Categories
Review

Oppenheimer (2023)

The Best Picture favourite going into awards season is none other than Chrostopher Nolan’s nuclear epic, Oppenheimer. Spanning the life and career of Robert J. Oppenheimer, the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”. Starring Cillian Murphy in the titular role, Oppenheimer is a three-hour insight into the work and personal life of one of the most controversial figures in modern history.

Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer is based on the biography, American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Nolan’s unique perspective stemmed from the writing process as the entire screenplay is written from the first-person. This exacerbates the fact that Oppenheimer provides a limited view as the titular character is in almost every scene. The film flits between key points in Oppenheimer’s life spanning his beginnings as a budding physicist to the aftermath of the nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nolan’s direction feels controlled and focused, his passion for the project coming through in every frame.

As the titular character, it can be argued that Oppenheimer lives or dies from the Cillian Murphy performance. Murphy can always be trusted to bring a nuanced performance. His turn as Oppenheimer is so intimate and yet always holding the audience at a distance. Seeing his internal conflict between the scientific achievements and the ethics rise to the surface in the final act is gripping. The scene in which Hiroshima has been been bombed and Oppenheimer begins to envision corpses on the follow among the ruptuous applause from his colleagues is one of the best scenes in any Nolan film.

Providing a standout performance in support is Robert Downey Jr. Having dominated cinema screens for the past decade as Iron Man in Marvel Cinematic Universe, Oppenheimer may be the first project a lot of people have seen Downey Jr outside of the franchise. The performances couldn’t be more different and sees Downey Jr return to form. Playing the antagonistic Rear Admiral Lewis Strauss who is hellbent on taking Oppenheimer down, he commands every scene he is in. His scenes with Murphy are among the best in the film and it’s up there with his other phenomenal turns in films such as Chaplin and Tropic Thunder.

Cillian Murphy is J. Robert Oppenheimer in OPPENHEIMER, written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan.

There are a plethora of supporting turns in the film that are impressive. Another that is garnering a lot of attention is Emily Blunt as Katherine “Kitty” Oppenheimer. One consistent critique of Nolan’s previous films are the lack of female characters. When there are female characters, they tend to be underwritten. Kitty is probably the most in-depth female character that Nolan had included in his filmography. Blunt’s performance is subtle and brilliant, especially towards the end when her anger at the government is evident following their dismissal of her husband.

The score by Ludwig Gorrenson captures in the inevitability of the bomb. Filled with dramatic crescendo and loud bombastic sounds, Gorrenson’s music becomes a dominant force during the film’s climactic scenes. The opening track “Fission” really highlights the anticipation and inevitable change in history. Gorrenson isn’t afraid to change the tone and pacing of tracks to emphasise the unpredictability and shift in dynamics and events.

The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema is stunning. The standout scene in the film is when the Trinity Test is carried out and this is thanks to van Hoytema’s incredible work. The focus on Oppenheimer as he waits for the results swiftly followed by blinding light marks a visual change in the film. The scenery in Oppenheimer consists largely of open spaces but there is such a pinpointed focus on the characters that it really closes the environment in towards Murphy and his performance.

Overall, Oppenheimer does have a runtime that could have been edited down ever so slightly, especially in the first act. However, it is also one of Nolan’s best films as director. His passion and knowledge on its subject piercing through every frame from beginning to end. It is a film filled to the brim with details and nuanced performances that makes it easy to see why it is garnering so much critical and commercial praise.

What did you think of Oppenheimer? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Review

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

Thor: Love and Thunder is the latest installment in the Thor franchise and most recent addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film follows Norse God of Thunder, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who has been on many adventures with the Guardians of the Galaxy. When it transpires that Gods across the universe are being slaughtered by Gorr, the God Butcher (Christian Bale), Thor must return to New Asgard with Korg (Taika Waititi) and team up with Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who has bonded with Thor’s old hammer, Mjolnir, and becomes the Mighty Thor in the hopes of stopping Gorr from completing his quest.

