Space movies are cool. That's just a fact, right? Everyone knows that if a film is set in space, it's going to be 90% better than something that isn't. And James Gray's latest film, Ad Astra, is very cool indeed. And no, I'm not going to call it Brad Astra, so don't worry, you're not going to see any of those kinds of puns. This is a story about Brad Pitt. He's feeling a bit Sad Pitt so he travels to space to find his Dad Pitt, in the hopes that things will be a little less Bad Pitt. What? I didn't say I wasn't gonna make any puns. Okay, so that might be simplifying things. Ad Astra follows Roy McBride, an astronaut with a reputation for always maintaining his cool. His heart rate never goes above 80, he always stays calm, and his success rate is incredibly high. Beneath the cool though, is a huge amount of pain that comes from his tense relationship with his father, who went missing on a mission to Neptune 16 years before. When it turns out that his dad might be alive, Roy is sent on a mission to contact him and..... well, you'll see.
It's not an especially complicated plot, but it doesn't have to be. This is a film that's all about the journey, and the things it does well are all related to the trip it takes the audience on. This is one of the coolest depictions of space I've ever seen. It's set in the near future, where the universe is a little smaller. Space travel is totally commercialised, Mars has been colonised, and technology is a bit more advanced than it is now. Every setpiece in this film reveals another part of it's mindblowing world, and the film is incredibly patient in revealing these details. From a crazy chase involving moon pirates to a scene featuring some apes that plays like something out of horror movie, Ad Astra has no shortage of awesome Pittstops on the way to its destination. It should go without saying that, with this focus on an epic journey, that the plot is a little on the thin side, but by and large, that's not really an issue. Apart from the narration, which was pretty unnecessary and becomes slightly distracting after a while, the way the film progresses its story is pretty decent. It's not great, but that really isn't the point, and pretty much everything else here is absolutely top-tier in its quality.
This film is an experience, and as clichéd as it might be to say, needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible. The scenes in space are so vast and quietly powerful that they almost defy words. The vastness is also pinned down to the intimate, interior conflict going on inside Roy, and the way that's contrasted is just fascinating. This is a film that deals in huge spectacle and powerful emotion at the same time, and the way Gray balances the big and the small is just fantastic. The closer to Neptune McBride gets, the stronger the underlying emotion in the story becomes, until it just absolutely explodes into something that's both visually stunning and really, really moving.
A lot of this down to Pitt's performance, and I'm telling you now, if this guy doesn't get an Oscar nod, there's going to be trouble. I will write the most strongly worded letter you've ever seen. You have been warned. So much of Pitt's performance is masterfully understated, which is really impressive because he's the only character you're with for most of the film. It's wonderfully interior, something which, again, is kind of spoiled by the voiceover. Look, it's not an issue for the first twenty or so minutes, but after that it became especially noticeable, and a little unnecessary. Everything great about his performance is in how quiet it is, so when he tells us how he feels, it does throw me off a little. But yeah, his performance is definitely worth the price of admission. It's quiet brilliance among the huge spectacle, and watching how his character is carefully unravelled over the course of his journey is really something special. The whole film revolves around the vulnerability under the stoicism, and watching how Gray slowly, quietly works his way to the centre of McBride is truly a joy to witness
Instead of going for the grand existential musings of any space films, Ad Astra goes inwards, which I know has been done before, but the way Gray takes that idea and maps it against a father-son relationship and then makes it Apocalypse Now in space and then makes it about male vulnerability and then adds space pirates and apes and BRAD FREAKING PITT gives it a little bit of space. The scale is massive, the philosophy is rich and the things that happen in the plot are consistently interesting and incredibly diverse. It is, to borrow from my favourite purple warlord, perfectly balanced as all things should be. Gray understands how to combine these different elements and play them off each other perfectly. It's huge size never takes away from it's poignant musings, and the crazy elements of the world never become a distraction. Everything here fits into place, everything has a purpose, and everything fulfils that purpose really well. It's a fascinating juxtaposition of the vastness of the brain and the gradual shrinkage of space, and by doing it backwards, Gray makes its ultimate conclusion all the more satisfying.
So, Ad Astra is kind of incredible. It's big and small at the same time, unafraid to go to strange places on its journey to the centre of this incredibly stoic man. It's hard to sum into words, because it's such a spectacle to witness, and so emotionally driven (I shed many tears), that it's kind of tough to articulate. It's intelligent, astonishing filmmaking, headed up by a marvellous performance from Brad Pitt. I absolutely loved this film, and it just gets better the more I think about it, because it leaves so much to chew on. The ideas, the visuals, THE SPACE PIRATES, everything in this film is beyond amazing. Yeah, it loses serious points for that voiceover, which is just so obvious and handhold-y, but even that can't detract from how stunning everything else is here. Between this and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Brad Pitt is marking himself as a serious Oscar contender, and honestly if he gets it for either then it's 100% earned, because he's amazing in that and he's incredible in this. Ad Astra, man. Ad. Astra.
Saturday, 19 October 2019
Thursday, 17 October 2019
My Thoughts on Ready or Not
Oh. My. God. Even though it's arriving in Ireland about a month after everywhere else, Ready or Not immediately establishes itself as one of the funnest films this year. There was no way that I wasn't going to love this movie, not with a premise like this anyway. "Woman tries to survive her wedding night while being hunted by her crazy in-laws" is a great concept for a comedy horror, and the real excitement is watching how that's explored. This is what spooky season is all about, folks, and I cannot wait to dive into it, so let's. Freaking. Go. This is a good example of a film working on the strength of its premise alone. The plot follows Samara Weaving's Grace, who's marrying into the wealthy Le Domas family (they prefer dominion). The catch for joining this board-game empire is that, on their wedding night, the family-member-to-be has to play a game. Which is fine, unless you draw the card that says you have to play hide-and-seek. Do not draw the hide-and-seek card. Grace draws the hide-and-seek card. The shit hits the fan. Hide-and-seek is a deadly serious matter for the Le Domas clan, who intend on hunting Grace down and killing her. The reason for this is a little bit spoiler-y, but rest assured, it's as gleefully nuts as you'd expect from this kind of movie
My local cinema screened this with captions on for some reason, which actually turned out to be kind of great. I tend to watch things with the captions on anyway, and in a film that hinges on its tension, it's pretty fun to know exactly what kind of noise you're hearing. And the tension here is kind of great. When the hunt begins, the film is so creative with its setpieces and their construction. This film is legitimately tense in a really fun way. Every part of this house and it's grounds is utilised, from the service corridors to the creepy-as-hell shed full of goats. The sense of location in this movie is amazing, and watching as it shifts from the joy of a wedding to the hell of the hunt is an absolute thrill. The house feels like its own character, just as tied into the sinister machinations of the Le Domas clan as any of it's members. Speaking of the Le Domases (Les Domas? Le Domasi?), they're amazing antagonists. Each one has such a distinct personality, and watching their overblown personalities expand even further as the slaughter progresses is one of the big joys of Ready or Not. Big shoutout to Aunt Helene and her intense devotion to the cause, and another one to my main man Stevens, the crazy butler who gets some of the best (and nastiest) moments in the movie
Of course a horror movie is only as good as its survivor, and Samara Weaving is such a badass. She was the best thing about The Babysitter, which, naff as it was, turned out to be the perfect showcase of her horror-chops. I genuinely can't wait for what she does next, because she absolutely tears this movie up. This is her film, and watching as she unleashes her survival skills on her murderous in-laws is a pure delight. She's got it all: the wisecracking humour, the hardened survival instinct and even the rootability of a woman who just can't catch a break. She's an awesome horror hero, balancing everything with a genuine likeability that really amps up the satisfaction factor of the ensuing bloodbath. And the crazier the film gets, the more she grounds it, ensuring that it never gets to carried away in its antics by being someone who you genuinely like and want to see succeed.
