Chrismeister

Quentin Tarantino's latest project is as overdrawn as it is paper thin. Across his eclectic and at times hit or miss career he has stayed consistent with memorable dialogue, except of course for the abysmal Deathproof, yet here it seems aimless, unsure of where it's going and repetitive. How many times can one bare hearing a discussion around bad coffee or a broken door. This is the third installment of Tarantino's pseudo-historical film trilogy, and it hits a new low.

The narrative circulates around a series of misfit, detestable characters all hold up in a cabin during a blizzard. Over the course of their time there we slowly learn more about them and see their distrust for each other grow as the violence escalates. Anyone familiar with Tarantino's work will see the similarity between this and his original film Reservoir Dogs, showing how far he has come on a technical level of filmmaking. Shot in 70mm, this is perhaps his most gorgeous film to date, the sparse landscape shots make use of the 70mm in a way that begs you to see more and escape the three hour confinement of the cabin. One can only hope Tarantino utilises 70mm again before his non-retirement in a narrative that better suits it, with a script that is more worthy of it.

One of the highlights is the original score by Ennio Morricone, taking inspiration from his earlier work on 1982's The Thing (for obvious reasons that don't just include both films featuring Kurt Russell) this is some of his best work in years. Tarantino has often said how he and Morricone have wanted to collaborate; the results elevate the film, amplify the tension and setting to enhance the film as a whole. While it never reaches the highs of what inspired it, this is a score worthy of listening outside of the film itself, and that in many ways is the highest success a film score can achieve.

A main and perhaps the most subjective criticism on the film is just how particularly repulsive the characters of this film are. While it is to be expected considering the amply named title, there is zero relatability because of it. From the very beginning you are hoping these character will just off themselves and be done with it, not just to wrap up the outrageously long runtime, but also for the good of humanity. While Tarantino's characters have never been praised for their good-naturedness, they are often multi-layered enough to engage with and relate too. The characters of Reservoir Dogs are a prime example of how Tarantino can write bad characters while they remain people we can understand. Here however we are left with a cold feeling of neutrality over the fate of these men, while performances are across the board great and committed, they are never likable. Not only are they unmemorable but you'll actively want to forget them.

If Deathproof is Tarantino's worst, then this comes somewhere in the middle of his filmography. This isn't an actively bad film, Deathproof was utterly vacuous and without merit which would make this simply forgettable and derivative of his work. Tarantino is at risk of becoming a parody of himself; prepare to roll your eyes during the opening credits when 'The 8th film by Quentin Tarantino' comes into frame. The level of pretension and self-congratulation there alone is palpable. This isn't even taking into account a quick search through his career will reveal that this is far from an accurate statement. We paid twice for Kill Bill, its two films.

This is disappointing, I wanted so much to enjoy this; I wanted to be able to defend it and say 'hey, it's great, it's like The Thing in Western times', but I can't. As a Quentin Tarantino film this doesn't completely fail, hard-core fans will enjoy this but many will see it as the tedious moral torpor it is. Regardless of how you may view Tarantino and this films questionable race and gender politics, this is a film I won't be returning to anytime soon.

A major theme of Interstellar is how Humanity has lost its naturally inquisitive mind and its sense of adventure. Writer, director, producer Christopher Nolan tries to recapture that on a cinematic level with audiences, reintroducing them to why we fell in love with films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars. Many of Nolan's films have captured this sense of awe and wonder in spectators, a main reason to why he has such a beloved following. The Prestige and Inception are the key examples of this; we see characters astounded by inventions, worlds and ideas. Interstellar shows us characters astounded by the great vastness of space and out space in it, someone everyone fears and are drawn to. A usual trick Nolan employs in his films is his use of time. Most evidently in Inception and Memento, but now Nolan has gained access to a narrative structured around the theory of relativity. Any audience member familiar with this will know this film will get complicated. Yet as the film goes on and time becomes more crucial to the plot, the more the film treats its audience like a child. The detrimental fact that has dogged Nolan's films for years is the overuse of expositional dialogue. Near the end of the film, when we are entering 2001 levels of un-clarity, we literally have two characters explain everything. I was completely removed from the experience as this happened, feeling as though the characters were talking to us rather than themselves. This leads to some very Hollywood climaxes. Sometimes not getting all the answers is what makes a story last long after the credits roll, this is something Kubrick understood but clearly Nolan has yet to learn. Despite this, Interstellar is indeed full of spectacle and amazement that any space adventure should offer. It instils both the excitement and fear such an endeavour would have on a person. The wormhole scene solidifies this with a brilliantly nauseating sequence. However my personal favourite shot was when Romilly was given the tropical forest track to remind him of Earth. It plays over a shot of Saturn which was a completely new and unique way of looking at space for me. I fears Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity would undermine the effects of the film, I was mistaken. Nolan has opted for a more classic cinematic view of space. Another clear homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is done throughout the film even in the monolithic shaped A.I of TARS. On the whole the performances were excellent, specifically from Matthew McConaughey and Jessica Chastain. The linchpin to the film is the father/daughter relationship throughout it. If there is any element in this you do not enjoy, the rest of the film will suffer from it. However for me it was portrayed very emotionally and powerfully. And in general all its flaws included this was an impressive spectacle of our place in the Universe and Humanity. This sadly was not the next 2001 however I am more than grateful it wasn't the next Prometheus.

