Oh, it may be February but we're not done with the historical socio-political drama just yet, thanks. Squeezing in before the awards-crush comes Hidden Figures, the largely true story of NASA's boundary-defying resource pooling, in an attempt to get a man into space before Russia. Even though they didn't. That's not a spoiler. But that's not what the film's about, anyway.
Short version: It's a good film.
That said… what you see in the trailer*1is pretty much exactly what you get. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the film holds no real surprises.
On the plus-side, the film's subject matter (both thematic and practical) is accessible enough for all audiences, although I often felt it was being a little too simplistic. The film has a borderline kitsch quality that regularly sits at odds with the drama. Not for the first time recently, I found myself squirming slightly, not with liberal-guilt but thinking "why aren't you more angry about this?". Even with the film's PG rating, Hidden Figures can't (indeed doesn't) ignore the racial tensions that make up the central dramatic thread. But they're treated in a way which almost becomes secondary to the story, somehow. The film often feels like it can't choose between being about the civil rights movement, the space-race or plain old-fashioned misogyny. And it shouldn't have to choose, because the story itself is about all three. Sadly, Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi's screenplay spins these plates unevenly, and not without condescension at times. The main problem is that the deeper the screenplay digs with the 'boo-hiss' pantomime theatrics surrounding racial politics of the early 1960s, the harder it's going to be to convincingly climb out of that hole in Act Three*2.
But despite my furrowed brow the film pulls the whole thing off rather well, although that's thanks to the cast, more than anything. Taraji Henson, Janelle Monáe and Octavia Spencer outshine everyone else (rightfully so) as the trio of mathematical genii, even though their screen-time is split somewhat unevenly. Kevin Costner just about earns a pass as one of the most inefficient, if well-meaning, middle-managers you've ever seen, and everyone else is slightly too one-dimensional to be of any use.
Hidden Figures didn't blow me away, but it's a good film. Then again, I'm left thinking that it'd be pretty difficult to make a bad one out of a story this great.
That said... In the 'it looks like you're losing your job to a computer' scene near the end of the movie, both Katherine and Al are wearing glasses which have an anti-glare coating, catching the light in the room with a green and purple reflective sheen. Even assuming that such coatings were commonplace in prescription glasses in 1962, neither of them were working with VDU screens. That's very much the point of the entire dialogue, here. So they wouldn't be wearing those, now would they?
I hope the film's engineering and mathematics advisors put in more effort than the wardrobe department…
The film's got a similar sort of vibe to The Help.
Although even that feelgood tale got angry when it needed to.
It won't spoil your enjoyment of the film if you only manage to catch it on DVD.
It does.
In the nicest possible way, no.
It'll depend very much on why we're disagreeing.
There isn't.
Level 2: This film's got Octavia Spencer in it, and she performed voice-work in Zootropolis/Zootopia, alongside Alan 'K-2SO' Tudyk.
*1 Although while I'm on, I have to say that Costner's line in the trailer, "math that doesn't exist yet" has annoyed the living fuck out of me for weeks, now. Leaving aside his use of a singular when it's clearly a plural, the mathematics Kevin - much like physics - exists whether you know about it or not. It's how things work, everywhere. What you mean is "I need maths that hasn't yet been discovered / refined / adapted". Are you really in charge here, Kevin? No wonder the Russians are waltzing into first place. Thankfully, there is a scene in the film where Taraji Henson's Katherine bitch-slaps the chewing gum out of Kevin's hand and points out that the formulae they need is in fact "really old" (Jim Parsons' character actually says this). But at no point does Kevin hand in his security pass with a thousand lines saying "I will not try and invent mathematics". Stick to being Robin Hood, pal. [ BACK ]
*2 The best line in this category comes late on, when Octavia Spencer's Dorothy passes a hand-towel to Kirsten Dunst's Vivian in the newly anointed mixed-race bathroom. In doing so, they briefly brush hands, causing them both to pause. Vivian looks up ruefully and says "Y'know Dorothy… despite what you may think, I have nothing against y'all. It's just the simplistic and heavy-handed way my composite character's been written in the screenplay for the last 80 pages." Although half of that quote may be subtext, admittedly. [ 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.
So, I sat in Screen 1 tonight wondering '...what are the actual guidelines on advertising alcohol in the UK?'. It's not unusual to see cinema ads for Smirnoff or Russian Standard, but only really in front of 15-rated movies and above. And obviously the statistical majority of the audience will be above 18 even for a 15 film anyway, so it's not like you're telling kids to buy the stuff. I only ask because the post-FACT/pre-BBFC ad tonight was for San Miguel, and as it's followed directly by the 12A Certification card it seems like an odd call. I don't really want to mention it officially as I've already got the projection-operator at my local in trouble once this week (no, really). Then again, Midnight Special isn't exactly aimed at youngsters, that's just the rating it has. And obviously there were a slew of booze-ads running in front of the 12A Spectre. Although above all else, maybe it got the go-ahead because it's 'the Story of San Miguel' advert, a whole minute of badly dubbed, patronising bullshit which is so excruciating that it should put even hardened alcoholics off touching the stuff. I guess we'll never know...
