly talented del Toro is in crafting the bizarre. It feels nostalgic, but not familiar. It deals with the difficult, but is never difficult to watch. It's about as unique as you can get and it never seems to take itself too serious - Octavia Spencer - an African-American in the sixties - and Richard Jenkins - a gay man in the sixties - providing some much needed heart and comic relief. This is film-making at its finest.
Dunkirk Visionary director and innovative story-teller, Christopher Nolan tackles the tale of one of Britain's most dangerous challenges during the Second World War: the evacuation of Dunkirk. The story is told in three temporalities with three areas of battle - we spend a week on land, a day on the sea, and an hour in the sky. The stories, interwoven into one another, capture the struggle and determination of both the British public and armed forces.
Nolan is at his visceral best. Every bomb hit you, water pouring into a claustrophobic space engulfs you. This is sensory film making as it should be. Delicately balancing his timelines to maximum effect, Nolan manages to tell three powerfully engaging stories which are all as gripping and nerve wracking as one another. A master class in war films.
Phantom Thread Daniel Day-Lewis' 'retiring' film, Phantom Thread tells the story of a man, a dress maker, though more importantly, he's a perpetual bachelor, allowing women to float through his life and inspire him on a breeze before they drift away again. But falling for one of them disrupts his whole life.
Beautifully shot and wonderfully crafted, Paul Thomas Anderson's latest struggles at times to be fully engaging. Grounded by solid performances by the whole cast, notably Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread is, in essence, a film about the consuming world of fashion and an eccentric designer but his quirks often rub the wrong way, making it difficult to support the central figure and his reluctant pursuit of romance. It works as proof that making a technically brilliant film does not necessarily make a brilliant film.
Get Out Take a the sense of unease you get in any good horror movie. Combine it with overtones of the racial oppression that haunts suburban, southern USA. What you get is Jordan Peele's phenomenal Get Out, a striking racial satire with Daniel Kaluuya anchoring the film with a star-making leading turn.
The important social issues presented in Get Out are the reason satire exists - to hold a mirror up to society and highlight its blemishes - and Peele focuses his quiet anger on making the audience feel uncomfortable before unleashing it in loud, brutal fashion. Get Out is bold. Get Out is brave. But most of all, Get Out is terrifying. The question that remains is whether it is the film that is scary, or the darker reality it is portraying?
Call Me by Your Name Beautiful, relaxed, loving film-making. This is what is on display in Call Me by your Name, the unconventional and forbidden character driven love story set in the countryside of Italy. The camera floats around the leads passively, simply observing something, allowing characters and relationships to evolve in its view.
Featuring strong performances from its leads but also from the minor characters (particularly Michael Stuhlbarg, who was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination), Call Me by your Name is arguably the most rounded, well crafted film at the Oscars this year. It succeeds on every single level, not to mention Luca Guadagnino's immense control over combining all these elements. This is film making at its very best, its most powerful, its most emotive. And the the long takes are to die for.
The live action re-telling of one of Disney’s biggest and most successful animations that occasionally dips its toe into original thought but otherwise clings passionately to its 1991 predecessor. And a little too much.
The issue with remaking a classic almost shot for shot is it all feels too familiar - we’ve seen this done better before. That’s the problem here. The nostalgic enjoyment of the original is overshadowed by the creepy realism of the living objects and the layers of auto tune slathered over certain numbers. The aim here is to recreate something magical but in doing so, the film loses its own magic. It feels like that passion is for imitating rather than creating, and as such it’s noticeably the lesser beast. It’s adequate; everything is done fine, but why settle for fine when Disney proved how well the story could be told 26 years ago.
Strong Island Director Yance Ford retells the circumstances surrounding his brother's murder and tries to get answers for why his killer walked free. Intermingled in the story are interviews with family and friends whose calm, quiet anger and hurt are the heart of this documentary. A more haunting, personal, and pained perspective on the institutional racism in the US and its justice system than last year's 13thor OJ: Made in Americabut not quite as captivating or as powerful.
Kong: Skull Island
At the close of the Vietnam war, a team of scientists, explorers, and soldiers go on an exhibition to the elusive and uncharted Skull Island. A standard mapping mission with a sinister ulterior motive that goes wrong immediately when they disturb the king of the island: Kong.