She's also a great character in the context of the film's satire. Without giving too much away, Ready or Not is critical of the über-rich and the things they do to stay that way. Like the best horror-commentary, it's genuinely scary because there's an element of truth to it. Even though everything is over-the-top, the shadowy illegitimacy of the Le Domas family's empire is eerily believable, and seeing how (almost) every member of the family is corrupted by this ethos to some extent is incredibly unsettling. Is this commentary kind of overshadowed by the crazy gore and comedy? I mean yeah, but it is there, and a lot of it does hit the mark. It's not the strongest aspect of the film, but it's sharp enough to make an impression. What makes it work better is Grace's status as the outsider, the everywoman who finds herself in this web of dark secrets with the truth of the family's wealth at the centre. This is the brain behind the fun, and it gives it a really clever edge that I'm sure will give it some serious rewatch value
For all of this though, there is one problem: it's way too short. Not only does it feel like there's not enough of it, but it also means that by the end of it, it feels like there's still a little more to be done. Without getting into too many spoilers the ending, as batshit crazy as it is, is very neat, not necessarily a problem, but it does feel like the film sacrificed more setpieces to get to there. It's a weird one: I do love how bold and crazy the note it finishes on is, but I would have liked a little bit more of an escalation. A nitpick? Most definitely, but it did bother me, because I was having so much fun with the film, and I would have liked if it let itself breath a little more. This is a sprint, not a marathon, which is fine, but it means that all of the really great stuff here does feel a tad rushed. Oh well, it's still huge amounts of fun
So Ready or Not is the crazy horror comedy bonanza that we need right now. It takes a simple idea and pumps it full of gore, comedy and stinging social commentary. It's an amped up assault on the 1%, with pleasing amounts of violence and enough knowing humour to stop it from ever tipping into excess. Samara Weaving is an absolute boss, and I'm so excited to see what she does next, because she makes this movie what it is. Throw in a wonderfully hissable cast of evil in-laws and you've got a genuine delight of a comedy horror. Yeah it's short and quick, but it's a deliriously fun ride that rarely holds back on anything. It's so exciting that we have a movie like this in 2019, exciting, bold wonderfully standalone. It never plays it safe, instead choosing to bring gloriously chaotic horror into the mainstream. More. Films. Like. This. PLEASE.
My local cinema screened this with captions on for some reason, which actually turned out to be kind of great. I tend to watch things with the captions on anyway, and in a film that hinges on its tension, it's pretty fun to know exactly what kind of noise you're hearing. And the tension here is kind of great. When the hunt begins, the film is so creative with its setpieces and their construction. This film is legitimately tense in a really fun way. Every part of this house and it's grounds is utilised, from the service corridors to the creepy-as-hell shed full of goats. The sense of location in this movie is amazing, and watching as it shifts from the joy of a wedding to the hell of the hunt is an absolute thrill. The house feels like its own character, just as tied into the sinister machinations of the Le Domas clan as any of it's members. Speaking of the Le Domases (Les Domas? Le Domasi?), they're amazing antagonists. Each one has such a distinct personality, and watching their overblown personalities expand even further as the slaughter progresses is one of the big joys of Ready or Not. Big shoutout to Aunt Helene and her intense devotion to the cause, and another one to my main man Stevens, the crazy butler who gets some of the best (and nastiest) moments in the movie
Of course a horror movie is only as good as its survivor, and Samara Weaving is such a badass. She was the best thing about The Babysitter, which, naff as it was, turned out to be the perfect showcase of her horror-chops. I genuinely can't wait for what she does next, because she absolutely tears this movie up. This is her film, and watching as she unleashes her survival skills on her murderous in-laws is a pure delight. She's got it all: the wisecracking humour, the hardened survival instinct and even the rootability of a woman who just can't catch a break. She's an awesome horror hero, balancing everything with a genuine likeability that really amps up the satisfaction factor of the ensuing bloodbath. And the crazier the film gets, the more she grounds it, ensuring that it never gets to carried away in its antics by being someone who you genuinely like and want to see succeed.
She's also a great character in the context of the film's satire. Without giving too much away, Ready or Not is critical of the über-rich and the things they do to stay that way. Like the best horror-commentary, it's genuinely scary because there's an element of truth to it. Even though everything is over-the-top, the shadowy illegitimacy of the Le Domas family's empire is eerily believable, and seeing how (almost) every member of the family is corrupted by this ethos to some extent is incredibly unsettling. Is this commentary kind of overshadowed by the crazy gore and comedy? I mean yeah, but it is there, and a lot of it does hit the mark. It's not the strongest aspect of the film, but it's sharp enough to make an impression. What makes it work better is Grace's status as the outsider, the everywoman who finds herself in this web of dark secrets with the truth of the family's wealth at the centre. This is the brain behind the fun, and it gives it a really clever edge that I'm sure will give it some serious rewatch value
For all of this though, there is one problem: it's way too short. Not only does it feel like there's not enough of it, but it also means that by the end of it, it feels like there's still a little more to be done. Without getting into too many spoilers the ending, as batshit crazy as it is, is very neat, not necessarily a problem, but it does feel like the film sacrificed more setpieces to get to there. It's a weird one: I do love how bold and crazy the note it finishes on is, but I would have liked a little bit more of an escalation. A nitpick? Most definitely, but it did bother me, because I was having so much fun with the film, and I would have liked if it let itself breath a little more. This is a sprint, not a marathon, which is fine, but it means that all of the really great stuff here does feel a tad rushed. Oh well, it's still huge amounts of fun
So Ready or Not is the crazy horror comedy bonanza that we need right now. It takes a simple idea and pumps it full of gore, comedy and stinging social commentary. It's an amped up assault on the 1%, with pleasing amounts of violence and enough knowing humour to stop it from ever tipping into excess. Samara Weaving is an absolute boss, and I'm so excited to see what she does next, because she makes this movie what it is. Throw in a wonderfully hissable cast of evil in-laws and you've got a genuine delight of a comedy horror. Yeah it's short and quick, but it's a deliriously fun ride that rarely holds back on anything. It's so exciting that we have a movie like this in 2019, exciting, bold wonderfully standalone. It never plays it safe, instead choosing to bring gloriously chaotic horror into the mainstream. More. Films. Like. This. PLEASE.
