Chappie

Chappie is the new film from Neill Blomkamp, director of District 9 and Elysium. In 2009 Blomkamp exploded on to the scene with a signature style and has employed many of the same techniques and themes since.
Firstly Blomkamps films look incredible! The design of everything is so clearly considered and the visual effects are exquisite! The atmosphere he generates is often clinical tech meets grungy ghetto - a dynamic visual aesthetic which draws parallels with the inequality in his stories.
Steeped in technology and science fiction, Blomkamps films often display contemporary parables such as environmental and political concerns. With District 9 Blomkamp and co-writer Terri Tatchell (Blomkamps wife) nailed this tantalising mix of visuals and commentary. Elysium came close, but fell short - offering a sentimental, but ultimately devastating answer to an over-populated planet, whose inhabitants could be cured of all disease?! Regardless, a disappointing Blomkamp film will always be an interesting and dynamic vision.

With Chappie, Blomkamp has returned to his home-town of Johannesburg - the setting for District 9. He has also employed the talents of his former writing partner (Tatchell) to bring some joy to proceedings - something missing from the more serious Elysium, which Blomkamp tackled alone.

The police of Johannesburg are overwhelmed with crime. In an effort to protect the people and the police, robots (named Scouts) have been developed by leading manufacturers, Tetra Vaal - designed by chief engineer, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel).
Scout #22 is emobilised in a Police altercation and is consequently decommissioned. Not content with merely programming robots to do a humans biding, Deon is close to developing an artificial intelligence. Using the now defunct scout #22 as his guinea pig, Deon sets about uploading a newly conceived consciousness.
Meanwhile gang in-fighting has cost Ninja and Yolandi a debt of 20 million (rand). Their plan is to use a police scout to help them "raise" the money they need with a planned robbery.
Enter Chappie - Deons experiment and Ninja and Yolandis answer to a life-threatening debt.

Chappie has come in for heavy criticism for being derivative of other robot and AI films. Yes the opening salvo of a crime-ridden city and an overburdened police force is reminiscent of Robocop. But then the metamorphosis of man to alien in District 9 was reminiscent of Cronenbergs The Fly. This kind of criticism serves little to no purpose when you consider most stories have already been told. In this day and age, it's how one spins a yarn, both technically and emotionally.

Chappie does both very well! Once again the film looks breathtaking! Joining Dev Patel is Hugh Jackman, as competing design engineer Vincent Moore and Sigourney Weaver, as Michelle Bradley - the pairs boss and CEO of Tetra Vaal. In reality Ninja and Yolandi are Johannesburg musical legends, Die Antwoord. Here they play criminalised versions of themselves - and Chappies newly adoptive parents (how's that for originality)!
And in a motion-capture performance to rival Serkis and co is the great Sharlto Copley as Chappie - Blomkamps lucky charm! Sharlto is magnificent and hilarious! His performance is child-like, but subtly adaptive - as Chappie learns at an increasingly fast rate. Just as he did in District 9, Copley totally convinces as Chappie, owning every line of dialogue (instantly quotable I might add)!

Despite similarities to other films, Chappie looks at advancement and new frontiers in technology. With consciousness comes a barrage of questions, not least is ones own mortality. Blomkamp looks at man and creator parables this time - using Chappie to ask questions which are foremost on our minds. Wisely the human factor has not been forgotten in Blomkamps imminent future. There is potential for conscious over-load down the line and more uneasy questions to an over-populated planet.
Until such a follow-up arrives, there is much to enjoy with Chappie. Not least is a loveable central character, engaging story and visuals to stimulate the senses long after the credits have rolled.

4/5


Poster image courtesy: http://www.film.ru

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Kingsman: The Secret Service is brought to us by the same team behind Kick-Ass. Just as Kick-Ass was conceived by comic-book writer Mark Millar, so too was The Secret Service.
Having established a good working relationship with Kick-Ass, Matthew Vaughn was on-board early with The Secret Service, acting as co-plotter on the comic-book series.
Comic books are being mined left and right within the film industry. With The Secret Service, it was a parallel process of comic series and film adaptation being brought simultaneously to life. The result (for all those who have read the series) is a looser adaptation than the aforementioned Kick-Ass (a series which had already completed it's first arc).
The plot and major beats of the comic-book are intact, however many details have been altered. From a creative perspective it's fascinating to discover what's been retained and what's been jettisoned.

