Category: Features

  • Stronger, a career best from David Gordon Green and Jake Gyllenhaal

    Stronger, a career best from David Gordon Green and Jake Gyllenhaal

    Between George Washington and Snow Angels, David Gordon Green established himself as one of the most promising filmmakers the indie scene had to offer. He took his career in a different direction with 2008’s Pineapple Express, but that comedy turned out to be an instant stoner classic. Just when it looked like this versatile director could do no wrong, though, he gave us Your Highness and The Sitter. Much like John Hughes towards the end of his career, Green seemed to get lost in a vast sea of poor slapstick and toilet humor. Green has been showing a return to form as of late, however, and Stronger is perhaps his most involving film to date.

    Although it was only a few years ago, we’ve already gotten a couple movies about the Boston Marathon bombing. Patriots’ Day earned wide praise last year and Stronger is another respectable depiction of the tragedy that occurred on April 15, 2013. Green’s film doesn’t shy away from gut-wrenching, claustrophobic moments that key in on the vulnerability of our main characters. On the whole, however, Green has made a life-affirming and occasionally even humorous film that captures humanity at its most inspiring.

    Green gets universally stellar performances from his cast, particularly Jake Gyllenhaal as Jeff Bauman. Overflowing with charisma and charm, Jeff never fails to light up every room he enters. He’s been in an on-again, off-again relationship with a woman named Erin Hurley, wonderfully played by Tatiana Maslany in a Best Supporting Actress caliber performance. Jeff decides to cheer his sort-of girlfriend on while she runs the Boston Marathon. When the bombs go off, Jeff loses both of his legs in the blast. Even in the wake of this tragedy, though, Jeff’s initial instincts are to a) make a Lt. Dan joke and b) alert the FBI about the bomber he spotted.

    Gyllenhaal, Green, and screenwriter John Pollono do a terrific job at bringing out Jeff’s optimism and sense of humor, despite his unspeakable circumstances. Behind all the jokes and the strong front he puts up, though, Jeff is overcome with grief. The scenes involving Jeff’s physical struggles are handled with raw honesty. Yet, it’s the emotional hurdles that Jeff must leap over that really hit us hard. As people come to view Jeff as an American hero, his newfound fame becomes more than he can handle. When Jeff makes an appearance at a hockey stadium, the audience can literally feel every eye on him. Matters at home also prove exceedingly difficult, as Erin and Jeff’s mother (Miranda Richardson) clash over what’s best for the most important man in their lives.

    Casting is a crucial element in a biopic like this and the actors here all hit pitch perfect notes. There’s actually been some controversy over the role of Jeff going to Gyllenhaal instead of somebody that’s actually a double amputee. You could argue that this would’ve added another layer of authenticity to the film, but it’s hard to image another actor turning in a performance as genuine as Gyllenhaal’s. Green gives Gyllenhaal numerous balls to juggle as Jeff, from heartbreak, to uncertainty, to fear, to courage, to optimism. Nevertheless, Gyllenhaal never misses a beat in a film that finds an actor and director at their absolute best.

  • Florence Foster Jenkins – Behind the Scenes

    Florence Foster Jenkins – Behind the Scenes

    The story of Florence Foster Jenkins, a New York heiress, who dreamed of becoming an opera singer, despite having a terrible singing voice.

  • Steve Jobs… Why Don’t We Care?

    Steve Jobs… Why Don’t We Care?

    There are few screenwriters with the clout of Aaron Sorkin, the Academy-Award winning writer of The Social Network, as well as the brains behind The West Wing. When it comes to directors, not many currently working today have a reputation and loyal fan-base as ardent as Danny Boyle’s (an Oscar winner himself, for Slumdog Millionaire). Meanwhile, in regards to deciding upon the finest actor in the world, few would argue with Michael Fassbender. So when bringing these three visionaries together, it’s bound to have a great appeal to a broad audience of filmgoers, right? Wrong. Very, very wrong.

    Steve Jobs – the very endeavor which unites the aforementioned trio of talents – has just been withdrawn from two thousand cinemas across the United States by Universal, following a disastrous opening few weeks. In the previous five weeks, the film grossed merely $17 million, falling way short of the $30 million production cost. In fact, Apple bring in more revenue every 38 minutes than the film has since it first opened. While watching the title – which has a running time of 122 minutes – Apple will have accumulated over $54 million.

    But why are the public not flocking to the cinemas to indulge in this production? Because, and quite simply, we generally aren’t fussed about this particular story. As was made evident when Joshua Michael Stern’s 2013 offering Jobs (with Ashton Kutcher playing the eponymous protagonist) failed to even land a theatrical release in the UK, thanks to the awful reviews and lack of general intrigue.

    There’s not really any reason for us to care. We may all carry smart phones around in our pockets, as we tap, flick, push and sync until our heart’s content, wandering the streets like zombies, gliding past strangers as we all keep our heads down and eyes peeled on the screen. Nobody uses the term ‘mp3 player’ anymore, as the iPod brand, similarly to Hoover or Breville or Google, is now the standardized term for a common utility – while you can survey coffee shops across the country and see almost as many MacBooks as you do lattes.

