Tomorrowland: A world Beyond (2015)

From the director of Ghost Protocol and The Incredibles comes a film which celebrates the fact that the future will depend on dreamers, inventors, artists; generally creative types.  And I think that this should be applauded.  However, for a film about the future and its endless possibilities, Tomorrowland shows a distinct lack of imagination.  OK, so the future looks kinda cool, at least for the dozen people that seem to live there, but the execution of the film was just boring.

Gravity (2013)

Sci fi is always most effective when it says something about the human condition.  Whether it’s fear of new powerful technology (2001: A Space Odyssey; 1968, and Westworld; 1973), environmental concerns (Silent Running; 1972), or the fear of male rape (Alien; 1979).  In the case of Gravity, the themes explored are of human fortitude in extreme isolation, and how terrible circumstances can be overcome.  These are by no means unheard of situations as told in the true stories of Aron Ralston trapped alone in a Utah canyon in 127 hours (2010); Joe Simpson left for dead on a mountain in Patagonia (Touching the Void; 2003) or the Antarctic expedition of Ernest Shackleton as portrayed by Kenneth Branagh in the TV movie Shackleton (2002).  The fact that we can relate to Dr Ryan's predicament (less mainstream than hiking in the desert or climbing a mountain) I think is a testament to writer/director Alfonso Cuarón.

Of course the most striking aspect of the film are the visuals, and they are simply stunning.  The first shot, the one that lasts 20 minutes, is simply phenomenal.  There are some tremendous continuous scenes in Children of Men (2007), and also some clever camera work in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), but in Gravity, Cuarón’s vision is out of this world.  These extremely long takes I think really help the story.  In that first shot, Alfonso gives us the backdrop, introduces the principle characters, gives us the background to a potential problem, and then bang!  It happens, and we are spinning off into space.  The fact that it's all one shot, apart from being amazing, makes us feel like the director is holding our hand and guiding us slowly through an environment with which we are not completely familiar.  I think this makes the film far more accessible and coherent than it would if there were lots of fast edits; Gravity is far more elegant.

Needless to say Clooney is great, his suave persona is perfect for Matt Kowalski, the astronaut who stays calm and initially takes control of the situation.  Arguably one of the best achievements of Gravity is the discovery that Sandra Bullock can carry a film almost by herself.  Dr Ryan Stone is almost the opposite of Kowalski, nervous, initially unsure of anything outside her comfort zone and sometimes has trouble keeping her food down on a spacewalk.  We can all relate to this, and Bullock epitomises this unease brilliantly.  She slowly realises that she is capable of taking control of her situation, and while she isn’t ballsy like Ellen Ripley, she is determined enough to do what she has to.  I don’t claim to know all of Bullock’s roles, but I don’t think that she often gets to do anything this intense; except for perhaps Crash (2004), so I was very impressed with her here.

Gravity is proper edge of the seat stuff, there are few films that engross the viewer as much as this.  Certainly part of this success is due to the sound design and score.  Having helped edit music alongside Hans Zimmer for Batman Begins and Howard Shore for The Two Towers and Return of the King, we can assume that composer Steven Price knows a thing or two about film scores.  For Gravity, Price has demonstrated restraint, in the knowledge that less is more.  In the quiet moments in space, his music has an almost ethereal quality, full of wonder, reminiscent of James Horner’s score for Avatar.  As the action builds up so does the music, almost as a distorted heartbeat echoing that of Ryan, until rather than reaching a crescendo, the music drifts off into space again.

Ultimately, this story of human resolve and fortitude has a happy ending, as perhaps the more memorable stories often do.  Ryan has been through a terrible ordeal and comes out the other side with a new outlook on life.  Sandra Bullock is very good at conveying all these emotions; coupled with an amazing vision from Alfonso Cuarón and incredible, flawless special effects; Gravity is one of those films whose impact remains long after leaving the movie theatre. But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Ides of March (2011)

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is a crucial and very pro-active member of staff on the election campaign for democrat candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney) currently trying to win the Ohio Primary. Along with campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Stephen is a direct confident of Mike and has a very idealistic view of politics. However, when Stephen is approached by the Republican campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), and at the same time starts a relationship with an intern in his own staff, his ideology is ultimately brought into question, and his career is drastically altered.