Like Kick-Ass, Kingsman is to spy films what Kick-Ass was to super-hero films. An edgy take on the sub-genre, which takes place in reality (or a very close approximation). Nods to previous entries to the genre are peppered throughout, with both protagonist and antagonist playing to and against expectation (Millars calling card).
Despite being the original co-plotter, one imagines many of the alterations came from Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman. Vaughn is a self-proclaimed Bond aficionado. Like many a Bond film, Kingsman features; a larger than life villain (complete with hidden base);colourful henchmen; women in peril; and gadgets a plenty. And in Colin Firth, Vaughn has found a terrific Bond parable!

Kingsman is no spoof however. Very much it's own entity, Kingsman pays homage to it's inspiration - a far more respectful approach than sending up the genre completely. The devilish plot from entrepreneur and chief villain Valentine for example, is chillingly poignant. This viable threat was present in the comic-book also, emphasising what fans already know. More than just sugary super-hero fare, comic-books are a significant art-form, spreading (among other things) political and cultural concerns!

Colin Firths character, Galahad is mentor to Eggsy (Taron Egerton), the son of Galahads previous protege. Eggsy has grown up amongst the council tenements of London, living off welfare and committing petty crimes with his direction-less friends. A Kingsman replacement is needed just as Eggsy is charged with grand theft auto. A tradition of the Kingsman is to pull potential recruits into the fold. Seeing great potential in him, Galahad volunteers Eggsy - absolving him of his crimes and bringing him to task, alongside a handful of young upstarts.
Eggsy is our window into the world of the Kingsman, as he and the other recruits are put through their paces until a clear winner emerges.

Kingsman: The Secret Service is great fun! It wears it's references on it's sleeve and subtly becomes the film it so clearly adores (in much the same way Spike Jonzes Adaptation did).
A formidable partnership has emerged with Kingsman (and Kick-Ass before it). Millar and Vaughn are populists making entertainment for themselves fundamentally. This skewed reality of theirs takes no prisoners. Some may argue that it's gratuitous or even crass. In this age of great power and great responsibility however, Millar and Vaughn respect their audience enough to take responsibility for themselves!

4/5


Poster image courtesy: http://theilliteratereader.com

Birdman

Birdman triumphed at the Oscars this year, winning best film and best director. My vote for best film would've been American Sniper, but Birdmans director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is certainly deserved of recognition.
Emerging from his native Mexico with Amores Perros 15 years ago, Inarritu went on to achieve worldwide acclaim with his next two films, alongside writing partner Guillermo Arriaga. Subsequent years have seen him break away from Arriaga with films such as Biutiful and this years Birdman.

Inarritu makes films about the human condition, almost documentary-like in their execution. Each of Inarritus films is a close personal account of his subject, oozing visceral intimacy. Much beauty can be found in Inarritus films, but they are often joyless affairs, siding heavily on the dramatic. Well, Inarritu is set to break that trend with the hilarious Birdman!

Set on Broadway in contemporary New York, Birdman follows actor, Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) on a quest to rediscover his craft and ultimately find meaning for his tired existence. Having established himself as a viable commercial entity with three Birdman films, Riggan is keen to shed the burden of his former super-hero persona. Riggan has chosen to direct and star in an adaptation of a Raymond Carver short story. Thought of as a left-field choice by his peers and critics (and a clichéd one at that), Riggan is keen to rise above the naysayers and produce something of significant artistic merit.

Birdman is Hollywood meets Broadway, with many of the actors at odds with themselves and their profession. The film buzzes with anxiety, as each star is driven to justify their existence on the stage. Michael Keaton is fabulous in the lead and carries the film exceedingly well. Having played Batman in real life, casting Keaton is a no-brainer - a master stroke, emphasising life imitating art parables.
Keaton is supported by a fantastic cast who all play upon their current notoriety, projected by a contemporary Hollywood. Edward Norton is the stand-out as the notoriously difficult Mike Shiner. We even find Naomi Watts experimenting with her female co-star in a great riff on her break-out role (Mulholland Drive).

It's interesting to see a film like Birdman do so well. It could so easily have been misconstrued as Hollywood massaging the egos of the elite, with a wry declaration of their official standing. It's fascinating to think there's an audience outside of Hollywood for this kind of movie. It says much about a society when we each know more about the celebrities and stars who surround us than we do our closest friends.

