[Review] Deadpool
Superhero fatigue: It's a very real thing, especially at the beginning of a year in which we'll see Deadpool, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, Suicide Squad, and Doctor Strange representing the superhero film genre. By now, we've grown tired of the standard Marvel formula, as showcased by the less-than-stellar reviews of Ant-Man and Avengers: Age of Ultron last year. However, Fox has done their best to change not only our expectations of the genre, but for the film itself, as seen by the tone-perfect marketing campaign.
Can Deadpool rise up to the challenge with maximum effort?
[youtube id="ZIM1HydF9UA"]
Deadpool
Director: Tim Miller
Rating: R
Release Date: February 12, 2016
Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), as we come to find out, is a merc-for-hire specializing in defending girls from their stalkers thanks to his experience in the Special Forces. His best friend, Weasel (T.J. Miller), is a bartender and proprietor of extracurricular activities at his bar where many of the other mercs and vigilantes find their next missions, and his girlfriend, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), is just as twisted as Wade is. However, he's soon afflicted with terminal cancer, making him a target of an underground lab that experiments on triggering mutant powers within humans, led by mutant Ajax (Ed Skrein) and his bodyguard, Angel Dust (Gina Carano)... you get where I'm going with this.
However, where Deadpool differs from other superhero origin films is its approach at its plot chronology. To a certain point, Deadpool tells its story in a non-linear way, allowing its storytelling to match the setting of a comic book that specializes in breaking the fourth wall and playing with its audience/readers. Undressing the film of its non-linear approach, however, reveals the standard revenge plot... but honestly, is the plot really what we're watching Deadpool?
Absolutely not. Finally, we're given a mainstream Hollywood comic book adaptation that truly allows the source material to be faithfully represented on the silver screen. Deadpool, as he's become to be known currently, is the anti-hero that fully embraces his existence within the confines of a comic book, allowing the writing to go in interesting ways... ways in which the standard mainstream superhero book wouldn't. Thusly, the comic book fandom embraces Deadpool as one of their own, someone who is a total badass that doesn't settle for the standard or takes himself seriously... as you'll see from the film's very first second.
Championing the character, and this film's sole existence, is Ryan Reynolds, who was destined to don the red and black in a way that does the role justice, not the poor excuse that was Deadpool's now non-canon debut in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. As he's said in recent interviews, Reynolds doesn't want to play another superhero character because of his organic connection to the role that highlights and accentuates the actor's strengths. Sprinkled in are the X-Men Colossus, voiced by newcomer Stefan Kapicic, and X-Men trainee Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), who serve no real purpose beyond connecting Deadpool with Fox's ramshackle universe. Further confusion sets in when you attempt to make sense of the Fox/Marvel universe and where Deadpool fits in the timeline alongside X-Men: Days of Future Past and this year's aforementioned X-Men: Apocalypse, so do yourself a favor and just take Deadpool for what it's worth.
And its worth is a near-perfect film adaptation of a fan favorite comic book that will meet audience's expectations... and then some. I'll go so far as to say it'll be equitable in its box office returns in comparison to the projected blockbusters Captain America: Civil War, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad, thanks to its dedication to its source material, Reynolds' perfect portrayal of the Merc with a Mouth, and a full embracement of the R-rating that will make all superhero film fans forever curious of what it would be like to see Wolverine truly draw blood. Don't get it twisted: this may be a Marvel adaptation, but it definitely isn't meant for kids.
Deadpool is everything we wanted it to be since it was officially announced... beyond the predictable plot and shoddy placement within the larger X-Men/Fantastic Four universe Fox has attempted to create. Much like Hugh Jackman's Wolverine and Robert Downey, Jr's Iron Man, Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool is the perfect casting for a role that's destined to be franchised around. Deadpool sets the bar extremely high for its superhero brethren this year, and it'll be entertaining to see just how each film compares to this instant classic.
[Review] The Martian
Space has been the "final frontier" for decades, yet it's only been in recent years where a steady in flux of space-centric films have been able to find the critical and commercial success that their B-movie forefathers only dreamed about. Following in line with similar films like 2013's Gravity and 2014's Interstellar comes Ridley Scott's most recent foray into the stars: The Martian. Adapted by the novel of the same name by Andy Weir, The Martian features an exceptionally talented ensemble cast, a strong performance by Matt Damon, and perhaps director Ridley Scott's return to grace following the cold reception he's received for his latest films.