The film is directed by Taika Waititi who cowrote the script with Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Whereas Thor: Ragnarok leaned more heavily on its use of humour to mark a change in tone for the Thor franchise, it seems that Waititi wanted to incorporate a more serious undertone with the film’s discussions on loss of faith and loss of love and grief. However, if seems that Waititi and Robinson struggled at parts to get a balanced tone in certain parts as there were moments of sincerity that were undercut with humour and it didn’t quite land in the way it was meant to. These moments tended to be when Jane was discussing her illness with Thor. The writing in the opening sequence with Gorr felt overly explained and it would have had a stronger impact if every stage of Gorr’s plan wasn’t whispered to him as the audience can put the pieces together of what his intentions are at this point in time. That being said, the final act of the film was among the best that Marvel has to offer as Waititi and Robinson weren’t afraid to confront darker and sadder themes.

Chris Hemsworth is fantastic as usual in the leading role of Thor, continuing to showcase the funnier side of the God of Thunder that Waititi introduced us to in the previous installment, Thor: Ragnarok. Despite the tonal misbalance in the writing, Hemsworth does an excellent job of leading the film, while also proving his ability to balance comical and dramatic acting. His scenes with Jane are filled with inner emotional conflict that he refuses to admit, but as the film progresses, his vulnerability begins to show. It’s clear that despite all the success that Thor has and how much he has achieved, not having Jane in his life has taken its emotional toll on him.

Natalie Portman’s performance is heartbreaking as Jane is revealed to be terminally ill. As her body us unable to fight against the cancer, Jane turns away from science and looks to magic in the hope that it will save her life. She is called by Mjolnir, Thor’s old hammer, and becomes Mighty Thor. While Jane was arguably wasted in previous Thor films, especially, Thor: The Dark World, Thor: Love and Thunder makes the most of Portman’s exceptional talent. She is able to weave in traces of her own personality and passions, including lines that reference Jane’s strength as a woman and her achievements as a woman in science. Thor: Love and Thunder works as an ode to Jane’s character and makes complete use of Portman’s abilities.

Christian Bale is the film’s scene stealer as Gorr the God Butcher. Following his daughter’s demise in the film’s opening scene, Gorr becomes disillusioned with the concept of Gods and their duty to provide salvation for their followers. He is chosen by the Necrosword and vows to kill all Gods with the weapon. The way that Gorr is portrayed and written into the film is unlike the majority of Marvel villains. We truly get to see Gorr’s perspective as his frail and starving demeanor is transformed into a monster that is almost ghostly as he makes his way across the universe, slaying Gods. Another reason that Gorr is an intriguing character is that his reasoning for killing Gods is actually justified. He and his community have committed their lives to serving Gods that simply do not care for their devotees. His quest for justice is by no means right, but it’s not entirely wrong either. Just as the Shadow Realm is portrayed, we venture into a grey area in terms of morality.

The cinematography provided by Barry Idoine is highly striking and makes Thor: Love and Thunder such a rollercoaster to watch. The vibrancy of the scenes in Omnipotent City where the remaining Gods reside contrasts beautifully with the darkness of the Shadow Realm where Gorr is residing. The scenes in the Shadow Realm may be stripped of colour, but the way Idoine angles and contrasts the darkness and light goes hand in hand with the film’s themes of right and wrong. As Thor, Mighty Thor and Valkyrie search for the children in the Shadow Realm, their weapons light the way and provide glimpses of colour on their clothes and skin, which is a very nice touch to show their limited power in this place.

While Thor: Love and Thunder may have moments of tonal misbalance and a script that doesn’t quite hit the same mark as predecessor, Thor: Ragnarok, it does a brilliant job of bringing in old and new characters, while also allowing Waititi to integrate his own signature quirkiness and humour into the mix. With plenty of appearances from a variety of characters including the Guardians of the Galaxy as well as a fantastic performance by Russell Crowe as Zeus, Thor: Love and Thunder is an entertaining watch that includes some brilliantly executed emotional moments as well as a stunning turn from Bale.

What did you think of Thor: Love and Thunder? Let me know in the comments below!

Thor: Love and Thunder is available to watch in cinemas now!

