The Post (2017)

What do you get when you combine Steven Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, a strong female character, a script cowritten by the screenwriter of Best Picture winner Spotlight, a score by John Williams and a story centered around journalistic freedom in the era of President Trump’s “fake news”? Any guesses?

The answer is The Post, a film practically walking into the Academy Awards with arms outstretched waiting to claim its winnings. Calibre aside, this film is an interesting glimpse at the inner workings of a newspaper (The Washington Post in this case) and the conflict between the government and the press.

The film is centered around the Pentagon Papers, a series of top secret government files that detailed the failings of multiple presidents in continuing to send troops to the futile Vietnam War. After these files are leaked and published by The New York Times, The Washington Post find themselves in possession of the files and grapple with the decision to publish – risking the future of their newspaper and facing possible criminal charges in the process. The Washington Post is owned by Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) who acquires the newspaper after the deaths of her husband and father, and is continually the target of misogynistic board members. She has the most to lose by publishing the papers, and faces pressure from both sides of the argument – with her advisors and lawyers on one side and her journalistic staff on the other, led by editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks).

This movie is incredibly well-made, and remains entertaining despite the lengthy dialogue and complicated politics that define the film. Steven Spielberg is a great director (duh) and so doesn’t dwell on the logistics of the subject matter, preferring to focus on the difficulty of Graham’s decision and the different dynamics at play at the newspaper. The only issue I had with the narrative aspect of the film was the tendency to gloss over some pretty interesting aspects of the Pentagon Papers scandal in favour of a focus on Graham. I understand that this was her story and the film has to end at some point, but I think that more of an exploration of the decision of The New York Times to publish would’ve added some necessary context and enhanced the film’s journalistic integrity aspect.

There are some brilliant acting performances in this film and, if we ignore the leads for a second, the film is incredibly successful as an ensemble piece – with Bob Odenkirk, Carrie Coon and Matthew Rhys standing out. However, the movie belongs to Streep and Hanks. Streep’s restraint here is effective for Graham, and she has some great moments to show some strength at the end of the film. Hanks has the opportunity to be far more brash and intense here than usual and does so wonderfully, to the point that you can tell he is having fun with the character. The experience of watching Streep and Hanks act together is well worth the price of admission and the two complement eachother perfectly, through both their characterisation and their acting styles. The only issue I had with casting two people who are, arguably, the greatest actors of this current era is the self-awareness this film has. The film exploits any interaction the two have and has a tendency to prolong their frequent conversations to an almost mundane level, as if to say look -it’s Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep and they’re *acting*! This can get a little bit tedious and there were plenty of other interesting events/characters that could have used that screen time to further the film.

Overall, The Post offers an interesting perspective on an oft-discussed area of history, and has relevance to today’s political climate – making it a worthy Best Picture nominee. I’m giving it four out of five popcorns.

The Big Sick (2017)

The Big Sick, directed by Michael Showalter, is a romantic comedy that depicts the love affair of its married screenwriters; Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani. After a surprising snub at the Golden Globes, the film looks set to (hopefully!) garner some Oscar nominations and is up for the top prize at the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

This film follows Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani), a wannabe stand-up comedian from a Muslim family, who falls in love with Emily (Zoe Kazan). After a few months of dating and a sudden break-up, Emily gets struck down by a mystery illness and Kumail rushes to be by her side despite the reluctance of both sets of parents. As the relationship between Kumail and Emily’s parents evolves, the film explores the influence of family, race and religion in romantic relationships.

The Big Sick is a surprising revitalisation of the romantic comedy genre. This film shows that it is possible to make a film about genuine real love that can be hilarious, and avoids the pitfalls and the cliches that have defined the rom-com genre over the last few years. The authenticity of the dialogue makes this film as great as it is, and the movie certainly benefits from having the two (Gordon and Nanjiani), who actually experienced the narrative, be able to tell it with such charm. The story is able to stay exciting and engaging without emerging into absurdity, which is a rarity in comedy nowadays and shows the true talent of the screenwriters – who I’m hoping will get an Oscar nomination. The direction of the film is simple but effective, and allows the characters to be the movie’s central focus.