[youtube id="ej3ioOneTy8"]
The Martian
Director: Ridley Scott
Rating: PG-13
Release Date: October 2, 2015
Halfway through a manned mission to Mars, a storm hits that causes the crew of Ares III to immediately evacuate. However, a crew member, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), is believed dead after a piece of equipment struck and concealed him from the rest of the crew. As NASA delivers the untimely message to the entire country, it's soon discovered that Watney survived the storm as he must rely on his wits and scientific knowledge to survive the next three years before the next manned mission to Mars takes place. Soon enough, Watney's movements are detected by NASA, who must then decide how to present the discovery to the media (after initially declaring him dead), as well as conceive of a successful rescue mission, despite the odds.
While the main attraction to The Martian will be Damon's great performance (and rightfully so), the film wouldn't have been as successful or entertaining as it is without its ensemble cast that includes such actors as Jessica Chastain (Interstellar), Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Z for Zachariah), Jeff Daniels (Looper), Michael Peña (Ant-Man), Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War), and a surprise (and fun!) role by Donald Glover (Community). Buoying the main plot of bringing Watney home comes a more substantial one in which NASA must circumvent the political/business trappings of the organization and their genuine interest in saving Watney's life, allowing the main plot an added sense of grounded context that allows audiences to further empathize with the characters.
Whereas Gravity lacked the supporting cast and direct narrative and Interstellar lost viewers with a convoluted and confusing plot, The Martian takes the best from the preceding films and fills in what each lacked. Furthermore, Damon's Watley is at times awe-inspiring with his knowledge and never-fail attitude, yet still relatable to audiences with his charm and sophomoric (re: endearing) humor. In short, if you felt Gravity and Interstellar were good films that lacked that certain something, The Martian could be what you've been waiting for.
Those worried that Scott lost his magic following the lacking Prometheus, The Counselor, and Exodus: Gods and Kings should find solace knowing that Scott's back on the right track. The Martian possesses a story deep enough for thinkers to enjoy and casual viewers to understand, a stellar cast that gets the right amount of time for their talents/characters to shine, and a great lead performance by Damon. Make sure you catch The Martian as soon as you can.
[Review] We Are Your Friends
Close your eyes and think back to all of the various stages of your life, and I can almost guarantee you that each one is segmented into the type of music you were listening to, whether it was a specific band, genre, song, or what have you. Needless to say, music plays an important role in all of our lives. Recently, we've seen EDM gravitate towards the top of mainstream music genres with EDM DJs headlining all types of festivals across the country. Adversely, the genre's popularity also attracts unwanted notoriety as the scene's culture is linked to partying and drugs, especially in regards to EDM's mainstream media coverage.
With that said, what better way is there to tell a contemporary coming-of-age film set within the EDM scene? Writer/director Max Joseph's We Are Your Friends tells the story of an aspiring DJ's attempts to make it big with his friends, but his rise is constantly threatened by personal events. Unfortunately, the film derails way too often, leaving audiences a messy film struggling with its identity.
[youtube id="gZzAeYWXFpk"]
We Are Your Friends
Director: Max Joseph
Rating: R
Release Date: August 28, 2015
Cole (Zac Efron) is an aspiring DJ living in the San Fernando Valley with his best friends Ollie (Shiloh Fernandez), Squirrel (Alex Shaffer), and Dustin (Jonny Weston). Together, they all dream of leaving the Valley for the riches and lights that Los Angeles has to offer, and they do so by promoting at a local club where Cole DJs.
Thanks to a chance encounter, Cole begins a mentorship with an established DJ, James (Wes Bentley), who helps Cole with his mix and offers him a gig at a large music festival. However, as life is wont to do, various circumstances are thrown at Cole and his friends, whether it's a dead-end job or the sexual tension between him and James's girlfriend, Sophie (Emily Ratajkowski).
