Because if anyone is going to be able to blend mid 20th century Russian political satire and West End farce, it's going to be Armando Iannucci, the mind behind Alan Partridge, The Thick of It and Veep. In the company of writers David Schneider, Ian Martin and Fabien Nury, he's crafted a razor-sharp comedy which is about exactly what it says on the front, there: The Death of Stalin in Russia, 1953. It is very funny. By which I mean the film is very funny. Not the on-screen death of a 74 year old man. Although that is also very funny. In this film.
While the story takes place in its period setting, the script is interwoven with Tarantino-level bickering and a timeless British-level sarcasm (and not a cod-Russian accent to be heard, which only adds to the charm*1). The filmmakers have assembled an absolutely outstanding cast to deliver it, with everyone on blistering form. Central characters are introduced with brief in-scene title cards showing their name and position in the Soviet hierarchy, but most of what happens isn’t reliant on the audience bringing any prior knowledge. Shot in a hand-held documentary-style, the pacing for the first hour is one of escalating bedlam, with Stalin's demise creating a vacuum of both power and common-sense.
From the Act I opening of a panicked Paddy Considine, to the quiet bluster of Michael Palin and self-absorbed scheming of Simon Russell Beale, the film is the best example of institutional chaos you'll find short of the actual news. Although you might come for Steve Buscemi and Jeffrey Tambor, you'll stay for Jason Isaacs and Rupert Friend*2. In its second-hour though, the pace slows and shifts to a poignant ending I don’t think it quite pulls off. Then again, this section would probably have worked better with me if I knew anything at all about that period of history. I can’t hold Armando at fault for me not bringing any prior knowledge. Everything I saw in the meanwhile was evidence of a creative team at the top of their game.
As enjoyable as The Death Of Stalin is, Iannucci ‘s directorial home is really on the small screen. There’s little here that’s inherently cinematic, and although I’ll definitely watch it again, I doubt that will take place at the flicks.
Iannucci's aforementioned TV work.
This is quite unlike anything I've been lucky enough to see in the cinema.
Only if you can't wait for the DVD/BRD/VOD to land in around 17 weeks.
I think so, although I'm perhaps not best to judge it on a content-level.
*1 To the point where it seems odd at first that Olga Kurylenko has that twang to her voice, until you remember half a second later that that's her actual Ukranian/French accent when she performs in English. [ BACK ]
*2 It's Rupert Friend who gets the best line in the film as Stalin's tantrum-prone spoilt son, coaching an ice-hockey team by essentially just yelling at them. I promise you no film this year will deliver a more sincere exasperation than "Play better, you clattering fannies!!". Priceless. [ 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.
Russell Crowe's first feature film as a director sees an Australian water diviner, Joshua Connor, living with his wife on their farm in the outback in 1919, their three sons having died in the Allied Forces disastrous campaign at Gallipoli four years earlier. Consumed by grief, Joshua's wife commits suicide, and he resolves to travel to the Turkish peninsular to recover the bodies of his children and bring them home. With the British, Australian and Turkish governments mounting a cleanup operation in the area, tensions are already high and Joshua will need more than luck and perseverance in his quest…
Overly-earnest form the word go, The Water Diviner often feels like using a sledgehammer to knock in a picture-hook. It becomes clear very early on that The Battle Of Gallipoli is still a very raw wound for both Australia and Turkey, especially at the time of its centenary, and I can't help feeling that the telling of the story suffers as a result. Heavy on the hand-wringing but far lighter on actual depth, the film wants to be all things to all audiences, skipping though grief, humour, action, sentimentality and romanticism; trying to be a fully rounded film and missing the point that that was never necessary.
That's not to say that The Water Diviner isn't a story worth telling, just that this isn't the best it could (should) be. The film features some stunning outdoor photography and truly harrowing depictions of warfare, but the quiet scenes are the most engaging, when Crowe's not telling you what to think. He seems quite adept at directing himself thoroughly and leaving the rest of the cast to interpret the script the way they wish. Sometimes this works well (Yilmaz Erdogan), sometimes not so well (Jai Courtney). It's also nice that the editors have decided we don't need the translation for all of the Turkish dialogue, so only give us subtitles for the lines they think we need to know about*1.
But I have to admit that my main bugbear is the film's opening title card: "This film is inspired by true events" (cf this fantastically acerbic article). Without that anti-disclaimer, I'd have sat a lot more comfortably in my seat as we're shown a grown adult use his unexplained water-divining skills to recover the bodies of the dead, have incredibly specific visions to locate the living, and have fortune-telling coffee dregs thrown into the mix, too. I was genuinely surprised that Joshua wasn't rescued by a giant eagle at the film's climax…
These are, of course, my hangups with the film. The film's narrative works far better than the performances themselves, but is hobbled by a screenplay which is all over the place in style and content.
The Water Diviner is a film about faith, of all kinds. Maybe this is why a cynic like me had such a hard time with it.
I imagine you'll like it very much.
For many people, I fear it won't be.
If you like it, you'll love it; probably a buy-er.
Sadly not.
I don't think so, but your mileage will vary.
No.
Pretty certain I heard one during the first battle-scene, yes.
Crowe was 2010's Robin Hood of course, alongside Max Von Sydow and Oscar Isaac, both of which will be starring in 2015's Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 It's arguable of course that many of the sub-less scenes are that way because Crowe's character doesn't understand what's being said and we're seeing things from his point of view. Which would be fine if there weren't subtitles is some of the scenes that he is in. It's okay Russell, you can show the audience what's being said and still show that your character doesn't understand it by a-c-t-i-n-g…
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.
Oblivion (Spoiler-free)
Cert: 12A / 125 mins / Dir. Joseph Kosinski
For the first hour, Oblivion is a slickly assembled if incredibly generic looking Sci-Fi actioner; The production design looks like it came from unused concept art for Star Wars, and the story slides neatly into the holes you expect it to. Then a thing clicks into place, and it suddenly becomes a lot more interesting. It's not a 'twist', just a plot development, but it did make me realise that I wanted to know how the story ended. That happens less often than I'd like, these days.
And the second hour delivered all I wanted it to in terms of story resolution. There are areas I wanted to see explored more (not least, '1 to 51'), but in terms of a Summer Blockbuster the film really worked for me. It's not as dumb as it could be, but doesn't try to baffle the audience with pseudo-science either. Tom Cruise plays that version of himself which we're all familiar with now, Olga Kurylenko pretty much follows his lead and does her best with the screen-time she's allotted, Morgan Freeman is wasted in full pantomime-mode, and it's only really Andrea Riseborough that actually emotes at all. All things considered, she's certainly the most interesting character in the film, and I can't help wonder if she'd have been expanded more if all the spotlights hadn't been shining on Mr Cruise.
Ultimately, it's a pleasant surprise to find a movie with some decent writing behind it. It's not Looper or Inception standard, but few films are, and for good reason.
When it's not busy being The Tom Cruise Show™, Oblivion is engaging and satisfying, if somewhat forgettable in the long-term.
As much as it can be without giving everything away. It sets the tone well enough.
Yes.
Almost.
Cinema / DVD.
No.
Yes.
I don't think so, but I heard something pretty damned similar…
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.
