Reviews

A more apt title for this film would perhaps been Cliche Alley. It's mediocrity lies in saying so much yet saying absolutely nothing at all during its bloated runtime - an anticlimax marathon of cliches, meaningless drivel and poor character and plot development that you'd expect a seasoned filmmaker like del Toro to have circumvented. Just like his recent outings, namely the equally awful Crimson Peak, this film is just a series of ideas flimsily patched together, with unrealised potential. It's neither a nightmare or a dream, just a poor man's over-budgeted film peppered with stars and forgettable performances. Next.

What happened to the Sam Mendes, from works of substance like 'American Beauty' and 'Road to Perdition' to somewhat juvenile, empty of soul films like '1917', where deep characters and real emotions are subverted for theme park rides. Here, of all subjects to use for a joy ride, "the Great War" is a vehicle for an action adventure, fantasy-esque quest, that not only sheds little about the horrific war itself, but sanitises the sacrifice of young men by a corrupt elite on both sides of the war, who profited heavily from their demise.

In this film, the enemy is portrayed as inherently evil, cruel, untrustworthy, duplicitous and blood thirsty, and the allies as innocent, trusting, honorable and kind, which is reminiscent of the worst excesses of war propaganda filmmaking, complete with cardboard cut-out villains. What '1917' decides to ignore to its folly is that at the end of the day, it is ordinary people fighting ordinary people. Brother against Brother. Sister against Sister. That's the folly of war and something great director's like Kubrick nailed to the mast in their war films!

But you might say, "Elcid, this is a popcorn action flick, you got to switch off your brain mate, enjoy the ride...", yet even for mindless action, I never felt at the edge of my seat, and all of the meant-to-be tense and gripping scenes felt forced and contrived, and you could see the actors reacting to cues rather then immersed into Sam's world of make believe.

There are two truly great scenes in 'Children of Men' (Alfonso Cuarón), both near the beginning and near the end, where the action takes place in one shot, and here the veracity of both the characters and their environment is so powerful that you truly feel immersed and haunted by the scenes, and the narrative benefits from the continuous shots. In interviews, Mendes says he was inspired by these scenes, but it seems by trying to emulate them, he has missed a trick - they add no value to the story apart from the gimmick of spectacle! The result feels like you are watching someone else play a video game (*Spolier incoming*), where the main protagonist has 9 Lives and reaches number 8 before he succeeds to the final level boss - an underwhelming encounter with Benedict Cumberbiatch (sic) who says "f*** o**" and the audience f*** o** too, to recollect on a lost 2 hours.

The score by Thomas Newman is also misplaced and passé - think a Hans Zimmer rendition of Lord of the Rings'. The only redeeming feature is the cinematography by Roger Deakins, yet even here, it inevitably draws comparison to the superior cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki ('Children of Men'), and whilst it is interesting to purely admire the technical achievement and continuous mis-en-scene in one shot (with hidden cuts), I think such a scheme ultimately ends up stealing the emotional veracity from the characters since we never really get up close and personal to them to see their eyes - their windows to the soul. Thus, the cinematography of Deakins feels constrained and on rails.

There is to my knowledge only two great audio-visual works on WW1 and they are 'Blackadder Goes Forth' (TV Series) and 'Paths of Glory' (Kubrick), alongside great films on other wars, from 'Full Metal Jacket' to 'Apocalypse Now', 'Catch 22' to 'The Battle of Algiers', to name but a few. 4/10.

What happened to the Sam Mendes, from works of substance like 'American Beauty' and 'Road to Perdition' to somewhat juvenile, empty of soul films like '1917', where deep characters and real emotions are subverted for theme rides. Here, of all subjects to use for a theme ride, "the Great War" is a vehicle for an action adventure, fantasy-esque quest, that not only sheds little about the horrific war itself, but sanitises the sacrifice of young men by a corrupt elite on both sides of the war, who profited heavily from their demise. But you might say, "Elcid, this is a popcorn action flick, you got to switch off your brain mate, enjoy the ride...", yet even for mindless action, I never felt at the edge of my seat, and all of the meant-to-be tense and gripping scenes felt forced and contrived, and you could see the actors reacting to cues rather then immersed into Sam's world of make believe. There are two truly great scenes in 'Children of Men' (Alfonso Cuarón), both near the beginning and near the end, where the action takes place in one shot, and here the veracity of both the characters and their environment is so powerful that you truly feel immersed and haunted by the scenes. In interviews, Mendes says he was inspired by these scenes, but it seems by trying to emulate them, he has missed a trick - to justify the story within them! Therefore it feels like you are watching someone else play a video game, where the main protagonist has 9 Lives and reaches number 8 before he succeeds to the final level boss - an underwhelming encounter with Benedict Cumberbiatch (sic) who says "foff" and the audience foff too, to recollect on a lost 2 hours. The score by Thomas Newman is also misplaced and passé - think a Hans Zimmer rendition of Lord of the Rings'. The only redeeming feature is the cinematography by Roger Deakins, yet even here, it inevitably draws comparison to the superior cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki ('Children of Men'), and whilst it is interesting to purely admire the technical achievement and continuous mis-en-scene in one shot (with hidden cuts), I think such a scheme ultimately ends up stealing the emotional veracity from the characters since we never really get up close and personal to them to see their eyes - their windows to the soul. The distance makes for a mute joy ride, and it is a shame as rather then free Deakins to bring out the best in the visuals, the one-shot idea has constrained him. There is to my knowledge only two great audio-visual works on WW1 and they are Blackadder Goes Forth (TV Series) and 'Paths of Glory' (Kubrick), alongside great films about all wars, from 'Full Metal Jacket' to 'Apocalypse Now', 'Catch 22', 'Salvador', 'The Battle of Algiers', to name but a few.