There are so many elements at play in We Are Your Friends, but that's not a good thing... definitely not one for this film. Had it stuck to one genre, this film would have been far better. However, Joseph shows his ambition by attempting to create a film with a legitimately compelling story beyond the standard we've come to expect from similar music films. And for this, I applaud him; it's just unfortunate that his ambition ultimately led to the film's downfall.
There are many subplots going on within We Are Your Friends that help move the film along, but they all lack the payoff in the end. Take, for instance, Cole's three friends - the relationship between the four of them is that of ride or die brothers who would all have each other's backs. However, when Cole begins his friendship with James and Sophie, he essentially turns his back on them, as illustrated in a party scene where the trio embarrass themselves at James's party with no support from Cole whatsoever. Leading up to the film's final act, the friends are all eventually phased out to increase the spotlight on Cole's relationship with James and Sophie. There's a bit of a twist or a surprise that leads into the third act, but the immediate fallout from it is so tone-deaf and unrealistic.
However, this in itself is so unbelievably realistic and fairy tale-like. I can get behind Cole's sudden rise in the way fictional films tend to work out. What I can't get behind is the love triangle between Cole, Sophie, and James. Spoiler alert: Sex and fights are involved. I can't get too into this point without actually spoiling the film, yet the film's ultimate failure is rooted in Cole's narrative and how absurd it is.
Simply put: You can't attempt to create a drama that, through no believable elements whatsoever, allows the protagonist to come out on top unaffected and unchanged.
As far as the performances go, I've become a bit of an Efron fan in recent years, and he has his moments in the film. Unfortunately, his range is held back by the film's script and direction. Nevertheless, he makes the most of what's given to him. Wes Bentley also holds his own, but much like Efron's situation, he's held back from truly showing off what he can do. Ratajkowski's role as Sophie, however, is cause for concern.
Joseph attempts to create a truly-realized character with emotions and thoughts and dimensions beyond the obvious, and it truly is admirable. However, she's sorely underwritten and underutilized despite Joseph's attempts. For a film like We Are Your Friends, an attractive female lead is basically needed for the male protagonist to woo and romance on his path to the top, yet I truly believe building on the dynamics of Cole and James's multifaceted relationship would have been a better decision.
There are glimmers of light here and there in We Are Your Friends, whether it's Joseph's ambitions or Efron and Bentley's performances. However, they're too few and far between to justify seeing the film in theaters.
[Review] Shaun The Sheep Movie
This review is being re-posted to coincide with its U.S. release.
Aardman's wonderful plasticine productions have never worked quite as well in the cinema as they do on television. In part that's because their television work includes the immaculate The Wrong Trousers, arguably the most perfectly paced and ambitiously staged animated shorts ever produced. And that's to say nothing of the animated trousers, boom boom. Transitioning to the big screen has meant stretching out half-hour plots to feature length, which works against Aardman's strength for creating small, self-contained pieces packed to the brim with exquisite visual punnery and telling stories more through animation than plotting. Chicken Run and Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientist both suffered from meandering stretches, offering enough visual wonder to make a wonderful trailer but not quite so capable at filling in the bits inbetween. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit remains their finest cinematic outing to date, in no small part down to the studio's practiced expertise at setting out the rhythms of a story featuring their signature creations and laser-focus on spoofing one specific genre rather than firing in all directions and hoping for a hit.
Shaun The Sheep Movie (not, for whatever reason, Shaun The Sheep: The Movie, but I digress) also derives from one of Aardman's television hits, itself an offshoot of the Wallace & Gromit empire - specifically, the sheep from A Close Shave. The show is aimed at a noticeably younger audience than Wallace and the same is true of the movie. When a movie is classified 'for all ages', generally you can expect it to be aimed at children from, say, 6-12 years old. Shaun is the rare movie which skews even younger, though thanks to Aardman's gift for universal humour and soul-enriching animation, it is more than happy to whisk you back to the halcyon days of childhood even if you find yourself a few decades above the age requirements.