    But so what? We don’t care much for Samsung founder Lee Byung-chul, nor do we have any real interest in Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita of Sony – while the names Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl and Gordon Bowker will probably mean very little to you, despite being those behind Starbucks, where you’re likely to have spent money, a lot of money, across the past decade. Yes, Steve Jobs was an innovator, he was forward-thinking, resourceful, ingenious and courageously experimental, but that doesn’t mean we really treasure his story. Someone out there invented the toaster (Charles Strite, to be precise) – and we all love toast. But would we feel enticed by a biopic of the man?

    The sad, somewhat perplexing thing is, the film is really good, and following a triumphant showing as the closing film to this year’s London Film Festival, the critics have commended this endeavor, evident in the 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (while Spectre lingers below with just 64%). The Telegraph called the film ‘manically entertaining’ and The Guardian opted for ‘a theatrically ingenious piece’. Because it is – it’s structured in an episodic fashion, into three acts, each in real time – one in ’84, and then later in ’88 and ’98 – taking place behind the scenes of different Apple launches, complete with that fast-paced, distinctive Sorkin dialogue marrying it all together.

    But critics are paid to see movies. Critics have an obligation to watch and review the biggest releases and have opinions on the leading talking points, the films by the likes of Sorkin, Boyle and Fassbender. But would these same people, those who admired the picture, those who were moved and compelled by the experience, have paid to see this film outside of work, just as regular members of the public? The box office statistics would suggest that there’s a very good chance they might have steered clear themselves.

  • American Sniper featurette

    American Sniper featurette

    From director Clint Eastwood comes American Sniper, starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history.

  • Flickreel’s 2014 Oscar Predictions

    Flickreel’s 2014 Oscar Predictions

    It’s that time of year again to celebrate the very best of the past year in film, with the prestigious 86th Academy Awards soon to be upon us. As we all prepare to settle in for the night, and ridicule the red carpet coverage and then open up the dolly mixture and marvel in the ceremony itself, beforehand let’s run through some of our 2014 Oscar predictions.

    Best Picture – 12 Years a Slave
    Sometimes it shouldn’t just be the best film of the year to take home the grand prize, but the most significant film. With Steve McQueen’s picture about as definitive as you could be about slavery, there’s a general feeling that 12 Years a Slave needs to win this award, and similarly to what Spielberg achieved with Schindler’s List exactly 20 years ago, you’d be hard pushed to look past that from happening again.

    Best Actor – Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club)
    Dallas Buyers Club may not be triumphant in many other areas, but the one place where success is likely, and certainly deserved, is within the fine acting performances. With McConaughey enjoying an incredible recent run of form, it seems that it could all culminate in him taking home the award for Best Actor, and it would be one which was throughly deserved.

    Best Actress – Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)
    This one feels like something of a foregone conclusion, as Blanchett’s superb, nuanced performance in Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine is head-and-shoulders above any other performance from a leading actress this past year. It’s layered and emotional, and about as safe a bet as you could place this year.

    Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)
    It would seem somewhat wrong for McConaughey to win Best Actor and for his co-star Jared Leto to leave empty handed, so there’s a good chance that the pair will both be triumphant at the forthcoming event. For an actor that makes so few films – focusing heavily on his musical career the past few years – he doesn’t seem rusty in any way shape or form, bringing such humility to his role of Rayon, a transvestite AIDs sufferer.

    Best Actress in a Supporting Role – Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle)
    Hollywood’s sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence was of course the winner of the Best Actress award last year, and it’s likely she’ll leave triumphant for a second consecutive time. Bringing a wonderful degree of humour and volatility to her role in American Hustle, there’s a strong chance she’ll be the only winner from a film blessed with a series of fine acting performances.

    Best Animated Feature – Frozen
    This Disney musical is about as classic as an animation can be: it’s a nod to some of the studio’s brilliant pictures of old, while feeling unique in its own right. With a handful of wonderful songs and characters to truly invest in – Frozen was the strongest animation to come out this year. However a mention must also be reserved for the French cartoon Ernest & Celestine, which shows off the Academy’s eye for impressive productions from across the globe.

    Best Directing – Alfonso Cuaron
    Gravity may be a flawed piece in some regards, but if there is one area you simply couldn’t criticise the film, it’s within its directing, which is a truly astounding feat of filmmaking. To make the viewer genuinely feel as though they’re witnessing a film that is set up in space is an incredible achievement, and Cuaron must be recognised accordingly.

    Best Documentary – The Act of Killing
    Not only is The Act of Killing one of the finest documentaries of the past year, but it’s about as good as the genre has offered in the past decade at least. Joshua Oppenheimer’s incredible picture explores the world of legalised killings in Indonesia, as he visits some of the former gangsters and asks them to reenact their murders in any way they see fit. It’s as absurd and memorable as it sounds – and for that reason it would be a huge surprise if it didn’t win the Oscar.