On the outset Horns appears to be a strange and unique concept, and it succeeds in being both however it is also an adulterated mess. For it's completely out there premise is seems incredibly tame. The restrictions of its 15 rating are apparent here; clearly the choice was made to be accessible for a wider audience, the ones who would see Daniel Radcliffe as an essential draw for a film. It does play towards the more juvenile audience members with the over exaggerated action and characters. The results are nothing short of mixed. The performances in the film are good with the script they are given. Daniel Radcliffe has to be commended for his choices as an actor after Harry Potter came to a close. The results of these choices have not been completely triumphant, yet it is refreshing to see a young actor want to do more creative work. Juno Temple, Max Minghella and the rest of the cast offer acceptable yet forgettable work. Flashbacks do all the heavy lifting to establish character motivation which in the end is detrimental to not only the actors work but also the structure of the narrative. On the whole it felt rather cluttered and unstructured, more of a series of crazy situations rather than an all-encompassing plot. And after the third or fourth moment people lose their minds, it loses it fun factor and becomes more of a chore to sit through repeatedly. However it was trying to be different and in that respect I can appreciate it more. The film clearly tries to combine genres which does give it a fresh feel, yet ultimately is why it fails to make it work. I wasn't sure how to feel as one character has a drug overdose just after a supposed funny scene of two cops realising they were gay. This becomes a film I wanted to enjoy but I simply couldn't, there were too many questionable choices made in the production and script such as musical choices and character design. This film treats the audience like a child and spells everything out for us. I can't help but feel if the final shot was removed there would be some genuine satisfaction from a second watch, now there is none. If this story was given to a more veteran director and the script was matured this could have been a great, alternative film. But for now we have only this.

Charlie Chaplin was an actor and director who was known for his very unique style of slapstick and comedy in general. This was his first venture into all-talking, all-sound film, thirteen years after the end on the silent era. The result was one of the finest pieces of cinema in the last 70 years. First impressions are, for any veteran Chaplin fan, simply familiar territory. We see a hapless private during the war fail at the most basic tasks and be humiliated for it. Then we see a ludicrous bomb spin around the flour in circles after our supposed protagonist. Personally this form of comedy is not to my tastes yet Chaplin is one of few comedians able to make it work for me, leading more to my great respect for this filmmaker. This really sets the tone for the film of serious situations and events portrayed in a more accessible way for the audience. Considering the 1940 release this was very important in order to raise awareness of the war in Europe. And it is clear that this was one of Chaplin's goals as the conclusion to the film shows. Chaplin gives a typically on form performance filled with great timing and physicality that he became famous for. Hilarity ensues whenever he wants it to and this fact is why he is one of the greatest comic actors of all time. In many ways this is a one man show, not suggesting the supporting cast is in any way irrelevant or underwhelming. They are just great for Chaplin to bounce off. Yet combined with him leads to some brilliantly choreographed sequences. The sets are visually impressive when coupled with this choreography and the mise-en-scene overall has to be commended. Its comedic twist on authentic, what was current eastern European lifestyles and militaristic parodies of Nazi uniform and propaganda are ingenious. All this combined makes for a fantastically memorable film that has stood the test of time, yet it is considered one of the all-time greats. This is because of, what I consider to be the most potent, relevant and emotionally impactful speech in not only cinema history but in the last one hundred years. The raw, unrelenting passion Chaplin exudes during these defining moments are is nothing short of beautiful. What makes this so expressively vivid is how, as a modern audience member of the twenty first century, I can see how the same problems remain after all these years. Chaplin glimpsed a future without division, without hatred, anger, war and intolerance, a future we could so easily attain. Yet we are all human, something The Great Dictator shows will just lead to the same problems again and again as Chaplin's character fails again and again. Yet with the courage and hope he gains at the very end, the world changes. As The Great Dictator shows, without hope all is lost.