I am slowly but surely beginning to discover the works of a master auteur whom I had know so little about, but whose great seminal works have emerged in my minds eye, like a rosebud revealing itself from the winter sleep. 'Nayak: The Hero', AKA 'O Herói', is a brilliant look into the world of filmmaking, acting, stardom, materialism and image worship, which Bengali legend Satyajit Ray's all-encompassing approach masterfully constructs. His approach weaves a multi-layered narrative around a film star, on route to the capital of India (Delhi), to collect an award, and through his interactions with fellow passengers on the train, surreal dreams and recollections remind him of the futility of idolisation and image worship, both immediately the cult of celebrity, but also more expansively, the cult of capitalism. As I am fast discovering, these sociological, progressive, leftist ideas are intrinsic to Ray's works, and a particular trait of his is the subtle use of motifs, incidental moments and dialogue that helps to convey these ideas. A particular scene where a passenger orders "Coke" emphasises this approach, as the waiter does not understand what the passenger wants until another passenger reminds him that he wants "Coke a Cola", which is a famous capitalist icon and instantly recognised by the waiter. The acting at all times is superb, and the protagonist, played by the legendary Uttam Kumar, is brilliant as the cool, charming, affable film star, whose ultimate flaws reveal the dichotomy between fiction and reality. In particular, Ray's choice of an established super star of Indian cinema, to play the role of a film super star has been the influence of many a film about film, and makes the film's subject even more potent. Although this is a character based narrative, Ray's technical brilliance means that we are treated to a aurally and visually stunning filmscape. The mesmerising visual touches abound, with the use of illusions and allusions, such as the nightmare scene where the protagonist finds himself in a desert made of bank notes and skeletons holding telephones. Watching this film and the intricacy of details, you can begin to understand why many in the know venerate Ray as the Kubrick of the East, including myself. If you don't know Ray or his works, then I highly recommend you track his films down and watch, because you won't be disappointed. 'Nayak: The Hero' in particular, deserves your unlimited attention.

30 years have passed since the events of episode 6 (beware spoilers ahead), but this film spends virtually zero time establishing the background to what has happened before, and from the very get go of one mindless explosion to another, this is an action packed let- down, with very shallow character development, re-hashed action sequences stolen from episodes 5&6 (father-son confrontations/death star finale), poor comedy timings and poorer dialogue (Finn asking Ray if she has a boyfriend), and really awkward character introductions, such as that first superficial meeting between old flames Leia and Han - really? And what about the new death star: bigger, badder, but in fact much much tamer and stupider, with the very same weak spots as the old death star, which makes you wonder if human evolution in 30 years (where the dark side is concerned), is in genetic reverse. Like most of the film, soft spots like this just felt like generic, copied from, and dumbed down fan service without much thinking in way of originality, substance, and credibility, which is what real fans of Star Wars and fans of good films in general wanted for this incarnation.

However, there are a few pluses here, since this film is still miles better than episode 1-3, and where roles are concerned, the strong female lead in Ray, and the prominent African American male lead in Finn, are commendable. There is still lots of room for improvement here, to prevent these characters from becoming merely token gestures in later episodes. Otherwise from a technical viewpoint, the one other major positive is the special effects. The use of actual effects in animatronics and physical set-pieces are the one aspect that set this film apart from most blockbusters nowadays, and here they are resoundingly successful in their use. Even the virtual effects (CGI), are used sparingly, and meld fluidly into the scene without distracting from the visual prowess. Yet more food for thought, despite this, it just goes to show how amazingly good the previous star wars films episode 4-6 looked, that the visual differences between them and this film are very minuscule.

So to sum up, this is another franchise film in a long line of cash-in follow-ups that are mostly style over substance, and you'll need to suspend a lot of quality control to really like this one, but it also goes to show that you know a film is not doing the right things when its trailer made a better movie than its full incarnation. Thus in conclusion, the force is NOT so strong with this one, and only deserving of a fantastically superficial 5/10.

We have been here before, on this well trodden path of sex, adolescence, and the 70s. But rarely this beautiful. Like the naked flesh of two bodies locked together in carnal desire, this is a perfectly suffused meeting of animation and live action, seamless in its beauty, and bountiful only when essential to the story. Not a gimmick by any stretch of the imagination. The performance of Bel Powley is as seductive as the personality of the character she portrays; an awkward, body-conscious teen on the quest for sexual emancipation, but which (SPOILER), alludes her in the arms of her first lover, who is twice her age, played by Alexander Skaragârd, who also puts in a great performance. Naturally, given this well-trodden path, which evokes Lolita as much as it does Boyhood and Girlhood (film's which I loved), there is a slight tendency to feel that the story and setting (70s San Fransisco), are just too clichéd (The Dreamers floats to mind), and that a more contemporary story would have been a braver approach by the director. Yet that would be harsh, since the story has been adapted from a graphic novel and in effect, it's a very faithful transition indeed. I must say I was mostly absorbed, but like a joint that drags on too long, after a while the high says goodbye, and the low says hello. Hence an above average 7/10.