Saturday, 12 October 2019
Once Upon a Time in the Fest (Part 2)- My Thoughts on A Hidden Life
Day 2 of my LFF experience was pretty great even before I saw A Hidden Life. I'll review it in a minute, but first I want to talk about my general Southbank experience today, because that was so awesome. After the best DVD haul ever (High and Low, Celine and Julie Go Boating, Audition, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, The Knack.... and How to Get It, the Jeunet and Caro Collection, Playtime, The Discreet Charm of the Bourseogie and Persona), I checked out the BFI's Mediatheque, where I passed the time by watching Derek Jarmon's Jubliee, which, mini review, was okay. I liked a lot of the ideas in it about art, history and sex, as well as the general aesthetic, but I found all of the characters incredibly unlikeable, and not in a good way. It also felt like it had something to say, but didn't actually know what it was it wanted to say. So yeah, it's kind of decent? Anyway, back to the review!
Terence Malick is a strange one. At his best, he makes some of the most poignant visual poems you're likely to see, but at his worst, he churns out navel-gazing, faux deep nonsense. So it's good to see that his latest, A Hidden Life, is a thrilling reminder of what he can do when he's at the height of his powers. The film revolves around a conscientious objector in the Second World War, and it's kind of incredible. True, at nearly three hours long and covering a very weighty subject matter, it's far from casual viewing, but this is a film that engages every one of your senses in the way that only Malick can. It's a patiently told story, with these beautifully shot images of Radegund, an idyllic village in the Austrian mountains. This being a Malick film, the sound and visuals truly tell the story. There's so much in the wind blowing through the grass, and the buzz of insects. The actual plot itself is revealed very slowly, but it rewards the viewer for sticking with it with a heartbreaking and deeply fascinating musing on what it means to stand up for what you believe in.
I love how patient this film is. It sets itself up gradually, never giving away too much at a time, and leaving it down to the viewer to decide what they think. It's heavily focused on ideas of morality, and how much a person is willing to sacrifice in an uncertain and complicated time. Amidst the heady, mountain-set visuals is a series of really difficult discussions about doing the right thing, and the way the dialogue regularly flips between English and German is a really effective way of emphasising that. There aren't any subtitles here, and Malick lets everything play out in the language these people are actually speaking whenever he risks overexplaining. It doesn't even progress as much of a plot, instead mining the deeply ethical discussion from visual representations of the ordeal of Franz Jägerstätter, with all of the dialogue suggesting rather than providing exposition.
Hell, the only criticism I could really give it is that, with its length and subject matter, it really isn't a fun watch. I wouldn't call it overlong, although I did feel its runtime as I was watching it, because, when the film had ended, I realised that its ultimate conclusion wouldn't have impacted me as much if it was shorter. At times, the weighty subject matter gets a little bit much, and if you're not a fan of Malick, then I can't see this doing much to change your mind (unless you really do like looking at grassy mountains), but as someone who really likes him when he's good, I absolutely loved this film. It's tough yet moving, complex yet sensual, and so deeply haunting while also dealing with absolute truth. Malick deals with the most difficult of subject matter in the most nuanced way possible, gradually drawing the deep reservoir of emotion from this story while keeping the tough moral questions at the centre intact, and then fusing those things with his own unique brand of woozy visual poetry. Add in an incredibly brief scene that features one of the biggest rabbits I've ever seen, and you've got one of the best films of the year. In many ways, it's the ideal Terrence Malcik movie: all of the profundity, none of the self indulgence. Would I watch it again? Probably not, but its soulful musings are sure to ring in my brain for years to come
So that was what I thought of the two films I saw at the LFF. First Love is a batshit crazy romp that sets a high bar for next decade, while A Hidden Life is a gut wrenching meditation on the price of doing the right thing that is absolutely one of my favourite films of 2019. As first film festival experiences go, I don't think I could have had a better one!
Terence Malick is a strange one. At his best, he makes some of the most poignant visual poems you're likely to see, but at his worst, he churns out navel-gazing, faux deep nonsense. So it's good to see that his latest, A Hidden Life, is a thrilling reminder of what he can do when he's at the height of his powers. The film revolves around a conscientious objector in the Second World War, and it's kind of incredible. True, at nearly three hours long and covering a very weighty subject matter, it's far from casual viewing, but this is a film that engages every one of your senses in the way that only Malick can. It's a patiently told story, with these beautifully shot images of Radegund, an idyllic village in the Austrian mountains. This being a Malick film, the sound and visuals truly tell the story. There's so much in the wind blowing through the grass, and the buzz of insects. The actual plot itself is revealed very slowly, but it rewards the viewer for sticking with it with a heartbreaking and deeply fascinating musing on what it means to stand up for what you believe in.
I love how patient this film is. It sets itself up gradually, never giving away too much at a time, and leaving it down to the viewer to decide what they think. It's heavily focused on ideas of morality, and how much a person is willing to sacrifice in an uncertain and complicated time. Amidst the heady, mountain-set visuals is a series of really difficult discussions about doing the right thing, and the way the dialogue regularly flips between English and German is a really effective way of emphasising that. There aren't any subtitles here, and Malick lets everything play out in the language these people are actually speaking whenever he risks overexplaining. It doesn't even progress as much of a plot, instead mining the deeply ethical discussion from visual representations of the ordeal of Franz Jägerstätter, with all of the dialogue suggesting rather than providing exposition.
Hell, the only criticism I could really give it is that, with its length and subject matter, it really isn't a fun watch. I wouldn't call it overlong, although I did feel its runtime as I was watching it, because, when the film had ended, I realised that its ultimate conclusion wouldn't have impacted me as much if it was shorter. At times, the weighty subject matter gets a little bit much, and if you're not a fan of Malick, then I can't see this doing much to change your mind (unless you really do like looking at grassy mountains), but as someone who really likes him when he's good, I absolutely loved this film. It's tough yet moving, complex yet sensual, and so deeply haunting while also dealing with absolute truth. Malick deals with the most difficult of subject matter in the most nuanced way possible, gradually drawing the deep reservoir of emotion from this story while keeping the tough moral questions at the centre intact, and then fusing those things with his own unique brand of woozy visual poetry. Add in an incredibly brief scene that features one of the biggest rabbits I've ever seen, and you've got one of the best films of the year. In many ways, it's the ideal Terrence Malcik movie: all of the profundity, none of the self indulgence. Would I watch it again? Probably not, but its soulful musings are sure to ring in my brain for years to come
So that was what I thought of the two films I saw at the LFF. First Love is a batshit crazy romp that sets a high bar for next decade, while A Hidden Life is a gut wrenching meditation on the price of doing the right thing that is absolutely one of my favourite films of 2019. As first film festival experiences go, I don't think I could have had a better one!