[youtube id="tQvwiOWpj7o"]
Shaun the Sheep Movie
Directors: Richard Starzak and Mark Burton
Rating: G
Release Date: February 6, 2015 (UK)
Growing out of the same formula which guides each of the 7-minute TV show episodes, the movie sees Shaun and his flock eager from a day off from their usual routine and having to escape the watchful eye of their farmer (called, ambitiously, 'Farmer') and his dog, Bitzer. On this occasion, events go a little more awry than expected and Farmer contrives to end up asleep in an out-of-control caravan that takes him to the Big City, where a bump on the head leads to him contracting amnesia and believing himself a celebrity hairdresser. With no-one to feed or look after them, and some naughty pigs wrecking havoc inside the farmhouse, the flock decides to go and get Farmer back, having to avoid the city's devious Animal Containment officer along the way.
As is probably clear from that description, the plot is not especially tight and the usual Aardman problems in maintaining pace apply. Between a number of truly inspired skits where the sheep try to blend into city life, the movie largely grinds to a halt whenever the Farmer becomes the focus. This shortcoming was made especially clear by a child in the row in front of me, who was enraptured every time the sheep took to the screen but quickly became distracted whenever the altogether less fluffy humans took their turn. Turns out no-one can deliver trenchant film criticism like a disinterested toddler.
Fortunately, the sheep sections are more than strong enough to make up for those shortcomings and as you'd expect from Aardman, there is no shortage of wonderfully staged slapstick set-pieces on offer. The flock's infiltration of an upmarket restaurant, dressed in poorly matched clothing from a local charity shop, is an absolute joy as the sheep attempt to blend in by imitating the etiquette of their fellow diners. A scene at a junkyard where the sheep serenade Timmy the lamb into feeling better is funny enough until you realise they've formed a baaa-bershop quartet, a detail so immaculate and quietly played you'd be quite forgiven for bursting out into spontaneous applause.
Aardman excel in such details and while it's disappointing to see the city's shops so generically signed ('Butcher', 'Newsagent', etc) considering how much fun can usually be had from picking out the background puns in the Wallace pictures, there's plenty of visual wit to enjoy in the foreground: the Animal Containment officer is brilliantly characterised in a short scene involving him posing in front of a mirror, while a brief stint inside a prison manages to imbue every one of its animal inmates with a vivid personality despite none of them being on-screen for more than a few seconds. The stray dog of indeterminate breed whom the flock befriends is similarly given a big soul through small details in the animation and while not particularly essential to the plot, accidentally turns into the movie's emotional centre through a sweet little story about kindness helping an outsider to find people to care for and be cared for.
Aardman's expertise at visual characterisation is essential because where the likes of Wallace and the studio's other movies have merely contented themselves with being primarily focused on visuals ahead of dialogue, Shaun contains no dialogue whatsoever outside the occasional grunt or well-timed baaa. For those who thought Wall-E's silent opening was impressive, Shaun takes it up to masterclass level, delivering all the information needed without a word spoken - though two very funny adverts on the side of a passing bus give Shaun an early nudge in the right direction - while often utilising silence as its own comedic tool, most perfectly a gag involving a hilariously unsettling dog watching an imprisoned Bitzen from the cell opposite. Even the credits are a delight, relayed via a reel of production sketches, and you'll want to stay for one extra joke at the very end. Not because there's anything much to it, but because knowingly missing out on a single Aardman joke feels like a crime in and of itself.
There's so much to love about Shaun that the frustration of its pacing problems only feels greater in retrospect. At 45 minutes to an hour long, it could've been a masterpiece. At 85 minutes - the standard length for an Aardman movie - it just feels a little too patchy to recommend as voiceferously as I would, say, the unexpectedly wonderful Paddington. The visuals are beautiful, the laughs are plentiful and the characters as wonderfully constructed as personalities as they are physical plasticine creations, yet the lagging pace accentuates the weaker gags a little too much and scenes involving the Farmer feel like they're lifted from a less witty, more dreary movie. It's still completely charming and absolutely worth seeing if you're a fan of any of the studio's previous work or funny, visually bracing animation in general, but Aardman's struggles at extending their storytelling to cinematic length means Shaun falls short of unqualified baaa-rilliance.
[Review] Felt
This review for Felt is being re-posted to coincide with the film's VOD release.
