Review: Dumb Money

Dumb Money
Cert: 15 / 104 mins / Dir. Craig Gillespie / Trailer

Well, it's nice to see that the department at Sony in charge of greenlighting True-Story™, fast-cut, mumbled-dialogue, quirky, yellow-poster, current affairs, underdog dramatisations is largely weathering the storm currently affecting the rest of the movie industry.

This is one of those pieces that's usually dropped in January as quasi awards-bait (but that aforementioned storm means it's hitting screens now to make up for nothing else being ready), usually based on a New York Times article or a factual book (or a New York Times article which led to a factual book), in which mainstream entertainment actors get to play in the frowny grown-ups sandpit, and convince us all that they're worth the sensible plaudits by doing so. Dumb Money centres around the Gamestop stock-debacle of 2021, and is populated by players who are either perpetually furious, gormless or both at the same time. And because these characters are based to varying levels on Real People™, director Craig Gillespie gets carte blanche in portraying them as either too dull for dramatisation or too pantomime for documentary. So this is very much like real life in that we can't have nice things. Is it dumb? No. But is it an interesting cinematic distillation of a superficially complex subject, boiled down to its base elements to shine insight onto the fallibility of human behaviour which caused the furore and the plucky spirit of those who rode out the storm and stuck it to The Man? Also no.

Dumb Money is for people who didn't manage to take in what was on the news 18 months earlier, and use their escapist downtime to watch movies about it all instead*¹. If that's you, enjoy.

*¹ Seriously, there were 2 (two) separate ads for vitamin supplements before the trailers, so at least the distributors know that the only people watching this movie are firmly middle-aged... ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Fabelmans

The Fabelmans (spoilers. ish.)
Cert: 12A / 151 mins / Dir. Steven Spielberg / Trailer

Cinema is magic, and its creators are magicians. Steven Spielberg, for example, can make 2½ hours of quasi-biographical coming of age story feel like five*¹. It's not that The Fabelmans drags, just that it does not let up.

Beginning in 1952, this is the tale of the young Sam Fabelman (Gabriel LaBelle / Mateo Zoryan) spanning twelve years of his life (hence the two actors) as his parents Burt (Paul Dano) and Mitzi (Michelle Williams) move to several cities across the US in an upwardly mobile spiral. Already fascinated by movies and process of film-making, this is massively disruptive for Sammy and his sisters (Keeley Karsten / Alina Brace, Julia Butters / Birdie Borria), and the movie tracks the weaving course of their lives and Sam's growth and self-discovery.

KID

And it's fine. The story about a Jewish kid learning about the world and finding purpose in life through the art of translating ideas to celluloid is superb. The twee, mawkish, shrieking and overbearing soap opera which happens all around it, far less so. The two are intrinsically intertwined of course, and the film itself is named after the family unit, not the protagonist. My problem (and this is very much my problem as a viewer, not the film's as a creation) is that it's so sincere, all of the time. Your mileage will vary but most of the humour feels forced and most of the angst feels gleefully wallowing. I love Michelle Williams as much as anyone, but she's on Ten™ from the very first scene, a high-maintenance character in a film of domestic histrionics and it is draining to sit through.

The subplot with Seth Rogen's 'Uncle' Bennie is so telegraphed and then spelled-out as to be physically painful, and it's a shame since his character initially feels like a breath of fresh air - albeit a breath which is necessitated by the fug of Mitzi's constant drama. Paul Dano puts in a reliable performance as the family patriarch who only understands Science™, but the role demands relatively little of him as a performer, a charge which can be levelled at most of the supporting parts here.

NORTHERN

The real ray of sunlight comes in the form of Judd Hirsch as 'actual Uncle' Boris, the cranky, scrunch-faced black sheep of the family who arrives gibbering in distorted syntax to everyone's consternation. He's also the only character here who effortlessly sees through the bullshit and understands Sam's attraction to the arts - better at that point than Sam does - and the sacrifices which may be required to attain greatness. He is this story's Yoda, and is in it for nowhere near long enough.

When we see Sam making films - the actual physical process of coordinating, directing and shooting - The Fabelmans is great. Unfortunately, this accounts for less than a third of the film's run-time. But this is the lesson of course: we can't dedicate ourselves completely to creativity because the admin of life will always get in the way to some degree. And we either learn to live with that, or we give up creating. The process of cinema is where science meets art, and Sam Fabelman and his story are the embodiment of that collision.

Steven Spielberg has many weapons in his armoury. Understatement is not one of them. The Fabelmans almost comes over as something that the director needed to get off his chest, rather than an insight-unveiling introspective.