Friday, 11 October 2019
Once Upon a Time at the Fest (Part 1)- My Thoughts on First Love
So this is the first of a two-part saga chronicling my time at the London Film Festival, my first ever festival. Tonight's screening was Takashi Miike's 105th film, First Love. The screening actually started with an introduction from Miike, who stressed that, crazy as the film is, it is a love story, and he's absolutely right. As romances go, this is undoubtedly a crazy one, with yakuza, Chinese gangsters, ultraviolent fight scenes and a moment involving a toy dog that's utterly unforgettable, but it always keeps this genuinely believable love story at its centre. It's also a movie that doesn't get a release until 2020, but I'm reviewing it now because, y'know, film festivals. I'm literally just out of this film, so apologies if this review is a little unstructured, because I'm still just trying to process exactly what it was I saw. This is a film that turns your brain into soup, and spends the next hour and a half aggressively slurping it until there's nothing left. This film is wild, but it's also kind of amazing, and I can't wait to dive into it. Also, there are no spoilers in this post. Regular readers will know that I never spoil films in reviews anyway, but since we are talking about something that isn't actually out until next year, I'd absolutely understand if you didn't want to know anything. By and large, you're good to go, but just keep the release date in mind. We good? Good!
First Love follows a young boxer whose life intersects with that of a young woman with connections to the yakuza. Their relationship triggers a crazy series of events that come to involve the police, the Chinese triads, and a whole raft of assassins. I'm not going to go into specifics, but this plot is freaking mental. It's always on the move, twisting and developing and always going to the very last place you'd expect it to. There's a lot going on here, and even if the film occasionally loses track of all these different characters and ideas, it's pace and energy are enough to steer it back in the right direction. Confusing? Sometimes, but it's never boring, and it moves fast enough to get back into the action almost right away. The story melds mind bending action with surprisingly genuine emotion, and Miike's devotion to both of these aspects is what gives it such a unique punch.
This is my first Miike film, so I can't say how it compares to the rest of his filmography, but as an introduction, it definitely got me in the mood to check out more of his stuff. This is one of the most purely enjoyable cinema experiences I've had in ages. It's the perfect blend of comedy, action, romance and balls-to-the-wall craziness. Sometimes it's even weirdly profound in its musings on life, death and loneliness. I have a soft spot for movies that take place over the course of one night, and the way that this film is able to fit such wildly different tones and elements into its plot, while also making them feel completely organic is really special. This feels like that one wild night, one that starts off relatively normal but explodes into something really unique and special. The imagery is surreal and wild, yet weirdly meaningful. True, it's absolutely batshit, but Miike is telling a genuinely sweet story where everything happens for a reason. The crazy stuff is certainly crazy, but every batshit visual is grounded by something with real weight. When it slows down for the conclusion, it wraps up every idea it has presented, and that's when I realised that I really did care about what was going on. I think the crazier you make something, the more you have to build investment in something, and, although there's a lot going on here, you care enough about these two leads for the story beats to properly register. Under the crazy flourishes is something really substantial, and that's what makes it work
Obviously there's a lot more that I could and want to say about this movie, but I'll leave it at this: it was the perfect first festival movie. First Love is buckets of fun, with the exact kind of surreal humour and crazy plot that I never knew I needed. It's honest and genuine as well as being absolutely batshit insane, and also has some of the best side characters of the year (one gangster in particular is especially hilarious). So yeah, I kind of absolutely love this movie. The exhilaration of the whole thing gave me such a buzz, and the fact that I saw it with a huge crowd just added to the atmosphere. Everyone I saw it with was so into it, and as a viewing experience, it was pretty spectacular. Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that I've seen a movie that's coming out next decade, but if this is the standard for 2020, then we're in for an absolute belter of a year. This is pure cult fun, and I'm glad it kicked of my LFF experience.
This is my first Miike film, so I can't say how it compares to the rest of his filmography, but as an introduction, it definitely got me in the mood to check out more of his stuff. This is one of the most purely enjoyable cinema experiences I've had in ages. It's the perfect blend of comedy, action, romance and balls-to-the-wall craziness. Sometimes it's even weirdly profound in its musings on life, death and loneliness. I have a soft spot for movies that take place over the course of one night, and the way that this film is able to fit such wildly different tones and elements into its plot, while also making them feel completely organic is really special. This feels like that one wild night, one that starts off relatively normal but explodes into something really unique and special. The imagery is surreal and wild, yet weirdly meaningful. True, it's absolutely batshit, but Miike is telling a genuinely sweet story where everything happens for a reason. The crazy stuff is certainly crazy, but every batshit visual is grounded by something with real weight. When it slows down for the conclusion, it wraps up every idea it has presented, and that's when I realised that I really did care about what was going on. I think the crazier you make something, the more you have to build investment in something, and, although there's a lot going on here, you care enough about these two leads for the story beats to properly register. Under the crazy flourishes is something really substantial, and that's what makes it work
Obviously there's a lot more that I could and want to say about this movie, but I'll leave it at this: it was the perfect first festival movie. First Love is buckets of fun, with the exact kind of surreal humour and crazy plot that I never knew I needed. It's honest and genuine as well as being absolutely batshit insane, and also has some of the best side characters of the year (one gangster in particular is especially hilarious). So yeah, I kind of absolutely love this movie. The exhilaration of the whole thing gave me such a buzz, and the fact that I saw it with a huge crowd just added to the atmosphere. Everyone I saw it with was so into it, and as a viewing experience, it was pretty spectacular. Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that I've seen a movie that's coming out next decade, but if this is the standard for 2020, then we're in for an absolute belter of a year. This is pure cult fun, and I'm glad it kicked of my LFF experience.
Thursday, 10 October 2019
I'm Going to a Film Festival!
Hey, so this is just a quick update about what's going on. First of all, I'm currently working on my reviews of Ready or Not, Ad Astra and Joker, and they should all be up in the next few days. But the main thing I want to say is that I'm going to the London Film Festival this weekend, which I'm incredibly excited about. I've wanted to go to a festival for ages, and this looks like it's going to be awesome. I'm going to be seeing First Love and A Hidden Life at the LIFF, and I'll post reviews of both of them when I do. First Love looks absolutely wild and I can't wait for the carnage, especially because I've never actually seen a Takashi Miike film. A Hidden Life looks like a return to form for Terence Malick, who I'm a pretty big fan of when he's good, and from the sound of things, he's definitely back on form here. So yeah, that's what's gonna be happening on this blog over the next few days, so get excited for that! As for me, I'm gearing up for my first fest experience!