Which is a feeling that also accompanied me as I left the cinema two hours later. Jeff Nichols' Midnight Special is a movie that enjoys teasing the audience into asking questions, and enjoys witholding the answers even more. And you get the impression that it's not playful world-building, but that the answers just don't exist. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The film opens in a Texas*1 motel room, with Roy (Michael Shannon(2) and Lucas (Joel Edgerton) having apparently abducted the young Alton (Jaeden Lieberher) from a religious cult living on a nearby ranch; a boy with inexplicable abilities and powers*3. Convinced that Alton is their saviour, the cult are anxious to see him returned, but Roy is determined to reach Sarah (Kirsten Dunst), Alton's mother. A trail of destruction follows them across state lines as the FBI and NSA (Adam Driver as Sevier) become involved, in a bid to figure out if the boy is an alien, a god or a weapon*4…
It's a strong start for a compelling movie. The problem is that the film seems to lose its way the further it goes down the road. Or rather, I began to lose faith in the film the more it tried to wiggle out of giving any firm explanations. I suspect the 'genre-defying' label that's being bandied about is a polite way of saying that Mighnight Special is never quite sure what it wants to be (even though it's clearly Sci-Fi), so can't settle on a narrative-format as a result. The closest compare/contrast I can draw would be Looper, a film which carefully places down unconnected jigsaw pieces, until sharply pulling back in the third-act to reveal the completed picture. A film which demands a second-viewing to appreciate the craft which has put it together. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd get any more from watching Midnight Special again. I wanted to love the film, but could only like and be intrigued by it.
You see for all my moaning, this is a very watchable flick. It's just nowhere near as clever or revelatory as it'd like to be. More a study of film-making than storytelling, it feels a little like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone, missing the closing narration of "yeah, that was a bit weird, wasn't it? No, there's no reason...". I enjoyed Midnight Special, but it left me more frustrated than satisfied. And not in a good way.
But you'll probably love it, and I'll love that you love it because then you can tell me what it was that I missed...
Looper, Close Encounters and, to a lesser degree, From Dusk Till Dawn.
Probably best as there are stretches of this movie which are so (visually) dark that you don't stand a chance of making out what's going on if you watch it in your living room.
Yeah, probably. It's just, y'know. Me.
Difficult to say as it's a real mixed bag on the performance-front.
Nope.
Didn't hear one.
Level 1: And it's a straight-A triple whammy! Midnight Special's Special Effects Coordinator John McLeod also worked as a stage-technician on Return of the Jedi for the Original Trilogy; the film stars Joel 'Owen Lars' Edgerton from the Prequel Trilogy and Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver from the Sequel Trilogy. All of that doesn't happen too often...
Just, y'know… frustratingly noncommittal…
*1 And you know we're in Texas because every fifth line of the script has someone saying "y'all". No, really.
*2 Michael Shannon, reinforcing the rule that there's something distinctly unsettling about any man that does up the top button of his shirt when he's not wearing a tie. How the fuck am I suppose to sympathise with that kind of freakery??
*3Inexplicable in this case meaning that it's not really explained. "Aliens did it". Yep, that's all you're going to get. Transparent, light-up aliens living in a parallel dimension that (it's inferred) have relative super-powers but still build their cities in swampland and out of concrete. Okay, then?
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.
Hossein Amini's interpretation of Patricia Highsmith's novel quickly becomes quite an odd thriller, which seems more intent on showcasing the scenery of the Greek islands than concertedly building any tension. By no means boring, but with such a languid pace that I actually wondered if I'd dropped off and reawoke at one point. The problem isn't the plot per se, but the twisting development of characters I couldn't bring myself to sympathise or even engage with. There also seem to be a number of reveals and call-backs to things which either haven't been explained properly*1 or just aren't that important in this version of the screenplay.
So, the not-inconsiderable weight of delivering the story falls onto the shoulders of Viggo Mortensen, Kirsten Dunst and Oscar Isaac, with reassuringly mixed results. Dunst falls back on her multi-purpose grimace whenever she has to emote anything, and whilst Mortensen and Isaac do a decent job of being brooding and secretive, neither displays the sort of charisma or charm which would be required of the con-men/scamsters they're meant to be playing*2.
I get the feeling that there's a more compelling film to be made from Highsmith's story, and even though I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it any more, I could have at least taken comfort in the knowledge that the rest of the audience would. The crowd in Screen 2 tonight didn't seem to get much more from Viggo's grumpy antics than I did.
Still, it's nice to know that the Greek police were so trigger-happy in 1962 when an uncharged, unarmed suspect is running away from them.
The Two Faces Of January is a great brochure for rural Greece. I just didn't really care either way for anything which happened there.
Oh, and extra geek-points for Isaac asking "Were you in the war?" with exactly the same inflection that Luke Skywalker used to ask Ben Kenobi if he'd fought in the Clone Wars. I look forward to seeing what Oscar brings to the GFFA in 2015.
The trailer suggests a level of intrigue which the film doesn't really deliver..
I suppose not.
Not for me, although I'm not altogether clear what it was aiming for..
This is a rental, tops.
Not really.
Doubtful.
There isn't.
Seriously, though. Why is it called 'The Two Faces of January'? I honestly thought that when Chester handed Rydal the two photos of his wife that he was going to look directly into the camera and say "Oh, and her real name? ....Why, it's JANUARY of course! Ha ha haaa!"
Hang on, that's not really what it's meant to be, is it? Is it just because that's what the book's called? Is it explained in the book? Is it a Greek cultural reference I'm not getting? Don't I understand anything? I am an idiot.
*1 Although to be fair, this film is from "the people" who brought us Tinker, Tailor..., and we all know how much I loved that screenplay's vague insinuation that there might be a plot.
*2 I'm not saying they aren't capable of that range, they just don't use it here.
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.