In an age where rape culture is more visible than ever thanks to film, television, and the Internet using the aggressive act as a plot device, it's apparent now more than ever we need narratives that help break down the emotional and tragic consequences of sexual aggression. Felt is the next, necessary step in the conversation and should help bring about a change.
Felt is a revolutionary piece of art that transcends all modern convention. A mesmerizing and dark story of loss, identity, and power that never loses track of its humanity. Don't miss this one.
[youtube id="0L3utCNuOw8" autoplay="no"]
Felt
Director: Jason Banker
Rating: NR
Release Date: June 26th, 2015, July 21st, 2015 (VOD)
Felt exists in a tumultuous state. A tantalizing fog of fact and fiction, Felt is the creation of director Jason Banker and experimental artist Amy Everson whose experiences and art the film is based on. Everson's "character" Amy is dealing with a traumatic event in her past which has left her a shell of her former self. As a way to cope with an overtly male world, she creates these suits in order to dress herself in a grotesquely male dominant form. Although there definitely is a bigger theme at play, Felt is wonderfully subdued in its narrative. While its fast and loose nature might turn some off, Director Banker makes sure every scene is highlighting something special. With a concise run time, not a single second is wasted.
At this point in the review, I'd usually try and focus on a few bullet points on why I liked or didn't like a film, but I'm struggling to narrow Felt down to a core. Even though it's been a few days since I've seen the film, I still don't feel like I've processed it as much as I needed to do it justice. After my initial viewing, I sat their stunned. Unfeeling, unmoving, I had no idea what to do with myself next. A cold chill just ran over my body, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. I've seen and read about dozens of sexual violence incidents, and while they've always struck a chord with me, no narrative has ever encapsulated the pure tragedy of the acts so well. For the first time, we finally have a proper window to the experience that's utterly real.
As Amy has trouble rediscovering her sense of self, Felt also follows suit. At times, scenes feel aimless and longing. The ambiguous cinematography will no doubt be a turn off for most, but that's where the film's genius truly lies. Tackling such a huge theme like the after effects of rape can be a sticky situation, and that awkwardness is blown out of proportion to wonderful effect. You see, there's a constant battle of agency at play. As Amy struggles to accept her new, identity-less self, you struggle to accept her as well. If you divert your gaze away from the film, or diverge from the intensity of the emotions at large, then, as a viewer, you're succumbing to the power of the male gaze and taking away Amy's agency. The second you refuse to accept Amy and her suit as she trapses through the forest, the second the aggressor wins. Felt is all about introspection and the expression of personal issues through new avenues of art. Regardless of how different or off putting it is, just take the time to absorb it whole.
None of this would've worked, however, without Amy Everson. Everson is a performing dynamo. Seemingly lethargic, charming, manic, humorous, and attention grabbing all rolled up into an innocuous package. She's so enigmatic on screen, it's hard to look away. You can feel bits of her soul in each performance as it cries out to the world, and it makes her character work seem even more palpable. There's just something so intrinsically human about her performance which makes the film that more effective. Coupled with the striking imagery of her false skins and penises, her performance blurs the lines between the ludicrously tragic and the tragically ludicrous. There's something special here, and it's sad that I can't find enough words to explain it.
This is most likely the least "critical" sounding review I've ever written. The more I ramble on, the less effective this'll be, but at the end of the day nothing I say will even matter. This isn't a story about me. Felt is a small window into the experience that encapsulates all of the intensity of the situation herein, and if this is what a peek looks like, I'm not sure I can handle the whole thing.
I've cried, I've laughed, and I'm completely at loss for words. There just isn't a word in our language to perfectly capture how powerful Felt is.
[Review] The Stanford Prison Experiment
This review was originally published as part of our Sundance Film Festival 2015 coverage. It is being re-posted to coincide with the film's limited theatrical release.