The acting in this film is superb and, despite many proclaiming Holly Hunter to be the ‘stand-out’ of the film, functions brilliantly as an ensemble piece. Kumail’s family and best friend (Adeel Akhtar) are hilarious throughout, with the frequent infusion of Kumail’s stand-up comedy buddies also adding some lighter moments. I knew of Kumail Nanjiani before The Big Sick but had never actually seen him in anything before, so it was a pleasant surprise to be able to see him play the romantic lead as well as he did – with equal parts humour and sincerity. Despite being in a coma for at least half of the film, the charm exuded by Zoe Kazan, who I first saw in the criminally underrated Ruby Sparks, resonates with the viewer and allows us to still care for the character despite her lack of involvement for a lot of the movie. Holly Hunter and Ray Romano are absolutely wonderful as Emily’s parents and both take their characters in interesting directions, allowing for the character growth displayed by each to be palpable.

The Big Sick was my biggest surprise of 2017 and I am delighted that it is still a major topic of conversation throughout the awards season, as it certainly deserves to be up there with the best of the best. I’m giving it five out of five popcorns.

 

 

The Shape Of Water (2017)

This is just going to be a quick review of the film as I wrote a whole wordy draft and then it disappeared (yay) but I still wanted to talk about this film on here.

The Shape of Water is a fantasy thriller by Mexican directior Guillermo Del Toro, famed for his monster-centric fairytales – perhaps the most well-known of which being Pan’s Labyrinth. The film is considered to be a frontrunner for Best Picture at the Oscars and has recently taken the top prizes for film and directing at the Critic’s Choice Awards, and nabbed the directing award at the Golden Globes.

The film follows Eliza (Sally Hawkins), a mute janitor who works in a top-secret government facility that has recently captured an ‘asset’ – an amphibian-style creature that the Americans believe can give them the edge over the Russians in the Space Race (the film is set in 1962 during the Cold War). Eliza falls in love with this creature and hatches an elaborate escape plan after its life is threatened, with the help of her co-worker Zelda (Octavia Spencer), friend Giles (Richard Jenkins) and scientist Robert (Michael Stuhlbarg). However, her plan is soon compromised by the legitimately menacing Colonel Strickland, played by the ever-brilliant Michael Shannon.

Despite the traditionalist nature of the forbidden love story at the film’s heart, Del Toro (along with cinematographer Dan Laustsen) created a visually stunning world here that is wholly unique. The individuality of this film can be jarring at first, and I spent the early moments of the film struggling to empathise with the characters or narrative. However, as the film progresses it develops warmth and a sense of excitement that is impossible to not be charmed by, and the viewer is reminded of the emotion at the movie’s core. This is reflected visually by the evolution of Laustsen’s cinematography, which transitions from cooler blue tones to rich golden colours as Eliza’s feelings for the creature develop. Alexandre Desplat’s score is also a highlight of the film, as it is equal parts playful as it is romantic, and transitions well to enhance suspense during the film’s more action-packed sequences. Del Toro’s films have always had a childlike wonder and fairy-tale sensibility to them and The Shape of Water is no exception, but there are also some heavy themes here that allow to film to appeal to a wider audience.

The acting in this film is also terrific, with Sally Hawkins’s ability to portray such a range of emotion without the use of her voice astounding. She approached the role with a fascinating blend of fragility and fearlessness that would make her an entirely worthy Oscar winner if she can edge out Frances McDormand. Michael Shannon, to me, was the other star of this film and it is a shame that he is going largely unrecognised for this role. His ability to play such a genuinely terrifying villain that is also innately human is insane, and I genuinely enjoyed watching his performance. Spencer and Jenkins also function well here as Eliza’s sidekicks, with both bringing necessary comic relief and comfort to an otherwise intense film, and I hope to see their names come the Oscar nominations on January 23rd.

Overall, this film is a visual spectacule that benefits from a talented cast and an enthusiastic director, even if the narrative is fairly simplistic. I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 popcorns.