Nightcrawler from the very beginning is not a traditional Hollywood film. It certainly does not follow the narrative of one and even though it has the three-act structure we are all familiar with, it spins them around. This is particularly evident in the third act, incredibly suspenseful with a brilliant, almost anti-climax. Suspense is the main key to this film's success, it build and builds to the point where the last twenty minutes of the film are completely unpredictable. Dan Gilroy in his directorial debut here has shown a real understanding of how to keep an audience engaged and following a character who isn't an easy man to spend a great deal of time with. Gilroy's screenplay is fast paced and one of the finest this year. The script focuses the audience on the characters, Louis Bloom particularly yet the supporting characters are just as impressive by Bill Paxton and Rene Russo alike. It doesn't follow the rules of a typical script, we are introduced instantly to a criminal and this man is supposed to be our protagonist. Yet what becomes clear is that there is not a protagonist in Nightcrawler, Jake Gyllenhaal's Louis Bloom is the antagonist. He can be described as nothing less than a psychopath and his portrayal by Gyllenhaal is one of his greatest performances. He is very gaunt here, losing a lot of weight for the role, however that is not the main reason for his impressive performance. Gyllenhaal is an actor who continues to impress me; his work in Enemy from earlier this year was just as brilliant. He has chosen excellent roles in films such as Zodiac, Prisoners and End of Watch. The cinematography is also fantastic, night-time LA has not looked this good since 2011's Drive. All these elements come together to make a captivating piece of filmmaking, a film I expect will be discussed more as time goes on.

At first glance Boyhood appears to be a very unique film. A film shot over 12 years. A new sequence every year was filmed over 45 days in total, nothing like this had been done before in cinema history. It had the potential to not only be an interesting film but also a brilliant look at growing up in the modern age. As is made clear by the character of Mason near the end of the film, life is a series of moments; this way of thinking is clearly how the director wanted this narrative to be shown. It plays off like a series of short films, each sequence is its own entity however linked through the passing of time. This leads me to one of my major issues with the narrative; the filmmakers chose a generic life story filled with all the trials and tribulations of a bad soap opera. It is understandable why they did this, in an attempt to make it more relatable. However it backfires into looking like nothing more than lazy writing. As the narrative progressed into the third act, the repetitiveness of the story began to become very evident. It felt almost as though the filmmakers themselves weren't sure how to end it, yet the conclusion itself was ultimately satisfying. The clever use of music and news stories in the background of the film helped to define the time it was shot. This is something that will define it more as time moves on, creating an incredibly nostalgic piece. In terms of acting, it ranged from good to questionable. Ellar Coltrane did a superb job portraying the thoughts and feelings, wonder and angst, highs and lows for childhood. However to no fault of his own, the script made the character at times nothing more than an archetype to send preachy messages to the audience. I felt as though I was being beaten over the head at times with this, subtly was evidently thrown straight out of the window here. Lorelei Linklater was fine as Samantha, yet quite forgettable. The scenes where she was on her own, some of the worst in the film. Ethan Hawke was excellent as the distant but loving father. Strangely enough I felt most connection to his character than any other. The rest of the cast as said before served their purpose, no stand outs however. Boyhood is a film I may return to one day, perhaps in many years' time I will learn to love this as so many others do now. Yet for this time being it remains an impressive piece, interesting for the fact it was filmed over such a long period of time. But taking that away from it, the film has nothing spectacular to show.

Under the Skin could be described as a disturbing reflection on humanity. The cinematography certainly forwards this interpretation with long shots of people. People doing every day, mundane tasks that would normally seem uninteresting and uneventful to us. But through the eyes of the films main character, the alien played to perfection by Scarlett Johansson, reveals a world full of superficial creatures filled with only with base desires. In this respect Under the Skin is beautifully crafted by Johnathan Glazer. It is as unsettling as it is intriguing. Under the Skin sees an alien seductress sent to Earth on a mission, one which sees her lure men to be harvested. This may sound like a ridiculous concept for a B grade 1960s sci-fi, and to a certain extent you would be correct. However Glazer tells this tale through surrealistic cinematography and metaphorical imagery, making it truly unique. Films such as this are why the science-fiction genre is one of my personal favourites. It allows filmmakers to truly be free with their imaginations, creating worlds and characters that seem unnatural to us because they are literally not of this world. This film embraces that thinking, introducing us to locations and events that we cannot comprehend, even though we are watching it play out in front of us. Some have criticised this film for being an overly long, repetitive, try hard art-house film, a film trying to be unclear just to be different. This is a notion I completely disagree with, as I said before the long takes and sweeping shots of people are an alien's perspective on us. And to the films deepest level, how we view beauty. Many of the sequences stick with you after you have viewed the film, for their incredibly disturbing nature. I can genuinely say this film left me more uneasy than any horror or film in general for many years. This has been repeatedly compared to the final twenty minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey which I understand. Both leave you with many questions we will likely never know the answers to, but both are works of geniuses and will be studied, analysed and criticised for years to come. Johnathan Glazer outdid himself on this film, one which I will be thinking of for a very long time.