A self-indulgent missive of this intensity is certainly forgivable from a director as accomplished as this, but probably only as a swan-song. Steven, however, seems far from done...*²

*¹ And while it's nice of the man himself to sit in what looks like a generic hotel suite somewhere and record a special pre-film message to audiences who have come out to cinemas to watch his latest epic, it feels notably strange that one of the world's greatest film directors has recorded one of the least convincing thank-you messages ever.^{[ BACK ]}

*² Which I'm not complaining about, by the way. I certainly don't get on with all of Spielberg's work, but the man's been responsible for enough absolute bangers for me to appreciate what he's capable of. Okay, very few of those bangers have been made this century, but hey... ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Swiss Army Man

*¹



Swiss Army Man
Cert: 15 / 95 mins / Dir. Daniel Scheinert & Daniel Kwan / Trailer



Wow, there's a lot of flatulence in this film. Like plot-driving flatulence. That's not usually a high-point in cinematic entertainment, but It's impressive given that for around twenty minutes, it's one of the characters' primary means of communication.

Swiss Army Man is the story of Hank (Paul Dano), who's stranded on a desert island and has all but given up hope. When a new arrival joins him in the shape of Manny (Daniel Radcliffe), this gives Hank the inspiration and impetus to escape exile and try to find home, and the girl he loves. Manny is dead to begin with, of course, but that's not to say he still can't be a useful friend...

From the film's opening scene, there's a beautifully crafted sense of hyper-surreality, meaning you have little choice but to stop asking 'how would that work' and just go with the film. Dano is magnificently fragile as the more talkative of the leads (then again he usually is), but Radcliffe's performance shouldn't be underrated here, either. Directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert*² have crafted something that's thoughtful and entertaining in equal measure, leaving you with as many questions as when you started, but still satisfied all the same.

So indie in feel that I'm surprised it doesn't have a yellow poster, it's often melancholic, sometimes inspirational and occasionally downright bleak. This thankfully isn't the Weekend At Bernie's re-imagining it could easily have turned out as; instead, one of those movies that I'm just glad exists at all. Extra points for the outstanding a capella soundtrack overseen by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell.

Swiss Army Man is an intriguing film. I think I enjoyed it very much and look forward to watching it again to make sure…

There are shades of a darker Ruby Sparks here, as well as Birdman, Warm Bodies, Duncan Jones' Moon and of course The Nightmare of Milky Joe.



It's a film you'll probably want to watch more than once and with a gap in between, so if you see it on the shelf in Asda....



I think so.



Maybe not best, but certainly up there.



Nope.



Nope.



Level 2: This film's got Paul Dano in it and he was in 2011's Cowboys & Aliens, which was directed by John 'Vizsla' Favreau and starred Harrison 'Solo' Ford and Clancy 'Opress' Brown.





*¹ Because I can't really complain about my local cinema not showing enough new movies and complain that I never have time to watch stuff at home, now can I? ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert directing a film with Daniel Radcliffe in pretty much every scene. I bet that wore thin on-set after about half an hour... ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Youth

Youth
Cert: 15 / 124 mins / Dir. Paolo Sorrentino / Trailer



Oh, Michael. That an actor could appear in The Last Witch Hunter and Youth within the same career is odd enough, but do so within the same six months? Of course, it was our own Mr Caine who famously said of his appearance in 'Jaws: The Revenge': "I have never seen it, … however, I have seen the house that it built". You have to admire the man's honesty, even if you can't always trust his judgement.

Youth is a hypnotically rambling, and sometimes borderline psychedelic, film in which Caine portrays Fred Ballinger, a retired composer and conductor who is holidaying in a health resort in the Swiss Alps at the same time as his screenwriter friend Mick Boyle (played by Harvey Keitel). The two banter and reminisce as Boyle struggles to finish a script and Ballinger struggles to remain retired, tasks made no easier by the breakup of the relationship between their children (Rachel Weisz and Ed Stoppard).

The film sees Caine on probably his best form since Harry Brown, and Keitel at least makes some move towards redressing the thespic balance of those dignity/credibility-shredding insurance adverts he appeared in. Paul Dano and Rachel Weisz are nicely understated in their supporting roles, and it's all looking quietly restrained until Jane Fonda turns up in the third act to munch all available scenery like the Chewits monster (albeit entirely intentionally).

As a sort of lethargic musing on creativity and meditation, Youth is utterly intriguing. Director Paolo Sorrentino and cinematographer Luca Bigazzi bring us a film with the photography of The Grand Budapest Hotel but the pacing of Inside Llewyn Davis. And much like those two, after seeing Youth for the first time, I have pretty much no idea what it's actually about; only that I enjoyed it. Part of me thinks that the film's resort-setting and the accompanying character-arcs could be a metaphor for purgatory, but that seems too obvious in a movie as wilfully obscure as this one. That said, I also believe the film's natural ending point is about ten minutes before the one we get; that's why it's not my film. I don't think that it'll become one of my favourites, but the film definitely calls for another viewing or two.