Call Me By Your Name (2017)

Call Me By Your Name, directed by Luca Guadagnino, is a stylish exploration of the blossoming of love between two men; based on Andre Aciman’s novel of the same name. The film follows Elio, a Jewish teen living in Northern Italy with his parents, who finds himself grappling with feelings for Oliver, his father’s graduate student who stays with the family for the summer. The movie, starring relative newcomer Timothée Chalamet and The Social Network’s Armie Hammer, has been a frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar since its debut at Sundance – although recent award losses may have pushed the feature out of the running.

This is a beautifully directed film. The vibrancy of the colour palette and the focus on Italy’s natural scenery made me want to book a plane ticket immediately; with the intensity of the setting being the perfect accompaniment to the passionate love between the two men. This was the first Guadagnino movie I had seen and I was transfixed by his eye for style and just how breathtakingly stunning each shot was. He treated the narrative with such respect and created a great sense of intimacy between the actors and the audience through the film’s resolve to savour each moment, enhancing the movie’s emotionality. The last sequence of the film (SPOILER – where Elio cries for a helluva long time as the credits roll) is one of the most experimental things I have ever seen on screen and only succeeds due to the emotional investment that Guadagnino persuaded us viewers to have.

The story itself is also wonderful and SPOILERS (sorry!) I was pleasantly surprised by the warm acceptance of Elio’s love for Oliver by his father. Similar narratives have tended to exploit this Romeo and Juliet star-crossed lovers cliche to dramatise gay relationships, but I loved the way that this movie allowed the audience to appreciate their affair for what it was and to level the playing field between their romance and your typical boy-meets-girl relationship. The only complaint I have about this film is the overreliance on sexual intimacy, as the frequency of the sexual scenes between the two in the second half of the film slow the pace to an almost mundane level. While this should definitely have played a major role in the film, I think the film still should have been deepening their emotional connection throughout the second half rather than their physical one. The film strayed a little bit into too-long territory (before finishing with some truly brilliant scenes) as the excitement of the affair began to dwindle after the two actually got together.

The film would not work without the performances of the two leads. Chalamet’s charisma practically jumps off the screen and he plays Elio with such fearlessness and youth that it is impossible to not become drawn in by him. Hammer is an actor that I have found in the past to be a bit wooden (I’m sorry!) but he established Oliver as the strong and worldly older man that could act as the foil to Elio’s hyperactivity. The two also played the contradictory nuances of their characters phenomenally well, as Hammer was able to exude confidence and playfulness when necessary as Chalamet delve into Elio’s bursts of terror and insecurity. Michael Stuhlbarg and Amira Casar don’t get a whole lot to do in this movie as Elio’s parents, but Stuhlbarg’s monologue towards the film’s end is a heartwrenching moment that was deftly handled by the actor.

Overall, this film presents itself as a masterpiece and that is a title that I am happy to give it. The depth of the relationship between the two characters is palpable, with the direction and the performances making for one of cinema’s greatest love stories.

I’m giving this film 4.5/5 popcorns.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2018)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is written and directed by Martin McDonagh (of the brilliant In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths), and follows Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) as she demands justice for her daughter’s murder in the form of three accusatory billboards. Despite its controversial exploration of bigotry in small American towns, the film as had major critical success – emerging as one of the big winners of the Golden Globes and sailing towards Oscar contention.

The plot unfolds like this (with minimum spoilers): Mildred Hayes is furious about the lack of progress in her daughter’s murder case and, at a loss of what to do, hires out three billboards along a quiet stretch of highway. They read: “Raped while dying?”, “And still no arrests?”, “How come, Chief Willoughby?”. These billboards cause quite the stir in their small town, with almost unamious outrage at Mildred’s audacity to attack the police department – especially when Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) is dying of cancer. The main cast is completed by a brilliant Sam Rockwell, who plays the racist and oft-times villainous officer Dixon.

This is a brilliant, albeit slightly confronting, film. The one thing that stood out to me the most was the screenplay, as it strikes a phenomenal balance between hilarity and dark, emotional themes. Though the overarching storyline has been seen time and time again in cinema (small town, bigoted cops and a fight for justice is hardly revolutionary), the way McDonagh crafted the script is effective in eliciting a wave of different emotions in the viewer that make it memorable. The characters in this film are also some of the most interesting I have seen in years, with the growth and change they encounter being concurrently realistic and wholly unexpected. The plot itself is rich with complex themes and important messages that can be interpreted differently by each viewer, which make for a riveting cinematic experience.