Despite the satiric nature of Birdman, the film looks deeper into the psyche of the artist - the creator. Specifically, Birdman looks at the justification for art and creativity, despite ones age and previous success. The creator creates - they don't stop.
The tortured artist is present here - a cliché perhaps, but no less a fact. Riggan is both his own worst critic and biggest supporter. As he goes about channelling his ideas to the stage, he is tripped-up and second-guessed by everyone in his company, not least by his biggest adversary - himself!
In an effort to overcome his anxieties, Riggan puts his best foot forward and produces something truly dynamic. Importantly Riggan recognises that art is paramount. The praise and accolades are inconsequential next to his performance and his production.

There's a point in Birdman which could easily have represented the end of the film. A further five minutes or so exceeds it. There's the suggestion that Riggan is mad (or psychologically unwell at least) and in a lightness of touch, Inarritu sees to it that his leads sanity is restored. It's suitably quirky but unnecessary in my opinion. It belittles the length and pains of Riggans journey.

Birdman is an intense warts 'n' all look at an artist in the midst of creation. The film could just as easily be about a painter or a musician. In a further twist of life imitating art, Birdman looks at the most commercial, most viable of artists - the Hollywood star!

4/5


Poster image courtesy: http://www.laweekly.com

American Sniper

Directed by Clint Eastwood, American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle - Americas most infamous sniper, with 160 recorded kills to his name. This true story comes from Chris himself (he wrote the book from which the film is based).

American Sniper begins with a brief look at Chris' formative years, living with his mother and brother and fiercely influential father. Looking out for his younger brother from an early age, Chris is told by his Dad (in no uncertain terms) that he's a sheep-dog, here to protect the sheep from the wolves - the real evil of the world.
A leap forward in time sees Chris as a bronco rodeo rider - living the dream, but somewhat meandering through life. Keen to contribute to the country he holds dear, Chris trains to become a Navy Seal (at only thirty years of age Chris is considered old to be joining the Navy Seals)! Fully committed to the arduous training, Chris achieves his goal. Soon after he meets his wife. Coincidentally the attack on the Twin Towers happen not long after they are wed. Chris sees the 9/11 attacks as an attack on him and his own. Steadfast in his thinking, Chris vows to protect his country and his family from the, "Evil Doers".

Portrayed by a terrific Bradley Cooper, Chris' commitment to country and the cause in the Middle-East is unwavering - even after doubts among his own colleagues arise. Chris it seemed, had no room for doubt. In fact, Chris felt doubt and uncertainty was killing his men - a clear indication of his focused mind. One has to admire this level of commitment. Interestingly, it's harder to admire when one is on the receiving end of a similarly committed threat to the western world!
Chris served an incredible four tours in Iraq - the equivalent of one thousand days. Like many soldiers, Chris suffered PTSD when he returned home. Like everything else in his life, Chris was adept at working through his affliction. He was helped in the most likely of ways - by helping similarly afflicted veterans. A circular therapy if you like, which benefited all involved.
Despite the good he did, there are some questionable acts which Chris has been accused of - omitted from this particular story.

American Sniper sees Clint Eastwood on top form. This is far and away one of the best films about combat and the futility of war since Saving Private Ryan. This is a patriotic tale of one mans tour of duty, regarded by many as a hero.
In telling Chris' story we are consequently thrust into the US campaign in the Middle-East, following the oft-criticized weapons of mass destruction debacle.
The film itself has been criticised for being nothing more than a piece of propaganda - portraying the fundamentalist threat in it's simplest and most terrifying form. No doubt the book shared similar criticisms - how can a story with such huge themes and agendas be distilled by the experiences of one man?
One has to remember that American Sniper is Chris' story. One can't exactly accuse Eastwood and his team of neglecting to tell a broader tale here. Perhaps they should've called their film, "Chris Kyle: American Sniper" so as to avoid being misconstrued? Actions speak louder than defaming words of course and Chris' actions were arguably contradictory - a characteristic which is fundamentally human. In the end Chris Kyle followed orders (and to the letter) and was rightly revered by his colleagues and supporters.

Those who subscribe to a particular ideal, regarding the debacle in question and Chris' part in it (not to mention the ongoing crisis in the Middle-East), worry not. You will not leave American Sniper feeling differently. Those looking more closely however, will discover Eastwood and co have peppered their film with more than just clichéd villainy and a westernised agenda. We get a glimpse of the fundamentalist opposite to Chris, at home with his wife and infant child. Later, a young boy with a bazooka makes an independent decision to put the blasted thing back down in the dirt.