Before I write anything about this masterpiece, I have to tell you this. Don't read anything about the film, watch it blind. It is the only way to truly appreciate the narrative. Denis Villeneuve is an incredibly versatile director. His other 2013 film, Prisoners was fantastic at delving deep into the fine line between good and bad. Enemy, well this delves into the mind of a man who is struggling with commitment and women in general. There is much going on under the surface of this film, it demands multiple viewings. It will leave you with many questions. Were Anthony and Adam related or just doppelgangers? Why did everyone get so emotional over this strange situation? And what was with the spiders? Well I cannot hope to be an authority on what all the true meanings are behind this film, you will have to seek the answers for yourself. Yet in terms of surface value this film is excellently presented. Jake Gyllenhaal gives outstanding performances as Adam and Anthony. Particularly as Adam, the crumbling, paranoid, and enclosed history lecturer, this could be his finest work yet. The cinematography was also just as engaging. Brown hues engulf every shot, combined with an incredibly airy score creates disturbing, tension filled scenes that were unforgettable. Enemy is not a horror film, but it most definitely has the tone of one. This combined with one of the most shocking and unnerving conclusions to a film I have ever seen, makes it just as unsettling as any horror. Enemy proves that cinematic storytelling can be just as compelling as ever. Enter the subconsciousness and face your inner demons. The only enemy you face, is yourself.

Gone Girl, it truly captivated me from the very moment it began. An intriguing, engaging and enthralling ride from start to finish. The performances were excellent across the board, Ben Affleck is an actor that continues to shake any doubt from my mind about his talents both in-front and behind the camera. He shines here in a role hand picked for him by David Fincher, as Affleck is familiar with media scrutiny himself. But the real powerhouse performance was by Rosamund Pike, playing the missing wife. She goes to places I would never have expected and continued to shock and surprise me as the film progressed. The entire film builds up and up, the darkness filling every shot more and more. What appears to be a classic hunt for a missing loved one turns into something far more disturbing and sinister. So much of this was helped by a brilliant ad campaign. This managed to reveal very little about the films twists and sub- plots, while remaining entertaining and peaking my interest.The atmosphere created in this film was largely fulfilled by the score. The music was so ominous and dark, it really helped to add to the disturbing and uncomfortable sequences. David Fincher has always been a director who can create incredibly detailed and rich narratives, and his dark, brooding cinematography really adds to the original source material. Gone Girl is one of Finchers finest films, it is one that will remain in my head for many months and perhaps even years. It will be one of the true greats of 2014.

Snowpiercer is a very unique science-fiction film based on a French graphic novel, however the narrative has been changed greatly for this adaptation. It is a film set entirely on a train in a future were the fight against global warming ended in a far more horrendous outcome for all life on Earth. The remainder of humanity have been left on a lone train circling the planet, waiting for the Earth to regain its once abundance and fertility. One of the first positive notes on the film is the very diverse cast, this helps it to be relatable to all audiences and for people, even those who won't enjoy this film, to at least find some form of connection to it. The performances were strong across the board from the kooky/comedic characters to the dark/brooding ones. Chris Evens who stars in this gives his finest performance yet, expressing a whole range of emotions that reflect not only the tone of the film but also the other side characters in it. The tone is the greatest element of this film for me, while it shows everything wrong with humanity and how given the situation we can be truly disgusting creatures, it also shows the bright sparks in the darkness. The train represents the Earth and the people on board are all of humanity, Chris Evens' character literally sees all of humanity from the determination, hope and faithful to the gluttonous, lustful sinners. Which the diverse cast helps to express. However this film does sometimes become a little too abstract and strange with little explanation. There is a visually impressive action sequence near the halfway point of the film, while exceptionally shot and realised, I was confused as to the choice of wardrobe design for the adversaries. All I could think of was the infamous scene from Pulp Fiction, and those who have seen Snowpiercer will know exactly what I am talking about. Other than these minor nitpicks, Snowpiercer is an remarkably well realised film yet not the classic Hollywood science-fiction romp which will turn people away, but in doing so makes this film something that is truly different for all the right reasons.