The film itself is beautifully made, with the juxtaposition of the bleak midwestern setting and the ferocity of the vibrant red billboards a particularly striking aspect of the film. Each scene feels relevant and the film maintains a steady pace that doesn’t rely on violence or twists to stay engaging. The other major aspect of this film that must be discussed is the incredible acting performances. Every piece of this movie works together and the acting is no exception, which says a lot about McDonagh as a director. While Frances McDormand is always perfect, I haven’t seen her with the simmering expanse of emotion and searing passion that she displays in this film for years, perhaps even since Fargo. She would absolutely be a worthy Best Actress Oscar winner this year and the film is elevated due to her faultless performance. Harrelson is surprisingly sympathetic in this film and handles his tricky character with finesse. However, I think this movie belongs to Sam Rockwell – with his performance matching (and perhaps eclipsing) McDormand’s. His character is easily the most contentious part of the film but Rockwell plays him with understanding. He handles the aggressive elements of Dixon’s character effortlessly but has enough emotional gravitas for the momentous change Dixon experiences to be believable – an arc which would have been rendered ridiculous in the hands of a lesser actor.

This film was a complete triumph and I’m struggling to find any fault with it. The recent news articles about the racism and bigotry portrayed in this film are valid in their criticism, but ignore the film’s refusal to glamourise these behaviours and its firm stance against the town’s outdated mentality – which make for a difficult discussion.

I’m giving this film 5 out of 5 popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes)

Okja (2017)

Hello! Long time no review I know, have been watching movies constantly but this is the first time I’ve loved a movie so much that I couldn’t not review it. Quick disclaimer – this will just be a quick review as it’s 1am and I’ve literally just finished watching it but bear with me and I hope you enjoy (and watch the film!!!).

Okja is the second English-language feature (behind the thrillingly bizarre cult phenomenon Snowpiercer) from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho, and has not been without its fair share of controversy. It screened in competition at the Cannes Film Festival but, as a product of the streaming giant Netflix, was criticised by the  judges for encouraging the demise of traditional cinema. Sorry to wade into a hotly debated area but to be honest I have to agree with Joon-ho and Netflix on this one, as Joon-ho had complete freedom to create a film about a controversial topic that would only have been diluted by big-budget film corporations, and the film industry needs to adapt to the current technological climate to an extent.

The film centres around Okja, an edible ‘super pig’ designed by the Mirando Corporation for profit, and Mija (Ahn Seo-hyun), the granddaughter of the farmer appointed to raise her. Eventually, the time comes for Okja to be taken to New York and used as an advertising ploy for the company, who are masking a torrent of animal abuse behind the guise of competition, environmental sustainability and charisma, largely through the company’s CEO (played by the ever-wonderful Tilda Swinton) and a desperate, fame-hungry TV zoologist (Jake Gyllenhaal at his wackiest and most brilliant, is he having a bit of a moment currently or am I just that desperate for him to get an Oscar soon?). All is not lost for Okja’s life however, as the Animal Liberation Front (led by the fantastic Paul Dano) intervene in the proceedings.

Okja is a truly wonderful film. It is immensely heartfelt and has a few clear messages about exploitation and the terror of big business (what really goes on behind closed doors?), but places humour directly at its core. The film is visually stunning and well-directed, with the pace never lagging but still having the stability to savour key moments and further our emotional investment. The linguistic blend of South Korean and English was also refreshing to see in a film and could, potentially, pave the way for a greater acceptance of multilingualism in cinema – which can only be a good thing. The acting in this feature is phenomenal, with each actor playing up to a caricature (specifically Swinton as an unhinged heiress and Dano as an over-righteous activist) but the film never descends into pantomime territory, with each actor bringing just enough warmth and heart to humanise their characters. Seo-hyun too is a great source of emotional entanglement and the supporting actors appear to understand the wackiness of Joon-ho’s filmmaking but have enough appreciation for the story at hand to keep the slapstick to a minimum.