    Best Foreign Language Film – The Hunt
    Though for British audiences The Hunt seems like something of a distant memory, having hit our screens close to 18 months ago, given it’s release date in the US, it’s only now qualifying for the Academy Award. Given the ingenuity and complete devastation on show in this Danish production by Thomas Vinterberg, Mads Mikkelsen’s incredible performance as a wrongly accused paedophile makes for a film that is difficult to forget, and certainly the frontrunner for the award.

    So there we have it: our predictions for the Oscars. Be sure to check back on Flickreel after the event, where we can provide our coverage of the ceremony and either boast about the ones we got right, or hold up hands up to the ones we got wrong… Here’s hoping for more of the former!

  • Why Allegations of Glamorisation in The Wolf of Wall Street Are Wide of the Mark

    Why Allegations of Glamorisation in The Wolf of Wall Street Are Wide of the Mark

    He might be one of Hollywood’s most renowned filmmakers, but Martin Scorsese is not untouchable, not by any means. His latest production, The Wolf of Wall Street, has come under much scrutiny for glamourising drugs, sex, and lewd, libidinous lifestyles. The film tells the true story of Jordan Belfort – played by Leonardo DiCaprio – a self-made millionaire who made his fortune manipulating naive investors, and spent the majority of his cash on leisure and luxury.

    Christina McDowell, who is the real life daughter of one of Belfort’s associates, had an open letter published in LA Weekly, where she accused the filmmakers of “glorifying greed and psychopathic behaviour” amongst many other unethical things. However, to be frank, it seems that McDowell has missed the point somewhat – because this film doesn’t glamourise this type of lifestyle at all. In fact, it presents it as the repellent, seedy environment it was – a sentiment echoed by DiCaprio himself, who has had to release a statement on how the film does not condone such a livelihood.

    There’s a seedy, superficial undercurrent prevalent in this title, as everything feels overstated, immoderate and overelaborate. It never quite feels real – Scorsese has depicted life so effervescently, it’s not a naturalistic piece of cinema by any means. Ultimately, this is a comedy and the farcical nature gives this film the feeling of a lavish, grandiose Broadway musical, almost surrealistic in its approach. It’s not attempting to be searingly authentic, this is cinema – and Scorsese knows what he’s doing. It seems that with success and critical acclaim (which The Wolf of Wall Street has had in abundance), people are always incensed into offering a counter argument.

    There’s a sinister edge to Belfort too – displayed immaculately by DiCaprio – and this frivolous spending of money isn’t just good fun, it’s an addiction. You get the impression that he’s not just wanting to spend all of his money on extravagance and splendour, but he feels he needs to. The cocaine habit itself is a physical dependancy, of course, but the lust to live out this particular lifestyle – similar to Tony Montana in Scarface, for instance – is the true addiction. Belfort still, to this very day, lectures on financial gain, as it’s a life he can’t seem to leave behind, as he continues to sell his wisdom to members of the public in the same way he used to sell shares.

    Another rather unglamorous element to The Wolf of Wall Street, is the fact his shady ongoings are not legal, and the FBI get wind of his criminal activity, and there’s a foreboding atmosphere created as a result. Of course when Belfort and his colleague Donnie (Jonah Hill) are on an aeroplane, taking drugs at free will, with an array of naked women roaming the aisles, it is glorified. Because in that moment, it’s wonderful. In Trainspotting when our protagonist takes heroin, it’s displayed as being something otherworldly, something spectacular. But look at the bigger picture – look at what it does to his mental (and physical) health in the long term. The Wolf of Wall Street manages much of the same thing: yes it may be all fun and games, but inevitably it will all come crashing down at some point, and as the FBI’s investigation gets more intense, suddenly those lavish, mile high moments seem like a lifetime ago.

    The element of fear does not automatically put people off, however, as the public still crave this lifestyle, in spite of how Scorsese portrays it to us. For example, when Belfort’s unprincipled, iniquitous ways are divulged in a magazine article, it was met with an array of fresh job applications of people wanting to work for him. Even the fact that now, long after Belfort’s four year prison sentence, people still pay to hear him speak at conferences, as this lust for money and luxury still exists. So when that’s taken into account, is Scorsese adorning or embellishing real life? Surely as a filmmaker he has a responsibility to portray real life, no matter how cinematically, and he’s not dressing up this excessive, flamboyant vocation as anything it’s not. Though he may be accused of treating the source material somewhat flippantly and frivolously – sometimes a comedy can be the most powerful of satires, just look at The King of Comedy, for example. Was that glorifying kidnapping?

    So I’m conning innocent people, making loads of money, having an amazing time in my massive yacht, and spending what’s left of it on drugs and prostitutes. Then I’m going to lose absolutely everything dear to me, spend a few years in prison, and spend the rest of my years feeling lonely and regretful. Woohoo! Money!