Categories
Uncategorised

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)

This week’s animation review comes into the form of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Constantly renowned as the best animated film of the 2010s, Sony gained their first Oscar for Animated Feature for this unique comic book adaptation that saw Disney take a rare defeat at awards season. The film follows the regular Spider-Man lore as Brooklyn teen, Miles Morales is bitten by a radioactive spider and has to follow in Peter Parker’s footsteps after he is killed by Kingpin. A dangerous device that opens portals to alternate universes and Morales meets various Spider-Man characters from the different comics such as Spider-Ham and The Amazing Spider-Man. Based on a screenplay written by Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman and directed by the latter along with Bob Persichetti and Peter Ramsey, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a fantastic and unique animation that brings something new and exciting to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Lord and Rothman’s screenplay blends the various Spider-Man comics perfectly as it becomes a mix of drama and satire, poking fun at itself. When bringing in the other Spider-Man variations, it could have easily become too much and the characters not be fully developed and identifiable but the screenplay is so quick and smart that even the supporting characters are given a fair share of screen-time. One of the best characters is by far Spider-Man Noir (voiced incredibly by Nicolas Cage), a parody of the 1930s inspired by the likes of Humphrey Bogart. There are some great puns bringing him into the modern day such as his inability to see the colours in a Rubik’s Cube because he is black and white as well as being unable to understand how it works. It feels like a refreshing take on a comic book adaptation and its bravery killing off Parker early on was really unexpected, particularly for a family film.

The animation was provided by Sony Pictures Animation and the style is something I have not come across before. Combining traditional comic book art and computer animation, the style of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is both a nostalgic nod to its literal source material whilst using the most advanced animation techniques. Not only is this a welcome break from the usual computer animation that we’ve become used to seeing, but like its protagonist, it gives the film an alternative identity that makes it a standout. It’s understandable that besides its attachment to Marvel, why it would be popular based on the design. The graffiti scene where Miles and his Uncle Aaron spray a wall in a subway is particularly stunning and really brings the environment to life thanks to its mix of bright colour palette in the graffiti combined with the grittiness of the New York subway. Another fantastically designed scene is the climactic fight when the portal is opened and time and space merges and becomes a mesh of various universes.

Featuring a starry cast led by Shameik Moore, who voices Miles, the voicework is hugely impressive. Moore’s performance is great and really gets into the inner conflict Miles faces as he gets to grips with his new identity while trying to fit in at his new elite school. Miles is such a likeable character because of his relatability as well as showing the very realistic issues that would come with becoming a superhero. As well as Moore, other vocal standouts for me were Mahershala Ali as Miles’ Uncle Aaron and Nicolas Cage as Spider-Man Noir. Both really get to the heart of their characters and its clear that they are having fun with it.

Another thing to mention is the score composed by Daniel Pemberton. Atmospheric and unpredictable, there are moments of pure drama, horror and tension scattered throughout in the music. Pemberton’s score is really unique and enhances the film. Mixed with an impressive soundtrack that includes original songs by Post Malone and Nicki Minaj, Pemberton’s ability to shift musical genres that again, like Miles’ character and the animation, gives the film a distinct identity that shows its versatility and uniqueness.

Overall, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is an impressive feat that pushes boundaries and shows a different direction for animation. Boasting fantastic voice performances and stellar animation design, its cultural and stylistic impact cannot be ignored and only bodes well for the future of the franchise. It’s exciting to see where Marvel and Sony will take the animated franchise in the future but doubtless it will be a huge success and if this film was anything to go by, welcoming even more awards.

What did you think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Why Parasite’s win is important

Going into the 92nd Academy Awards, it seemed that pretty much every category was a lock. Joaquin Phoenix was favoured to take home the Best Actor gong for Joker, Renee Zellweger winning Best Actress for Judy and Sam Mendes was the strong favourite to win Best Director for 1917 with the latter ultimately winning Best Picture. How much the Academy surprised us then when the Best Director trophy was awarded to Bong Joon-ho for Parasite and then his film won the Best Picture award, beating the odds. Personally I was very happy as I had placed a bet on Parasite to win so there was a monetary reward for myself but the happiness goes to another more serious level. 1917 is a prime example of a quintessential award film. Don’t get me wrong, 1917 is a brilliant film that is full of revolutionary technical achievement, particularly Roger Deakins’ cinematography but it is no secret that the Academy and other Western award bodies have a love affair with war films. So much so that it has become a running joke in the film industry that to win awards, you have to make or star in a war film.