By now, most adults are familiar with the Stanford prison experiment. In 1971, a study was conducted to explore the psychological effects of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. What resulted inevitably proved to be valuable information for psychology, but damaging to some of the participants. The Stanford Prison Experiment is a fictional take on the experiment that dramatizes the various conflicts that took place.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Director: Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Rating: N/A
Release Date: January 26, 2015 (Sundance)
In 1971, Stanford Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo (Billy Crudup) compiles a group of volunteers to conduct his psychological study of the relationship between prisoners and guards. Left to police themselves, the guards quickly exploit their power and creating friction between the two factions. As the mistreatment continues, some of the prisoners, led by Prisoner 8612 (Ezra Miller), begin to revolt back against the guards, led by a "John Wayne-esque" guard (Michael Angarano). As the experiment devolves into a simulation and more of Zimbardo's colleagues leave the experiment, Zimbardo finds himself wholly captivated by the ensuing results. However, it isn't until Zimbardo's girlfriend (Olivia Thirlby) joins the experiment that he truly realizes his mistake and calls the proceedings off... but is it too late for some of the prisoners?
The Stanford Prison Experiment is rooted in its feelings of claustrophobia to characterize the discomfort the prisoners experience, whether they take place in the form of tight, close-up shots in both enclosed closets and open hallways. The suspense builds through the film as each prisoner slowly breaks from their psychological torture, yet The Stanford Prison Experiment never feels like there's anything truly at stake. The tension bubbles and boils, but it never really reaches the breaking point. Could this arguably have been a conscious decision to play with the film's theme of psychological torture? Perhaps, but I think that's giving the film too much credit.
Miller and Angarano shine as foils to one another, but considering the mostly anonymous nature of the experiment, no one really shines beyond the two. In fact, once Miller's character is released from the experiment, no one prisoner/actor steps up to fill the glaring hole in the film's conflict, allowing Angarano's antagonist to take over.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a psychological suspense/thriller that ultimately doesn't pay off in the end. It doesn't help that the film is very slow moving and feels way too long. I can't express how great Miller and Angarano's performances are, but I'm not entirely sure plodding through the film is worth seeing them.
[Review] Mr. Holmes
Detective characters are often stand-ins for writers, and sometimes vice versa. The work of solving a mystery, like writing a tricky story, involves putting disparate pieces together into some form that logically holds together and seems true, no matter how improbable. Adapted from the novel A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullin, Mr. Holmes puts the world's greatest detective in the role of a writer. Elderly and with a flagging memory, Sherlock Holmes tries to unravel the mystery of his final case and why it forced him into retirement on a Sussex farm where he tends to bees.
The idea of an aged Sherlock Holmes trying to unravel the mystery of his own memory is a fascinating set-up, especially given how elusive and illusory our memories can become as we get older. Mr. Holmes re-teams director Bill Condon and star Ian McKellan, whose careers both received a major boost in 1998 thanks to the film Gods and Monsters. The always-good Laura Linney is also in the film as Mrs. Munro, Sherlock's maid and caretaker.
However, even with all that promise, there's something about Mr. Holmes that seems so elementary.
[youtube id="WhPPq9cmPCc"]
Mr. Holmes
Director: Bill Condon
Rating: PG
Release Date: July 17, 2015
In Mr. Holmes, both Sherlock Holmes and John Watson were real people. They solved actual cases reported in the news, and Watson wrote them down as popular novels to be sold to the public. The sleuths were celebrities, and at the start of the film, a woman who sees the retired detective in passing seems starstruck. She asks no one in particular if that man going by is the real Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock is annoyed by the notoriety since not everything in the books was true. The deerstalker cap, the calabash pipe--pure invention. But by writing about the last case, Sherlock wants to set the record straight, at least for himself.
That case that triggered Sherlock's lapse in memory was a case he did without Watson present. It involved a woman who seemed demonically possessed to play a glass harmonica. We get snippets of the case throughout Mr. Holmes, which intercuts the past being written/remembered, the present in post-WWII Sussex, and a flashback to a recent trip to Japan. In the present day, the curmudgeonly Sherlock tends to his beehives while widowed Mrs. Munro looks on downtrodden. Her son Roger (Milo Parker) is a Sherlock Holmes fanboy and idolizes the detective and his shtick. While in Japan, Sherlock's mind is so addled by age and regret that he needs to write his host's name on his shirt cuff just to address the man during dinner.