Kong: Skull Island is a Vietnam film without the Vietnam. Visually, the inspirations from the likes of Platoon and Apocalypse Now are clear but the enemy are replaced with the unknown inhabitants of Skull Island. The film suffers from clunky dialogue and underdeveloped characters and relationships but succeeds in being a heap of fun. Considering the big names involved (Larson, Jackson, Hiddleston, Goodman), the film feels like it lacks depth in its human performers (which the exception of Jackson and John C. Reilly) whilst their computer generated counterparts dazzle. It’s a film on the brink of brilliance so it’s a pity that it falls short on some major points (developed characters, particularly female, being the most needed element). The Boss Baby
Obviously babies come from a company called Baby Corp that is run by businessman babies - we all know that - but in The Boss Baby, Puppy Corp, their business competitor, is about to release a new puppy that will be so adorable, no one will ever want a baby again thus putting Baby Corp out of business. The Boss Baby is a charming family film with enough 'adult' jokes about memos and meetings to keep the parents entertained. That being said, it walks a path well trodden; whilst the premise is original and entertaining, the story is lacking innovation. It's silly fun but Dreamworks still has a way to go to match the constant standards of Pixar.
Phineas Barnum (better known as P. T. Barnum - played by Hugh Jackman) is a tailor's son - mistreated, penniless, and dreaming of better things for himself, including a life with Charity (Michelle Williams), the daughter of a wealthy client of P. T.'s father. Seeking to change his fortune to give Charity the life of her dreams, Barnum sets about making his fortune with a museum of curiosities, adapting it slowly into a hugely popular and increasingly controversial circus of oddity performers such as a bearded lady, a tattooed man, and a dwarf soldier. But as the circus becomes ever more renown but at the same time more ridiculed, Barnum teams up with Philip Carlyle (Zac Efron), a theatre producer, and sets his sights on a higher class of audience.
The Greatest Showman is a passion project that took seven years to take to the big screen that has produced some of the most inventively staged and filmed musical set pieces of the last 20 years. It immediately bursts into life straight from the Fox logo with a silhouetted ringmaster prancing and dancing his way through the greatest show whilst singing at the top of his lungs to a percussive beat that will make you jam out in your seat; it's clear from the off what sort of musical you are in for. With contemporary influences poured onto lavish ensemble numbers, The Greatest Showman's greatest strength, quite appropriately, is its showmanship - its marvellous spectacle. Teaming powerful voices like Hugh Jackman and Keala Settle with Oscar award winning songwritersBenj Pasek and Justin Paul and topping it off with choreography by Mathieu Leopold, The Greatest Showman dazzles, astounds, and brings joy through its big numbers.
The problem with this is that the narrative falls victim to a lack of detail, a lack of care. A story of showmanship is sold with showmanship, but much like P.T. Barnum's true life ventures, there's an element of fraudulence here. So much is expended on the set pieces that a huge amount of what is in between is shallow and lacking in substance. The stars of Barnum's circus, his critics, and his colleagues are all superficial creations, existing without backstory or depth beyond the most surface elements. Major plot points are skimmed over and the audience are expected to just accept the world with which they are presented but it leaves a certain hollowness to the whole thing. It's a pity that the passion that went into getting the film made (see videos from the workshops and the B-roll footage for evidence) couldn't make its way onto the screen.
It could be argued that what La La Land (the songs in which were also penned by Pasek and Paul) lacked, The Greatest Showman has. It has flair, it has style, but it lacks the substance of it's Oscar dominating peer and that's the difference. It could be put down to rookie director Michael Gracey going through some teething problems in directing his feature film though the influence of his career in visual effects is not lost here. The film is beautifully shot and edited and the narrative, or what is there, is brilliantly emphasised through some digital trickery and imagery and smooth scene to scene transitions. It never drags and it is never unenjoyable.
One of the truest movie musicals in recent cinematic history. It's no Sound of Music but it is a heap of fun expressed through a impressively dominating production design and while you'll want to watch the songs over and over, the overall product is missing the definition that could have made it the greatest show.