My Thoughts on Joker
Oh boy. Joker's been a hot topic in the film community (and in general) for a while now. All through it's production, people have been talking about it, and in the last few weeks in particular, people have been going crazy. It wins the Golden Lion, it gets rave reviews, there's countless articles about how it's going to start violence and destroy society, it finally comes out, people love it, people hate it, and it becomes literally impossible to ignore this film. I've been sceptically excited for a while now, because I love Joaquin Phoenix and Robert de Niro, and it looked like a really interesting take on the character, but it looked like it borrowed a little bit too much from Scorsese, it looked like it was skewing a bit too edgy without understanding how to do it, and Todd Philips in general is just.... not my tempo. That and all of the buzz around this film made me realise that I really didn't know how I was going to feel about it. Honestly, I knew it could go any way for me. I could love it, I could hate it, I could really like it, or it could just.... be fine. Any way it went though, there was one thing that was undeniable: this is the film that got 2019 talking. So how did I feel about Joker? Well....
I guess I should set the scene, even though you've probably seen it from the (pretty ace) trailer. Arthur Fleck is a clown in Gotham in the early 80s who's not having the best time. He's a struggling stand-up, his mental state is fragile, he cares for his ailing mother, and he suffers from a condition that causes uncontrollable laughter in difficult situations. It doesn't help that the city he's living in is kind of going to shit. Social unrest, class division and super rats are just a few of the things plaguing the Gotham of this film. One day, however, Arthur has an encounter which.... changes things, for him and Gotham. To say anything else would be a spoiler, so I'll leave it there. I think, in general, the "we live in a SOCIETY" plot is a tricky one to get right. It's a very specific type of social commentary that can be done very wrong, and I think it's all about time, place and execution. I'll talk about the (absolutely ridiculous) buzz around this film's violence later, but one thing that I think is true is that stories about dispossessed individuals rising up to fight against an unjust society have so much potential to go wrong. Look at Taxi Driver, one of my all-time favourite films, and a big influence on Joker. It works because of its context. It looks at the dehumanising effects of war on an already deeply disturbed man who comes back to a city that turns its back on him. It works because it places itself in the context of the Vietnam war, and because it never asks the audience to sympathize with Travis too much one way or the other. It never claims to have all of the answers, and never suggests that anything that's happening is necessarily right, just that it IS happening. It's also not overly edgy, not hollowly so anyway. I mention it because not only is it the absolute best incarnation of this kind of story, but it also nails the thing that Joker is going for
Before I discuss that though, I want to clarify something: by and large, I liked this film. Did I love it? No, because it does have some issues that I can't really get around, but overall, I thought it was good, something that I wanted to get out of the way now before I dive into some of this film's problems. So what's good here? Well, Joaquin Phoenix. His Arthur Fleck is unlike any other portrayal of this character. It's a bold rejection of the idea that this character doesn't have a defined origin, and as someone who actually likes when adaptations deviate a little, I think that was a good choice. Phoenix sells Arthur's slide from persecuted clown to totally corrupted.... clown, and the way that he nails the meekness and the descent is a solid reminder that he is one of the best actors of his generation. Is this his best performance? No, but that speaks to the strength of the rest of his filmography more than anything else. Everything that comes from him in this film is great, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute, but for now, I think that the Oscar buzz is definitely earned, because it is an amazing performance, the perfect mainstream vessel for Phoenix's intensity. As for de Niro, he brings a lot of weight to a key supporting role that knowingly flips the dynamic from The King of Comedy. He's the Langford to Phoenix's Pupkin, and seeing him on the other side is an absolute thrill, one that yields some very rich rewards in the home stretch. Frances Conroy actually brings a fair amount to Arthur's mother as well, even if she is more of a plot device than anything. In Conroy's hands, she at least feels human, and is a relatively likeable character in this sea of amorality. And Zazie Beetz is... completely wasted as a character who kind of feels like an afterthought, but hey, Zazie Beetz! The cruel, uncaring atmosphere is certainly an effective one, and Philips' gritty approach is definitely a good decision. The world of Joker is quite unlike any other take on Gotham, mirroring the likes of Watchmen and Sin City for comic book grime. These are the things that Joker does well, crafting this really unpleasant world and filling it with wonderful turns from capable actors. The problems come in the content....
Look, I'm not going to blame this film for spreading violence, because that was an entirely media-constructed piece of fear mongering. Joker will not turn you violent, just like Fight Club, Taxi Driver and Falling Down didn't turn you violent. The idea that it would is absolutely ridiculous, as it always is. But even then, the observations that Joker makes about society are just that: observations. Todd Philips is so intent on showing you society, on displaying how awful and uncaring the world is. He's so determined to say something that he ends up saying very little. Every social comment that Joker makes is so base level, just showing what's happening and never exploring its implications, instead just saying "society, amiright?". And most of the time, no, you're not. I said it a moment ago, but these stories of the people society leaves behind rising up and enacting their version of justice have so much potential to go wrong, and although Joker doesn't make a complete mess of it, it's not as insightful as it likes to think it is. No spoilers, but I think it's biggest mistake is making Arthur's story overlap with the social upheaval in Gotham, leading to an ending that's definitely saying....something? What he's doing is wrong, but what they're doing is right, and that climaxes in a way that's not quite clear. Is it a descent or a revolution? Villainy or justice? Honestly, I don't quite know, and I'm not sure the film does either. I don't know if this is the right character to do this kind of social commentary with, because he doesn't quite work as the face of the social revolution in Gotham. I'm not saying this as some enraged fanboy who's hurt because they're going against the comics, because, in an adaptation, I care more about the actual film that comes out of those changes rather than the changes themselves, and on that level, I'm not sure it works. The relatively random context means that Arthur's status as the face of this movement never feels earned. I said that everything that comes from Phoenix is great, because he's the thing that fuels everything good about this take on the character. The script is serviceable, if a little on the nose, but the story beats and commentary don't really lend this character anything particularly good or interesting, instead relying on Phoenix's incredible turn to ensure our investment in him, which, thankfully, he does with aplomb.
I don't want this to turn into a petty comparison between a comic book film and Scorsese, especially not with the current discourse, but when I think of everything that Taxi Driver did well, it's all stuff that's largely absent from Joker. From the start, it asks us to sympathise with Arthur, which is fine. That's not an issue, and it's not something that I have any real problems with. The problem comes when we have to accept that what he's doing is right, or at the very least not wrong. What Gotham's upper classes are doing is wrong, so everything done in defiance of their prejudice must be right? Philips seems to be claiming to have answers, to know the root of these issues and their subsequent solutions, but instead of the rallying cry for the disillusioned citizens that it's clearly trying to be, it instead becomes a confused primal scream that's desperately seeking some sort of catharsis. And it definitely achieves it, but at the cost of the poignancy and sharpness that these stories possess at their best. The "we live in a society" stories have a clear moral compass. Travis Bickle commits acts of social violence. Tyler Durden was a terrorist. We know what they're doing is wrong, even when they think that they're right, and, as an audience, we're never asked to think any other way. I'm not worried about moral corruption or anything, but I do think that understanding that what these characters are doing isn't right is necessary. It's not just, but it is happening. Joker doesn't do that, and always justifies what's happening onscreen, which is where it stumbles big time. It's not going to cause any violence but it does fail as a criticism of society because that criticism is hollow. It asks us to identify with this movement, and at the apex, makes a really passionately argued point that.... something is.... happening to the people because.....society is doing.... something, and the upper classes are bad because.... society. It's all the right pieces in all the wrong places; the right method but lacking any meaningful observation. If you were to ask this film questions, it'd answer all of them with "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!". And I swore that I wouldn't rant....