Okja is a wholly unique film, with only vague vibes of the Japanese animated classic My Neighbour Totoro, and is an exciting foray into a new generation of filmmaking that takes advantage of new media platforms to explore taboo subjects. I would recommend this film to anybody, for different reasons, and I believe there is something in this film that will enthrall anyone – be it the story, cinematography, acting, peculiarity or various plot twists and turns.

I’m going to give Okja a five out of five popcorns! Apologies if this review was fairly one-sided, I did try to find faults in it but honestly its exactly the kind of bizarre movie I love and I was enchanted from the moment I turned it on. I genuinely had no interest in watching it before it popped up on my Netflix tonight, but I couldn’t turn it off from literally the second it began.

Thank you for reading!

(Photo via JoBlo.com)

La La Land (2016)

What a way to kick off the awards season!

‘La La Land’ is the second major feature written and directed by the immensely talented Damien Chazelle, functioning as a much-anticipated follow-up to his 2014 debut ‘Whiplash’ – an absolutely engrossing triumph that I reviewed a couple years back. The musical stars Emma Stone as Mia, a struggling actress grappling between the nostalgia of Hollywood’s heyday and the harsh, money-driven reality of 21st century cinema. Ryan Gosling takes on the other lead role as Mia’s love interest Sebastian, a talented pianist with dreams of opening a jazz bar that emulates the likes of those during the Roaring Twenties. ‘La La Land’ weaves through the love affair between the two and their near-impossible dreams, which are constantly shattered by an industry that has eliminated the sentimental niche the two are desperate to fill.

This movie was stunning, in absolutely every sense of the word. It had me completely transfixed, with Chazelle’s painstaking detail and captivating cinematography luring you into Mia and Sebastian’s universe and never letting go. The colour in the film was deliberate and vibrant, with the design of the costumes emulating the excitement of the film’s central moments. The recurrent motifs of iconic film posters and recognisable staples of 1920’s jazz shone throughout the movie, adding to the wistful atmosphere and furthering the film’s position as a poignant love letter to the entertainment industry of the past. The music throughout the feature contributed to this (I still have the beautiful ‘City of Stars’ floating around in my head), as the choreography, excitement and musicianship of its major numbers is something that hasn’t been devoured since the days of ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ and ‘An American in Paris’.

The two stars at the film’s helm bear the entire weight of Chazelle’s vision on their shoulders, and yet completely succeed. Stone, particularly, is captivating. It is clear that she poured everything into the part of Mia, drawing from her own experiences to portray the agony of failed auditions, the all-encompassing nature of love and the bittersweet relief of success. Her singing, though not showy, was reflective of Mia’s emotional turmoil and the imperfect nature of her life, with the penultimate audition scene the absolute highlight of Stone’s impressive acting career – one definitely worthy of that looming Best Actress Oscar (if she can keep Natalie Portman at bay). Stone’s fragility and subtle humour was complimented perfectly by Gosling’s suave intensity, with their ever-present sizzling chemistry elevating the quality of the film to the point that, I think, no other two actors could have. His impressive instrumental ability and resolve to convey Sebastian’s passion ensured that the audience’s attention never wavered despite lengthy sections of dialogue, cementing his position as both a swoon-worthy romantic lead and an actor with some serious gravitas.

The thing I liked most about this movie was the fact that it had something to say. I’ll try and keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but feel free to skim over this section so I don’t ruin any of the movie magic. Chazelle is a genius in that he crafted such a profound connection between the audience and Mia and Sebastian’s relationship, enabling us to get as breathless and light-headed as the two were during the beginning of their romance. We experience the searing highs and lows of their love, with Chazelle’s seamless writing making the transitions all the more emotionally charged. This is partly how he conveyed one of the film’s major messages (that I noticed at least – the excitement of this film lays in its ability to evoke discussion about its true meaning). By allowing the audience to get so caught up in their relationship, he coerces us into falling in love with the dream of their romance. I mean, who doesn’t get a little gooey-eyed over two old souls connecting and finding a home in eachother amidst a modern world that doesn’t appeal to their nostalgic sensibilities. This prompts the audience to gloss over the negative aspects of their relationship and become lost in the excitement of their love, despite the ever-looming necessity to sacrifice their dreams to be together. Though the bittersweet ending might have made me cry a bit more than I’d care to admit, it causes the audience to confront reality and recognise that dreams do come at a cost – a perfect conclusion to an intelligent piece.