American Sniper is a film worth seeing. An important film which will undoubtedly spark debate amongst it's audience, regarding the connotations of a war fought in vain (more talk is essential people). The unjust criticisms which have befallen this project (not to mention those who have misunderstood this film as an action flick) owe much to the hypocrisy of war itself. For example, one unlikely scene in American Sniper had my heart pumping considerably faster than normal. It was a scene involving a battle-plan, on the ground in Iraq - led by military advisors and superiors and attended by the likes of Kyle and his men.
The finality of going into battle after all that training hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't know as I could do that, I thought to myself - rather them than me.

5/5


Poster image courtesy: www.apollo-aachen.de

Unbroken

Unbroken is the second feature from director, Angelina Jolie. Not having seen her debut feature (In the Land of Blood and Honey), I can not attest to any sense of transition or appropriation of style between projects. What I can tell you is Unbroken is a triumph! Seemingly at ease with every facet of film-making, Jolie has orchestrated a long gestating project, destined for the big screen.

This true-life tale has been adapted from the book of the same name and recounts the early life of Louis Zamperini. Beginning at home (California), Zamperini is inspired by his brother to make something of himself - putting his misadventures to rest, for fear it will land him in hot water. Following in his brothers footsteps, Louis decides to run long distance, competitively. Becoming the fastest under-graduate in the country, it's not long before the Olympic Games beckon.
Appearing at the Games in Berlin of 1936, Zamperini runs faster than his nations competitors and crosses the line in 8th place - setting a record for the fastest lap in the 5000 meter race!
With this superb achievement in place, Zamperini sets his sights on the Games of 1940, scheduled to be held in Japan. World War 2 engulfs the globe however, dashing many a dream (to say the very least).

Zamperini enlists and finds himself a bombardier on board a B-24 Liberator. Having lived through various combatant missions, Zamperinis luck runs out on a rescue mission. The story of Unbroken kicks into high-gear at this point, as we bare witness to a survival tale like no other.

Like the best story-tellers, Jolie understands the less is more conceit. There's plenty of effects work and awe-inspiring photography in Unbroken, but it all services the story.
The film has been accused of struggling to make the unbelievable, believable. With it's messages of resilience and redemption, Unbroken would indeed make for an awfully convenient fictional story. This story is real however, brought to us as a feature-film rather than a documentary. With this in mind, one has to allow for any and all creative nuances a collaborative team brings to a project like this.
In some instances the truth has been skewed so as to appear more believable. Zamperinis meet with Adolf Hitler at the Olympic Games has been extracted, for example. He also punched a shark that approached him in the ocean. Fearing a cynical audience perhaps, Jolie has her Louis merely kick a shark by accident.
The only real moment of posturing to emerge is that of the very young Zamperini. Liquor swilling and cigarette smoking, the 12 year old Louis is old beyond his years, uttering lines like,"I'm nothing. Just let me be nothin". Hey, perhaps he did utter such a line. Like the shark sequence, it could've gone one of two ways - the film-makers privilege ultimately.

Written by the Coen brothers and executive produced by Mick Garris (Zamperinis son in-law), the team behind Unbroken clearly share a great deal of love and respect for the material and Zamperini himself. It's an inspiring tale of survival. It shows us all what true hardship really is and it propels a deep affection for life to the fore.

Proving that life can be just as easily taken from us as it can be granted, Unbroken emphasizes the fragile nature of this gift, leaving us with a very clear caveat: one must grasp this life and make the very best they can with it.

4/5


Poster image courtesy: www.dailyreview.crikey.com.au

Dumb and Dumber To

The first Dumb and Dumber is a modern comedy classic, aint no mistake! It represents the Farrelly brothers finest work and famously paired Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels (who knew) together as a double-act to rival the classics of yesteryear.
A prequel was made (Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd) with the cast and crew of the original largely absent. In my opinion they missed a golden opportunity to cast Carrey and Daniels as their younger selves - now that could've been fun!

Twenty years later and a belated sequel lands on our shores. As a huge fan of the original, this sequel had been on my radar since it's inception. The Farrelly brothers were directing once more and Carrey and Daniels were back, back, back!
Collectively this spelt success. The announcement of the title itself assured me that the film-makers were in the correct mindset. Surely all they needed to do was to place their idolised pair front and centre and have them drive the story in typically idiotic, yet infantile fashion.
Well, it would appear Harry and Lloyd have grown up! No longer the innocent and naive pair of the first, Harry and Lloyd have hit puberty and become obnoxious teens!