However, the film loses a point for featuring Paloma Faith in a speaking role as Paloma Faith*¹, somehow combining one of the most irritating things in the world with itself to create something much worse…

The Grand Budapest Hotel, Inside Llewyn Davis, My Week With Marylin.



For the photography, yes. For the story? DVD.



I think so.
I'll get back to you on that.



From an acting point of view, probably not.
Although that's a credit to the cast's previous work, not a criticism of it here.



Probably not.



There isn't.



Level 2: Youth stars that Harvey Keitel who was in that Pulp Fiction alongside that Sam 'Windu' Jackson.






*¹ Paloma Faith plays Paloma Faith for reasons which are not explained or even suggested. Not withstanding the fact that she annoys me, there is no narrative reason for a 'real' person to be included in this fictional narrative. There is even less logical reason for that person to be Paloma Faith.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Love & Mercy

Love & Mercy
Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. Bill Pohlad / Trailer



Although Bill Pohlad's twin-timelines in the study of Brian Wilson's life are interwoven, Love & Mercy really is 'a film of two halves'. The strand beginning around 1965 featuring Paul Dano as the eccentric visionary who pulled together The Beach Boys' acclaimed Pet Sounds album is a magnificent yet intimate portrait of a man suffering from conditions which weren't fully diagnosable at the time, the result of which (for better or worse) shaped the sound of the 20th century. This story has faux-archive footage, hand-held documentary style filming and a vibrant colour-palette to match. It is poignant. Moving. Incredible.

The strand beginning in the mid-to-late eighties featuring John Cusack as the older Wilson being heavily 'guided' by his combined producer, manager and carer feels like a Channel 5 made-for-TV afternoon movie. This ongoing narrative focuses on former-model and car-saleswoman Melinda Ledbetter and her bid to free Brian from his cycle of medication and manipulation. Visually blander but more emotionally demanding by necessity, it's a very good story in itself, but seems like a completely different film; and that contrast doesn't help Love & Mercy the way it should.

The real problem is that Dano and Cusack never feel like they're the same person, and since Dano sets the bar chronologically and their performances are interlaid, that's kind of a deal-breaker. Cusack's a capable and underrated actor, he's just not right for this role, playing Wilson as far more child-like at a later stage in his life than Dano (and while there's clearly a progression to Brian's condition that continues through the time-gap between the segments, the script doesn't account for the complete change in his personality and behaviour. And appearance. If feels like Cusack's playing Wilson in another film, not just another decade).

The 'first half' of the Love & Mercy focuses on Wilson the musician, his work with his brothers, and the strained relationship with their father/manager. While the music really is kept to a minimum in the later-strand (and let's be fair, it's the music which is drawing the audience here on a greater or lesser level), it becomes embarrassingly clear than while Paul Dano knows his way around a piano, Cusack doesn't. The editor's attempts to fudge over this cutting between shots of a pianist's hands vs everything-else only accentuate it more. It shouldn't matter of course, but it drives the wedge further between the two performances.

Despite an almost Kubrickian sequence at the climax of the film, the two threads never combine neatly enough, and each just ends up filling in details of a story you already know, like a succession of snapshots rather than a story-book. Oh, and well done to the closing caption-cards for saying that Wilson had been mis-diagnosed with paranoid-schizophrenia without shedding any more light on his actual condition.

As much as I've moaned about it (and how), Love & Mercy is worth seeing for the 1960s timeline, it's just a shame you can't leave halfway through.

Paul Dano is Oscar-worthy.
John Cusack is two steps away from 'going full-retard*¹'.

Oh, and that bit at the end, where Melinda nearly runs Brian over and she's all like 'what were you doing in the road?'. He was on a pedestrian-crossing as the film clearly illustrates. If that's the actual dialogue from what happened, why would you leave it in the film revealing her to be an appalling driver? If it's not what was said, why the hell would you even add it?



Half of it is.



Rental.



Dano? Yes.
Giamatti? It's up there with his 'good' work.
Banks? Far better than she can usually do with the roles she takes.

Cusack? …



I think it does, just not in the best way it could.



Not really.



No. it's really not that kind of film.



Well, Love & Mercy stars Paul Dano, who made an appearance in 12 Years a Slave, alongside Lupita Nyong'o, who stars in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.







*¹ Yeah, it's not a term I particularly like using, but it comes the closest to summing up his performance, unfortaunately.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: 12 Years A Slave (second-pass)

12 Years A Slave (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 134 mins / Dir. Steve McQueen




My second viewing of 12 Years A Slave (first, here) may have lessened some of the shock, but none of the power. McQueen tells Solomon Northup's story masterfully, and even knowing the outcome, I was still enthralled for every single frame.

Chiwetel Ejiofor's greatest triumph is how he can leave an audience loving something so soul-wrenching. Provocative without being patronising, rarely is any film so deserving of your attention.




Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



Cinema.



Yes.



…later.



No.

Well? Have you seen it? What did you think? Let rip on the Facebook page...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.