The premise of this film was very intriguing to me, a one man show starring Ryan Reynolds in a box for around an hour and a half. Immediately it doesn't sound to engaging or even interesting but this film surprised me. The tone of isolation and frustration is felt immediately from the very first shot, or lack there of. This brings me to the most impressive aspect of the film, the cinematography. Truly impressive camera work was used in the production of this claustrophobic nightmare, 360 degree camera shots that had me wondering just how they accomplished such a task. Ryan Reynolds was fine in his performance as the captive man that we slowly piece together his back story and personality through phone calls via the great script. Yet I can't help but feel this role could have been played by any fairly talented actor who wanted to try something different. This isn't going against Ryan Reynolds but more the character himself, yet that is where the script perhaps fell short. Which means the reason this film is not getting higher praise from me is due to the feeling I had in the last 30 minutes of the narrative. While it had only been on for a short run time, I wanted it to end. It began to feel as though the narrative didn't know where is was going and just went round in circles, delaying the inevitable. However this film was very impressive yet one I feel won't be watched again by me in a long time and after the ending the film gives the audience, perhaps you can see why.

Her is one of those few films that come along and just sits perfectly for me. I had been waiting a long time for this film to be released and as I am English, longer than some. I always knew I would like this film as I am a keen science-fiction lover and have enjoyed Spike Jonze film-making in the past. Yet there was something about this film that embellished and enthralled me. It is simply beautiful. Her is unlike any other love story you are likely to come across in cinema, a man who falls in love with (at its core) his computer, an AI that gave itself the name Samantha voiced by Scarlett Johansson. Yet it is so much more than that as the title suggests, she or 'her' is not an it, she becomes human and is part of Joaquin Phoenix's character Theodore. She was created around his personality and as the film repeatedly reminds the audience, people grow and change together, becoming closer and drifting apart just like in a real relationship. They are helped with a variety of lovable and distant characters for narrative gains. My favourite of which is played by Chris Pratt, a character that shows that the fall of masculinity in men is actually something that should be embraced, not shunned. While at first glance of the plot summery, this might seem like an outlandish and borderline disturbing premise for a story, the film in many ways acknowledges this yet takes the viewer with these characters to the point where you actually believe they are real and their situations are these you and I have either experienced or will experience. The believability of the characters is in no small part aided by the brilliant script that is rich, deep and personal. And while watching the film, it answers all the questions exactly when you want them and leaves elements of the story open to interpretation in all the right places. The cinematography is also so lush and engaging by Hoyte van Hoytema, clearly the future will be bright through the eyes of people like him, which is also another key feature of the film I love, the science-fiction. It is not an unrealistic future where machines are conspiring to kill humans and aliens are invading. The few hints of the wider world in Her was very contemporary with technology clearly inspired by the latest tech we have now. Her is told with interesting, believable characters, presented in a way that rivals the visual splendour of Drive. There is little I did not enjoy with Her and in much the same way Theodore fell in love with Samantha, I have fallen in love with Her. I know this will be a film I think about for many years to come and I have only scratched the surface of the greater meanings of the film. This is truly a film that is not made often, a master class in film-making.

I am a massive Die Hard fan, I love all of the films even 4 which most don't, I love where John McClain is in that film and all the changes in society he has to adapt to, like 4 all of the other Die Hard films had a clear story and reason for John McClane to be back in action but A Good Day To Die Hard didn't, it felt lacking in a true plot or substance. The first problem with this film is Bruce Willis himself because that's just it, he is acting like Bruce Willis and not John McClane, somewhere this character has been lost in mythology behind itself, he has become more like a superhero rather that the likable cop from NY we all know and love, the opening car chase is evidence to this. Another problem with this film is the son and McClane's relationship with him, as much as Jai Courtney try's his best his character simply comes off as annoying and unlikeable as he never stops complaining about how his dad was never their for him which only leads the audience wanting him to shut up rather than feel sorry for him. Overall A Good Day To Die Hard was very underwhelming and disappointing with the lack of John McClane being himself, the uninteresting son and the lack of a clear villain doing up against McClane. All this film will leave you with is simply wishing they just left it at 4. I can only hope Die Hard 6, which they are making anyway, will redeem itself back to the old days of Die Hard. I'd give this film a 4/10.