In the original Dumb and Dumber Harry and Lloyd were the put-upon-pair - they were the butt (literally) of 99% of the jokes.This time we're expected to laugh with Harry and Lloyd, almost encouragingly so.
Most of the jokes are at the expense of the co-characters and a good portion of these are in terrible taste; watch as Kathleen Turner is mistaken for a man (for the umpteenth time); discover a second use for a cork, courtesy of a parental dream sequence; laugh with Harry and Lloyd as they purposely disrupt a science conference with an armpit fart or seven - obnoxious teens indeed!

As deflating as this all is to witness, it's still pretty great to see Carrey and Daniels inhabit these roles again. After twenty years, Daniels' second term as Harry Dunne is the more successful of the two, with a performance mirroring that of the original. It would appear Carrey is impersonating Lloyd Christmas however - or else he's taken the evolution of his character more seriously and skewed his performance accordingly. Either way, we all know he's capable of much more.
At the end of the day there are a few genuine laughs to be had and a couple of nice touches which exceed (admittedly lowered) expectation.

If this trajectory of ageing continues, Harry and Lloyd will appear quite decrepit once they mature to adulthood. They could have some fun with that too perhaps (in typical Johnny Knoxville/Bad Grandpa style)?! Until then Dumb and Dumber To is for hardcore fans and obnoxious teens only (it should do pretty well I imagine)!

I for one will be basking in the glory of the original - after twenty years it still has the ability to leave me in stitches!

2/5


Poster image courtesy: www.newfarmcinemas.com.au

Life Itself

What better way to start a new year of film reviews than with Life Itself - a documentary feature on famed film reviewer, Roger Ebert.
Life Itself is directed by Steve James (Hoop Dreams) who presents his subject towards the end of his life, before returning to his formative years and the beginning of his illustrious career.
The film recounts Eberts life in flashback throughout, regularly returning to the present for comparative insight.

For those not steeped in Eberts career, Life Itself covers a lot of ground - from Eberts passion and talent for writing early on, to a professional love affair with film, lasting over 45 years.
More than just a reviewer, Ebert sought out and encouraged new names and faces in independent cinema.
Unabashed by his work, Ebert became friends with many of his subjects, some of whom would come in for heavy criticism during his career.
He frequently attended the Conference on World Affairs - known for being the "conference on everything conceivable". Ebert moderated Cinema Interruptus for many years - a symposium on film lasting the length of the conference.
As a social commentator Ebert spoke alongside numerous other experts in their field on a multitude of subjects.

Ebert certainly had his principles. Early on he stopped the presses of his own University paper, spotting an inappropriate advert across the page from a lead story, concerning John F. Kennedys assassination. Having gained notoriety for his writing, Ebert remained at the paper which hired him (the Chicago Sun-Times), despite lucrative offers to the contrary.

Based on the book of the same name (with many a quote directly referenced on screen), Life Itself undoubtedly lacks the depth of the best-seller. Numerous detailed accounts of Eberts various experiences have been jettisoned in favour of Eberts ill-health, which covers a good portion of the film.

Living with cancer, Ebert underwent various treatments and several failed surgeries (horrendous). He's an inspiration to all who've suffered a similar fate. Not one to shy away from his debilitating health, Ebert continued to write and appears on camera as communicative and joyous.

Despite Eberts upbeat resolve, the lasting impression of the man is of someone battling to pursue his passion, despite the restrictions of his body. The man achieved a great deal in his life and I believe more time and detail could've been spent expanding upon these achievements.
For example, Ebert won the Pulitzer prize for his work as a movie reviewer (the first ever), but we don't discover which specific piece or pieces won him the prize? Moreover his career as a screenwriter is touched upon, having written the screenplay to Russ Meyers, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. But Ebert had a long-standing, working relationship with Meyer, contributing screenplays several times thereafter.

Overall Life Itself is a fascinating account of one of the most admired film reviewers in cultural history. One which could've benefited from being a more celebratory account, rather than a slightly dour one.

3/5


Film Poster courtesy: www.kartemquin.com




Followers of this site will notice we're returning to our regularly scheduled programming of film related posts! All art and illustration-related news can now be found here: www.facebook.com/alexsmithartist

Here's a pic of some new art by yours truly to wet your appetite!