So, Joker is.… well it's definitely a film. The discourse on this one has been deafening, and I've been really struggling with writing this review because I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. It's proving to be so divisive, prompting these really strong reactions from people. I definitely didn't love it, in case you couldn't tell from those last two paragraphs. I won't go in depth about the society stuff again, but I do think that it's the film's greatest shortcoming, which is a shame, because it's right at the forefront. So no, I'm not in the camp of thesaurus wielders that hold this film up as a masterpiece and one of the best of 2019. That said, I definitely didn't hate it either. Phoenix absolutely owns here, and again reminds me why I love him so much. And for a mainstream blockbuster, it definitely feels atypical in its approach and style. As for the Scorsese-borrowing, if you're going to take inspiration from anyone, there are definitely worse choices than the king. Is it disappointing that my reaction to this deliberately provocative film isn't especially either way? Maybe, but I still liked it. I'm still in the camp of people who say it's a good movie, even if I wouldn't call it anything better than that. As I said, whatever happens, this is the film of 2019, the one that broke through and got everyone talking, and as a cultural event, it's definitely made an impression. That impression wasn't an especially strong one on me, but hey, who am I but another critic on the internet? If you love Joker, awesome! It's always awesome to find something you think is great. If you hate Joker, well that's cool too! It's definitely got some irredeemable issues, and it's 100% understandable if you thought it was awful. Me? Well, I think it's fine, nothing more, nothing less..... and that's kind of all I have to say about that
I guess I should set the scene, even though you've probably seen it from the (pretty ace) trailer. Arthur Fleck is a clown in Gotham in the early 80s who's not having the best time. He's a struggling stand-up, his mental state is fragile, he cares for his ailing mother, and he suffers from a condition that causes uncontrollable laughter in difficult situations. It doesn't help that the city he's living in is kind of going to shit. Social unrest, class division and super rats are just a few of the things plaguing the Gotham of this film. One day, however, Arthur has an encounter which.... changes things, for him and Gotham. To say anything else would be a spoiler, so I'll leave it there. I think, in general, the "we live in a SOCIETY" plot is a tricky one to get right. It's a very specific type of social commentary that can be done very wrong, and I think it's all about time, place and execution. I'll talk about the (absolutely ridiculous) buzz around this film's violence later, but one thing that I think is true is that stories about dispossessed individuals rising up to fight against an unjust society have so much potential to go wrong. Look at Taxi Driver, one of my all-time favourite films, and a big influence on Joker. It works because of its context. It looks at the dehumanising effects of war on an already deeply disturbed man who comes back to a city that turns its back on him. It works because it places itself in the context of the Vietnam war, and because it never asks the audience to sympathize with Travis too much one way or the other. It never claims to have all of the answers, and never suggests that anything that's happening is necessarily right, just that it IS happening. It's also not overly edgy, not hollowly so anyway. I mention it because not only is it the absolute best incarnation of this kind of story, but it also nails the thing that Joker is going for
Before I discuss that though, I want to clarify something: by and large, I liked this film. Did I love it? No, because it does have some issues that I can't really get around, but overall, I thought it was good, something that I wanted to get out of the way now before I dive into some of this film's problems. So what's good here? Well, Joaquin Phoenix. His Arthur Fleck is unlike any other portrayal of this character. It's a bold rejection of the idea that this character doesn't have a defined origin, and as someone who actually likes when adaptations deviate a little, I think that was a good choice. Phoenix sells Arthur's slide from persecuted clown to totally corrupted.... clown, and the way that he nails the meekness and the descent is a solid reminder that he is one of the best actors of his generation. Is this his best performance? No, but that speaks to the strength of the rest of his filmography more than anything else. Everything that comes from him in this film is great, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute, but for now, I think that the Oscar buzz is definitely earned, because it is an amazing performance, the perfect mainstream vessel for Phoenix's intensity. As for de Niro, he brings a lot of weight to a key supporting role that knowingly flips the dynamic from The King of Comedy. He's the Langford to Phoenix's Pupkin, and seeing him on the other side is an absolute thrill, one that yields some very rich rewards in the home stretch. Frances Conroy actually brings a fair amount to Arthur's mother as well, even if she is more of a plot device than anything. In Conroy's hands, she at least feels human, and is a relatively likeable character in this sea of amorality. And Zazie Beetz is... completely wasted as a character who kind of feels like an afterthought, but hey, Zazie Beetz! The cruel, uncaring atmosphere is certainly an effective one, and Philips' gritty approach is definitely a good decision. The world of Joker is quite unlike any other take on Gotham, mirroring the likes of Watchmen and Sin City for comic book grime. These are the things that Joker does well, crafting this really unpleasant world and filling it with wonderful turns from capable actors. The problems come in the content....
Look, I'm not going to blame this film for spreading violence, because that was an entirely media-constructed piece of fear mongering. Joker will not turn you violent, just like Fight Club, Taxi Driver and Falling Down didn't turn you violent. The idea that it would is absolutely ridiculous, as it always is. But even then, the observations that Joker makes about society are just that: observations. Todd Philips is so intent on showing you society, on displaying how awful and uncaring the world is. He's so determined to say something that he ends up saying very little. Every social comment that Joker makes is so base level, just showing what's happening and never exploring its implications, instead just saying "society, amiright?". And most of the time, no, you're not. I said it a moment ago, but these stories of the people society leaves behind rising up and enacting their version of justice have so much potential to go wrong, and although Joker doesn't make a complete mess of it, it's not as insightful as it likes to think it is. No spoilers, but I think it's biggest mistake is making Arthur's story overlap with the social upheaval in Gotham, leading to an ending that's definitely saying....something? What he's doing is wrong, but what they're doing is right, and that climaxes in a way that's not quite clear. Is it a descent or a revolution? Villainy or justice? Honestly, I don't quite know, and I'm not sure the film does either. I don't know if this is the right character to do this kind of social commentary with, because he doesn't quite work as the face of the social revolution in Gotham. I'm not saying this as some enraged fanboy who's hurt because they're going against the comics, because, in an adaptation, I care more about the actual film that comes out of those changes rather than the changes themselves, and on that level, I'm not sure it works. The relatively random context means that Arthur's status as the face of this movement never feels earned. I said that everything that comes from Phoenix is great, because he's the thing that fuels everything good about this take on the character. The script is serviceable, if a little on the nose, but the story beats and commentary don't really lend this character anything particularly good or interesting, instead relying on Phoenix's incredible turn to ensure our investment in him, which, thankfully, he does with aplomb.