There's a line by the writer Clive Barker (an executive producer on Gods and Monsters) that seems apt here: "I write to remember, and I also write to forget." We jot things down so we'll remember them for later or to coax recollection, but we also write things down so we can finally forget about them, sort of like deleting files. In Mr. Holmes, the process of writing is about forcing out memories and being able to let the memories go. Here the Barker line is lent a sense of absolution. By solving his own human mystery through the process of writing, the detective may be able to die in peace.
The big issue isn't the elements of Mr. Holmes but rather how sloppily the elements come together. The three different threads of the story don't braid nicely. Rather than complementing and enhancing one another, they intersect and interrupt and then just run semi-parallel. I felt like they were each their own discrete Elderly Sherlock Holmes adventures, though ones that happen to be faintly contingent upon one another--the difference between "stuff that happened" and "story."
The sections of the film that deal with Mrs. Munro and Roger are warm and well-acted, but almost too sweetly so, and its class drama seems only half-explored. The Japanese segment seems dashed off at times, its significance, even when revealed, a trifle in the conscience of the detective. The primary interest is the remembrance of Holmes' final case, but even that winds up dissatisfying. The solution is too convenient, as if the final piece of the puzzle falls into Holmes' mind without the effort of the conscious mind. It's a lazy cop out that lacks the surprise or sense of invention that's found in the better stories of Arthur Conan Doyle.
McKellan at least shines, and he keeps Mr. Holmes watchable even when the script treads water. He portrays Sherlock a cold and quick in his final glory days, dashing too. In Japan, McKellan plays the detective as haunted but still trying to pass as his old self. As much as he hates the pop culture idea of himself, he's trying to play the part for his host. It's in the present, in the thick of his case of memory, where Holmes is the most human and vulnerable. He dodders like an old man at moments, and he weeps for his lack of wits. He's no longer himself, and he can't figure out why. What a dreadful mystery for any detective, and what a horrible block for someone writing a memoir.
[Review] Glass Chin
I'm a sucker for boxing films. Ever since Rocky Balboa's glory days, just mentioning boxing in a film has me sold from day one. But not every boxing film is made equal. When a boxing film tries to break down the mentality of the boxer therein, there's an increased potential to fall apart completely. There's a fine balance between introspection and action that lesser films don't always know how to handle.
Unfortunately, Glass Chin is one of those lesser films.
[youtube id="T6czkjsMbfY"]
Glass Chin
Director: Noah Buschel
Rating: NR
Release Date: June 26, 2015
In Glass Chin, former boxing champ Bud Gordon (Corey Stoll) has been struggling ever since he lost a huge title fight. As he begins training a young up and comer, he also takes a job as hired muscle for shady businessman J.J (Billy Cruddup). When he's framed for murder, Bud must decide whether or not to abandon his former glory or go down like the champ he always knew he was. With an underdog boxing film like this, which really isn't at all about boxing, there's a nice sense of nostalgia for the boxing films of old. There are plenty of Rocky parallels I could pick out, but it'd be unfair to compare the two. I do have to point out, however, is that both films play with the idea that each person has a "prime" to a wonderful extent. As lackadaisical as the character work is, Corey Stoll really works wonders with the inner torment of a slowly aging man.
Sadly, Corey Stoll is the only one of note in the entire film. The script is overwrought with big, direct speeches. It was admittedly an interesting take the first time Cruddup gave a speech directly to the camera, but after the third time it lost its charm. The same goes for the rest of the film's camera tricks. There are definitely some unique contrasts with wide angled shots, prolonged pauses on sets, and each of these tricks help the film stand out more than any of the actual content ever could. It's just a shame these ideas aren't supported by healthier content. A meandering pace not only slows the film down, but makes these takes harder to swallow. They stand out more for being slightly annoying than potentially anchoring the film's thematic broad strokes. The house isn't built well enough to enjoy the paint job.
As much as Glass Chin falters, I can't punish it for trying. It's a fresh attempt at breaking down the boxing genre that never quite makes it deeper than surface level analysis. Full of post modern philosophical rants that really only serve to bring the film further down, there was indeed some kind of message aching to get out.
But at the end of the day, the overall execution was so off the mark, Glass Chin gets KO'ed in the third round.