For a mainstream political intrigue, the film works well; a detailed knowledge of the United States political system is not required, and I don’t think that repeated viewings would explain anything I didn’t get in one viewing. This is a strength of the film, but perhaps also its weakness. I enjoyed the film, I thought that it was well paced, beautifully shot, had a great script and a fantastic cast. It’s just that it could have been a lot better, I felt that there was something missing that would have made it a great film. I’m not even sure what I think was missing, some of the skeletons that come out of the closet along the way are fairly shocking, I just felt a trick was being missed.

But anyway, The Ides of March is very enjoyable; Clooney demonstrates that as a director he is as smooth as he is an actor; he doesn’t spoon feed everything to us, yet we know exactly what's going on (I’m thinking of a scene where Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character receives devastating news in the back of a car. We don’t see it though: he gets in the back of the car and the camera just films outside the front of the car in an alleyway for 60 seconds before PSH gets out). There are also a couple of key scenes between two characters which are shot in such a way that half of their face is in darkness; is George trying to highlight the two-faced nature of politicians?

I’ve already mentioned it, but the cast is excellent. Clooney is as smooth as ever, but the film really belongs to Ryan Gosling and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Ryan is smooth (not as much as Clooney though), very sure of what he wants and how to go about getting it, but then is also very good when everything he stands for is called into question. PSH is completely excellent, always in charge of every scene he’s in, and Paul Giamatti is very good as the minor antagonist of the film. Jeffrey Wright is cool and calm in his minor role as Senator Thompson, though strangely reminded me of Lando Calrissian!

A very enjoyable political drama, well written, superbly acted, quite close to being a great film, just not quite for some reason I can’t put my finger on. I would still highly recommend it though.

   
       (not in the film, but I can't get the tune out of my head!)

Fantastic Mr Fox (2009)

Mr Fox is tired of living in a hole, so he buys a lovely beech tree in the country for himself and his family to live in. Years ago when Mr and Mrs Fox found out that they were expecting a cub, they both swore to stay away from trouble and never steal chickens again. However, old habits die hard, and Mr Fox hatches a plan to steal chickens from the three major farms in the area: Bean’s, Boggis’, and Bunce’s farms. However, not all goes to plan, Mr Fox is rumbled and the farmers give chase, destroying their tree-home along the way and generally chasing the Fox family and many other woodland creatures around. They tunnel and tunnel and tunnel, and eventually surface from the sewers into a supermarket (yes there is a man-hole cover in the supermarket! Eh?). The creatures all celebrate that they have found such a paradise of food. The end.

Now, I’ve never read Fantastic Mr Fox (one of the few Roald Dahl books that I haven’t) so I have no idea how the film compares with the novel; though I do suspect that it deviates quite a bit. The animation is really cool; it is essentially stop motion, but it is done very well. I really loved the twitchy whiskers, and there’s a great scrap between Mr Fox and Rat that is almost strobe-effect, with lots of electrocutions! The voice cast is also very accomplished; Mr Fox: George Clooney; Mrs Fox: Meryl Streep; Badger: Bill Murray; Rat: Willem Dafoe; and the farmer Franklin Bean: Michael Gambon.

The trouble is that the film doesn’t know what it’s trying to be. Most of the main characters are American, but naturally the farmers (the villains of the story) are British. There are lots of American influences (baseball game - called Wackbat! -, one of the main characters is an opossum another a beaver); but there is also a definite Britishness to it  (Red post box, pub called the Nag’s Head, English countryside). The overall effect was a bit disorientating I thought. Especially with the overuse of “cuss” whenever a character was meant to be swearing! At one point I’m sure someone says “that was a total cluster-cuss!” or something similar. Come on, this is a kids film! Like I say, I haven’t read the book, but I’m sure Roald Dahl did not write an Americans vs British novel with lots of cussing in it; and quick search of the DVD on Amazon seems to confirm this.

I was really hoping to enjoy this; a friend had seen it at the cinema with his 5-year old son, and had said that they had enjoyed it. Perhaps it is better when seen through a child’s eyes and their enthusiasm rubs off on you. My overall impression: Meh.