Some of the criticism of this film has centered around a lack of character development, with minimal exposition dedicated to the backstories of the leads. However, I think this suits the film well. By making little reference to the past of Mia and Sebastian, Chazelle was able to capture an idea and a moment in time that felt as fresh and new to the audience as it did to the characters – as we were thrust into their world in complete ignorance, enhancing that emotional connection between the viewer and the leads by enabling the story to unravel before us as it was experienced by them. Essentially, the film is a love story between people and their dreams, not Mia and Sebastian, so Chazelle’s ability to create characters that were completely driven by passion was far more effective than having characters weighed down by their past in a film so focused on the future.

I have absolutely nothing negative to say about ‘La La Land’. It lived up to all the hype and completely exceeded my expectations, and writing this (way too long) review has made me want to watch it all over again. As many have said, they just don’t make movies like this anymore and, as a teenager, it gives me hope that originality and Old Hollywood still have a unique place in this confusing era of big-budget sequels and poorly constructed remakes.

Dazzling, romantic and magical only begin to describe this film, and I’m giving it five out of five popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of IMDb)

The Girl on the Train (2016)

‘The Girl on the Train’ follows Rachel (Emily Blunt), an ex-PR magnate who has descended into alcoholism after the breakdown of her marriage to Tom (Justin Theroux) due to his affair with real estate agent Anna (Rebecca Ferguson). She rides the train into the city each morning for ‘work’ (hence the creative title) and observes the lives of those in the suburbia that she so craves, all the while downing vodka in a clear drink bottle. She focuses on one couple in particular, Megan (Haley Bennett) and Scott (Luke Evans), whose seemingly perfect existence she lives vicariously through. Rachel flies into a fit of confused rage after witnessing Megan kissing a man who isn’t her husband, gets insanely drunk and decides to pursue Megan – only for Megan to disappear in suspicious circumstances that night. Rachel can’t remember a thing about the night’s events, and so begins the insanely convoluted plot of this film – based on the bestselling novel by Paula Hawkins.

This wasn’t quite as bad as what the critics are saying, but it definitely had issues. The graphic nature of the violence was fairly difficult to watch, and I didn’t find the atmosphere all that enjoyable. The overall plot, however, was compelling and it was effective in capturing and maintaining audience attention. The whodunnit nature of the mystery took interesting turns, and culminated in a satisfying plot twist that had just a fair amount of surprise – but was hinted at in a fairly heavy-handed way throughout the feature. I also had issues with the decision to tell the beginning of the story from three perspectives, and then completely abandon this later, as it diminshed some of the film’s mystery and wasn’t reflective of the outsider aspect of Rachel’s character. This format may have worked for the original book, but it didnt translate to film and it would have been better to keep the audience in the same state of ignorance as Rachel – not this weird, uncommitted limbo that we were stuck in.

The characters in the film were relatively stereotypical archetypes. This affected the believability of the movie, as either the characters’ actions were too dull or the twists were completely nonsensical in terms of the personalities featured. Perhaps if the acting, specifically with regards to Theroux, had been slightly more inspired or complex it might have worked out. This is, of course, with the exception of Emily Blunt. She made us empathise with Rachel despite her ill-judged behaviour and unbelievable plot arcs, and completely elevated the quality of this film.

All in all, ‘The Girl on the Train’ was an interesting murder mystery that offered a social commentary on suburbia extending beyond the, dare I say, overdone plot. Blunt shone above the mediocre dialogue and direction, and I’ll give it 3 out of 5 popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of IMDb)

Beetlejuice (1988)

I thought I’d kick off Halloween season with an 80’s horror comedy classic: Beetlejuice!

The Tim Burton film follows a young married couple, Barbara (Geena Davis) and Adam (Alec Baldwin), who struggle to adjust to their newfound ghostly status after dying in a car crash. They find themselves haunting their marital home, which is now inhabited by Delia (Catherine O’Hara), Charles (Jeffery Jones) and Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder), and fail in multiple attempts to scare the family out of their house. They enlist the help of the ghastly Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton) and get a whole lot more then they bargained for.