I don't want this to turn into a petty comparison between a comic book film and Scorsese, especially not with the current discourse, but when I think of everything that Taxi Driver did well, it's all stuff that's largely absent from Joker. From the start, it asks us to sympathise with Arthur, which is fine. That's not an issue, and it's not something that I have any real problems with. The problem comes when we have to accept that what he's doing is right, or at the very least not wrong. What Gotham's upper classes are doing is wrong, so everything done in defiance of their prejudice must be right? Philips seems to be claiming to have answers, to know the root of these issues and their subsequent solutions, but instead of the rallying cry for the disillusioned citizens that it's clearly trying to be, it instead becomes a confused primal scream that's desperately seeking some sort of catharsis. And it definitely achieves it, but at the cost of the poignancy and sharpness that these stories possess at their best. The "we live in a society" stories have a clear moral compass. Travis Bickle commits acts of social violence. Tyler Durden was a terrorist. We know what they're doing is wrong, even when they think that they're right, and, as an audience, we're never asked to think any other way. I'm not worried about moral corruption or anything, but I do think that understanding that what these characters are doing isn't right is necessary. It's not just, but it is happening. Joker doesn't do that, and always justifies what's happening onscreen, which is where it stumbles big time. It's not going to cause any violence but it does fail as a criticism of society because that criticism is hollow. It asks us to identify with this movement, and at the apex, makes a really passionately argued point that.... something is.... happening to the people because.....society is doing.... something, and the upper classes are bad because.... society. It's all the right pieces in all the wrong places; the right method but lacking any meaningful observation. If you were to ask this film questions, it'd answer all of them with "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!". And I swore that I wouldn't rant....
So, Joker is.… well it's definitely a film. The discourse on this one has been deafening, and I've been really struggling with writing this review because I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. It's proving to be so divisive, prompting these really strong reactions from people. I definitely didn't love it, in case you couldn't tell from those last two paragraphs. I won't go in depth about the society stuff again, but I do think that it's the film's greatest shortcoming, which is a shame, because it's right at the forefront. So no, I'm not in the camp of thesaurus wielders that hold this film up as a masterpiece and one of the best of 2019. That said, I definitely didn't hate it either. Phoenix absolutely owns here, and again reminds me why I love him so much. And for a mainstream blockbuster, it definitely feels atypical in its approach and style. As for the Scorsese-borrowing, if you're going to take inspiration from anyone, there are definitely worse choices than the king. Is it disappointing that my reaction to this deliberately provocative film isn't especially either way? Maybe, but I still liked it. I'm still in the camp of people who say it's a good movie, even if I wouldn't call it anything better than that. As I said, whatever happens, this is the film of 2019, the one that broke through and got everyone talking, and as a cultural event, it's definitely made an impression. That impression wasn't an especially strong one on me, but hey, who am I but another critic on the internet? If you love Joker, awesome! It's always awesome to find something you think is great. If you hate Joker, well that's cool too! It's definitely got some irredeemable issues, and it's 100% understandable if you thought it was awful. Me? Well, I think it's fine, nothing more, nothing less..... and that's kind of all I have to say about that
Thursday, 3 October 2019
My Thoughts on Husters
Every so often you get something wrong. When the trailer for Hustlers came out in the Summer, I scoffed. A J-Lo led film about thieving strippers with supporting performances from Cardi B and Betty from Riverdale? Sounds pretty naff. Turns out, I was very, very wrong. Hustlers is many things, but naff certainly isn't one of them, and the fact that it's so good is a fairly effective reminder not to judge things too quickly. So yeah, this is a good movie, based on an article about a group of strippers that, following the financial crash of 2008, took to scamming their wealthy clientele. I wasn't familiar with this story before I saw this film, so going into it, I didn't really know what to expect. Combine that with my lack of enthusiasm, and you've got a reminder that I am a very silly goose. Scoundrel of the Screen? More like Silly Person of.... of the Sc-screen *coughs*. It's clear that we're in good hands from the start, when the film opens with this incredible long shot that goes right through the club, introducing us to Constance Wu's Destiny. I never really got the chance to say it when it came out, but I absolutely loved Crazy Rich Asians, and I'm so happy to see Wu doing so well, because she's a really special screen presence, and this movie really gives her the chance to wow. A movie like this kind of lives and dies with its lead, and there's something about Destiny that makes you want to follow this absolutely bonkers-but-true story. She gives it this weight and humanity that transforms what could have been superficial and shallow into something so incredibly good
It's not just Constance Wu who's awesome here, though. I mean sure, Destiny is undeniably the lead character, and she gives a performance that's absolutely brimming with heart and humour, but there's another performance in this movie that just makes it special. Take a bow, Jennifer Lopez. I mean look, it's not that J-Lo is bad or anything, far from it, but I don't think it's unfair to say that her track record has been.... pretty spotty. But it's clear from the second she enters the frame that she owns Hustlers. Destiny's the lead, but Ramona's the focus, a character who, even when she isn't onscreen, is at the centre of everything that's happening. This is the best I think I've ever seen J-Lo. She's such a commanding presence, so full of love and compassion while also being cunning, tough, and when she has to be, absolutely ruthless. You believe that she's at the centre of this unlikely criminal empire, and the fact that she takes this character who could have been one-dimensional and kind of boring and turns her into a real-feeling, occasionally unlikeable, yet utterly compelling kingpin (queenpin?) who just absolutely dominates the whole film. Get this woman an Oscar!
The rest of the cast are fine? They're not bad or anything, but they're also not the focus, so it kind of doesn't matter. They work well enough, but the film really does revolve around Constance Wu and J-Lo. Everyone else is just kind of there, good enough to keep everything running smoothly, and never bad enough to be especially noticeable, with one distinct exception. Cardi B is absolutely awful in this. I don't listen to her music, but at least I kind of get the appeal. But she cannot act. At. All. Oh my god she's atrocious. Look, it's a minor issue, because her total screentime is probably less than 5 minutes, but any time she is on screen, she's just so annoying, and yeah, kind of distracting. Again, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really matter, because she's a peripheral character, and she kind of stops being in it around the 30 minute mark, but can we agree that casting someone who really, really can't act just wasn't a good idea?