This is Tim Burton at his best. He is able to create a specific and complex atmosphere in this film, with his zany set design and costumes functioning to compliment the narrative rather than overpower it. Though the beginning of the story runs quite slowly, this builds up anticipation for Betelgeuse’s appearance and provides some hilarious scenes – namely when the family are compelled to dance at the dinner table by the ghosts. Burton’s direction is inspired yet clean, with most of the scenes able to enrich the story in some form. Sometimes the shoddy special effects can be uncomfortable to watch in 80’s movies, but they add to the hilarity of this film and reflect the novice nature of Barbara and Adam’s terror. I think that the lack of CGI available during that era is better for Burton’s style, as it prevents him from overwhelming the viewer and helps him rein in his imagination to just the right amount.

The narrative itself is compelling, an inherently original story that is immensely fun to witness. There is some clever dialogue littered throughout the piece, with witty humour aplenty. The performances in this film are also phenomenal. Keaton’s interpretation of Betelgeuse is absolutely perfect, with every movement completely in character. He encapsulated the anti-hero nature of Betelgeuse spectacularly, revealing glimpses of his sinister side but always keeping the character likeable. Ryder fulfils the role of a gloomy teenager perfectly, and has enough warmth to carry Lydia’s transformation throughout the film. O’Hara is another standout, taking the fairly tired stereotype of a wicked stepmother and portraying it in an unorthodox manner. Baldwin and Davis, however, seem more like spectators than protagonists of the film, with their mild-mannered nature overpowered by the more interesting characters.

This film leaves you with a smile on your face, and the relatively short running time prevents the audience from becoming exhausted by the vibrant set and rich characterisation. It is a comedy classic that everybody should watch during the Halloween season, especially if you shy away from the wealth of actual horror films out there (like me). I give it four and a half out of five popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of IMDb)

Bridget Jones’s Baby (2016)

Ah, Bridget, how we’ve missed you!

As an unapologetic fan of the film franchise, I was ecstatic about the announcement of this film. Yet, after the sequel teetered on the edge of mediocrity, I was apprehensive. Ideas like this usually result in a muddled mismatch of aging actors playing the same characters as they did decades ago, with minimum character development and maximum nostalgic value. Thankfully, ‘Bridget Jones’s Baby’ doesn’t fall into that category.

The film follows a now forty-something Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger), still unlucky in love and singing along to ‘All By Myself’ despite being in a committed relationship with the dreamy Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) some twelve years prior. We join Bridget as she has finally reached her goal weight and is proud of her career accomplishments, but is lacking one thing: love. (Cliche? Yes. Enjoyable? Absolutely.) Long story short, she meets the wealthy Jack Qwant (Patrick Dempsey) at a music festival and spends the night with him. Then, a few days later, rekindles her romance with Mark at a friend’s party. She discovers that she’s pregnant and, after a hilarious meeting with an obstetrician (Emma Thompson), realises that either man could be the father – setting into motion the main driving plot of the film.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Though the plot wasn’t anything new and the film’s events were relatively formulaic, the dire for (Sharon Maguire – of the original film) didn’t rely on nostalgia to propel the plot forward and attempted to make a worthwhile contribution to the franchise. The film was aplenty with both swoon-worthy romantic moments and side-splitting comedy, functioning as the perfect romcom. The makers of this film were also clever in that they were able to confuse the viewer regarding which man to root for, weaving between the attributes of the two while planting niggling doubts in the viewer’s mind about both Mark and Jack. Characterisation was paramount in this film, and it is what it excelled in.

Despite the ever-present controversy surrounding Zellweger’s appearance, she delved into this role whole-heartedly. Within the first few minutes it was evident that the old Bridget was back, with Zellweger once again perfecting her English accent and adopting Bridget’s clumsy mannerisms. Firth was as charming as ever, adapting his character to his aging state and translating fairly well. Dempsey was a bit too sickly sweet for my taste, capitalising on the gentlemanly aspects of his character but never quite convincing me that he was a better choice than Firth.

Overall, I loved this movie. It delivers just the right amount of classic Bridget whilst effectively bringing her into the modern age, crafting romantic tension that made sense. For its intended purpose, it excels. I’ll give it four out of five popcorns.

(Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)