Back to the good stuff, though, this film is so good at balancing a fun, snappy narrative with some weighty social commentary that feels so relevant to the times we're living in (I guess it was only 6 years ago). We'll start with the fun stuff, and by god is this movie a good time. When it gets going, it's gleefully sharp. It reminds me of something like Boogie Nights in the way that it feels like a rollercoaster ride, full of twists and turns, tonal shifts and narrative bends that are just so much fun. The movie balances it's tense thrills with giddy, sharply scripted laughs, and the result is a seriously good time. It has this knack of going from being surprisingly suspenseful to absolutely hilarious, while all the while being an absolute celebration of stealing from the people who deserve to be stolen from. It pulls no punches in its thrills or in its laughs, and this approach is definitely a smart one, giving Hustlers an unmistakable panache. This is a really stylish movie, and that can be seen in the soundtrack. The music would probably play in a strip club. The use of Lorde's Royals to score an "Everything's Going To Shit ™" montage is a particularly good move, and Hustlers is full of these kinds of flourishes
The sheer fun in this movie also enhances the surprisingly solid commentary that it delivers in its home stretch. The idea that "the world is a strip club" is one that's at the heart of Hustlers. In this movie, everyone is taking something from someone else, and that survival driven narrative gives this film a serious edge. True, they're drugging people and robbing them blind, but only because they need the money. The film never asks us to root for these women, but it does make sure that we understand why they're doing this. They're just people trying to get by, trying to stay afloat and make sure that their families are being looked after. That doesn't justify what they do, but that very blunt approach to a very blunt idea gives this commentary so much more power. Yeah, the movie is a lot of fun, but it's not afraid to sting when it needs to, because there's so much pain at the heart of this story. This is a film where people hurt the people who hurt them, and the cycle of pain is what makes Hustlers work as well as it does. The marriage of stylish fun and visceral ideas could have been disastrous, but thankfully, one never distracts from the other, and that fusion is definitely one of Hustlers' greatest strengths.
Really quick, ultra-specific anecdote though. When J-Lo talks about "hurt people hurting hurt people", all I could think of was Dave McSavage's impression of Joe Duffy, something that probably makes zero sense outside of Ireland. Basically, it's a pisstake of a real-life radio host who urges people to come onto his show and complain, and was done on a sketch show called The Savage Eye, one of the best pieces of satire about Irish life ever written. Needless to say, any chance I had of taking that line seriously was kind of demolished by that, because all I could think is how "the hurt do be hurting the hurted". Do check out The Savage Eye though, because it's kind of genius
Back to Hustlers though, because this film is an unexpected delight. True, not all of it works (the ending is too neat, and that Usher scene was.... a choice), but it could hardly be accused of playing it safe. This is fierce, ballsy cinema, quick enough and vicious enough to overcome any stumbles. So yeah, I was kind of an idiot for judging it before I saw it, because damn does it deliver. Hustlers is awesome, plain and simple.
It's not just Constance Wu who's awesome here, though. I mean sure, Destiny is undeniably the lead character, and she gives a performance that's absolutely brimming with heart and humour, but there's another performance in this movie that just makes it special. Take a bow, Jennifer Lopez. I mean look, it's not that J-Lo is bad or anything, far from it, but I don't think it's unfair to say that her track record has been.... pretty spotty. But it's clear from the second she enters the frame that she owns Hustlers. Destiny's the lead, but Ramona's the focus, a character who, even when she isn't onscreen, is at the centre of everything that's happening. This is the best I think I've ever seen J-Lo. She's such a commanding presence, so full of love and compassion while also being cunning, tough, and when she has to be, absolutely ruthless. You believe that she's at the centre of this unlikely criminal empire, and the fact that she takes this character who could have been one-dimensional and kind of boring and turns her into a real-feeling, occasionally unlikeable, yet utterly compelling kingpin (queenpin?) who just absolutely dominates the whole film. Get this woman an Oscar!
The rest of the cast are fine? They're not bad or anything, but they're also not the focus, so it kind of doesn't matter. They work well enough, but the film really does revolve around Constance Wu and J-Lo. Everyone else is just kind of there, good enough to keep everything running smoothly, and never bad enough to be especially noticeable, with one distinct exception. Cardi B is absolutely awful in this. I don't listen to her music, but at least I kind of get the appeal. But she cannot act. At. All. Oh my god she's atrocious. Look, it's a minor issue, because her total screentime is probably less than 5 minutes, but any time she is on screen, she's just so annoying, and yeah, kind of distracting. Again, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really matter, because she's a peripheral character, and she kind of stops being in it around the 30 minute mark, but can we agree that casting someone who really, really can't act just wasn't a good idea?
Back to the good stuff, though, this film is so good at balancing a fun, snappy narrative with some weighty social commentary that feels so relevant to the times we're living in (I guess it was only 6 years ago). We'll start with the fun stuff, and by god is this movie a good time. When it gets going, it's gleefully sharp. It reminds me of something like Boogie Nights in the way that it feels like a rollercoaster ride, full of twists and turns, tonal shifts and narrative bends that are just so much fun. The movie balances it's tense thrills with giddy, sharply scripted laughs, and the result is a seriously good time. It has this knack of going from being surprisingly suspenseful to absolutely hilarious, while all the while being an absolute celebration of stealing from the people who deserve to be stolen from. It pulls no punches in its thrills or in its laughs, and this approach is definitely a smart one, giving Hustlers an unmistakable panache. This is a really stylish movie, and that can be seen in the soundtrack. The music would probably play in a strip club. The use of Lorde's Royals to score an "Everything's Going To Shit ™" montage is a particularly good move, and Hustlers is full of these kinds of flourishes
The sheer fun in this movie also enhances the surprisingly solid commentary that it delivers in its home stretch. The idea that "the world is a strip club" is one that's at the heart of Hustlers. In this movie, everyone is taking something from someone else, and that survival driven narrative gives this film a serious edge. True, they're drugging people and robbing them blind, but only because they need the money. The film never asks us to root for these women, but it does make sure that we understand why they're doing this. They're just people trying to get by, trying to stay afloat and make sure that their families are being looked after. That doesn't justify what they do, but that very blunt approach to a very blunt idea gives this commentary so much more power. Yeah, the movie is a lot of fun, but it's not afraid to sting when it needs to, because there's so much pain at the heart of this story. This is a film where people hurt the people who hurt them, and the cycle of pain is what makes Hustlers work as well as it does. The marriage of stylish fun and visceral ideas could have been disastrous, but thankfully, one never distracts from the other, and that fusion is definitely one of Hustlers' greatest strengths.
Really quick, ultra-specific anecdote though. When J-Lo talks about "hurt people hurting hurt people", all I could think of was Dave McSavage's impression of Joe Duffy, something that probably makes zero sense outside of Ireland. Basically, it's a pisstake of a real-life radio host who urges people to come onto his show and complain, and was done on a sketch show called The Savage Eye, one of the best pieces of satire about Irish life ever written. Needless to say, any chance I had of taking that line seriously was kind of demolished by that, because all I could think is how "the hurt do be hurting the hurted". Do check out The Savage Eye though, because it's kind of genius
Back to Hustlers though, because this film is an unexpected delight. True, not all of it works (the ending is too neat, and that Usher scene was.... a choice), but it could hardly be accused of playing it safe. This is fierce, ballsy cinema, quick enough and vicious enough to overcome any stumbles. So yeah, I was kind of an idiot for judging it before I saw it, because damn does it deliver. Hustlers is awesome, plain and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)