For those who are not in the know, Parasite is a Korean film exploring classism and inequality in a society that only benefits the rich and leaves those poorer to live in the gutter (quite literally). It has been the source of much hype since its premiere at last year’s Cannes Film Festival where it won the top prize, the Palme d’Or, in a rare unanimous vote, marking the first Korean film to win the prestigious award. Korean cinema is among the best in the world and has been a leading institution for years for filmmakers and film lovers and it felt like it was finally getting its due in the mainstream. Bong Joon-ho has previously delved into English-language with Snowpiercer (2013) and Okja (2017) which have become much-loved modern classics and released to acclaim; however, I think it’s poignant that Bong’s ascendance to the global audience has come from a Korean-language film that explores Korean society. It is very much detached from Western society in both its subject matter and filmmaking technique, allowing Bong to direct without the restrictions that Western studios demand. The fact that a film like Parasite, a film that is inherently unique in its style and content can beat a film like 1917 shows that there is an appetite for a different kind of film experience. It also shows a promising step forward in what audiences now expect. Naturally, franchises such as the Marvel and DC films still top the box office but Parasite concrete proof that people want more variety in the cinemas as well. Parasite’s subsequent box office success after its award wins confirms this. Now that it’s been given the chance to screen in more cinemas, it’s been able to demonstrate that there is an audience who want to watch foreign-language films, snubbing the assumption that Western audiences don’t want to watch films with subtitles.

There are many people who dismiss award season as pointless and dim, viewing it as celebrities patting themselves on the back. I don’t think it is as simple as that though. The truth is people do pay attention to awards season and follow the films that are successful. Of course, a lot of time there are the usual suspects who are nominated time and time again, sometimes undeservedly but when you have a film like Parasite that isn’t given the same chance as a mediocre English-language film then the exposure that award season brings is crucial for the film’s box office success.

Overall, there were some brilliant films this award season but Parasite was the clear standout. The fact that it won the major awards is a sign that the Academy is looking at artistic merit and not just succumbing to making it a popularity contest. Parasite’s win may not seem significant but the importance cannot be understated. Hopefully this will spark the beginning of an awards body that seeks to be more inclusive and diverse, giving all films an equal chance.

Here are my reviews for some of the films of the 92nd Academy Awards:

Winners: 1917, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, Judy, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite, Toy Story 4

Nominees: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Bombshell, The Irishman, The Lighthouse, The Two Popes

Snubs: Dolemite Is My Name, Hustlers, Midsommar, Uncut Gems

What did you think of Parasite’s winning streak at the Oscars? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Women’s Voice In Film

Women in film has become a huge talking point for film development in recent years, partially due to the #metoo movement that outed the abusive patriarchy in film seeing women given less power both in representation and finance. A lot of discussion on the internet (from men mostly) questioning whether there truly is a problem in the first place, do the women deserve the harassment they face and most importantly, do we really need these gender swap remakes? The answers to these questions are simply: yes there is a problem, no a woman never deserves harassment and of course we need as much female representation as possible.

It’s not secret that the days of Golden Hollywood, although seemingly flawless and iconic, foresaw the way women in film were treated by their bosses (producers and directors). From the infamous “casting couch” to the manipulative studio contracts, Hollywood presented itself as a mecca of dreams but proved to be a breaking point of mental illness, drug and alcohol misuse and domestic abuse. This period sees the breakdown of many stars including Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe and Bette Davis just to name a few. It seemed that solace could only be found at the bottom of a whiskey glass.

So what does this issue have to do with Hollywood today?

Well, to begin with, despite the elimination of studio contracts in the 50s due to the collapse of the Hollywood studio structure, it appears that female filmmaking is still viewed as a niche rather than as an equal offering. The fact that we even discuss a film as “female” or celebrate female creators and strong female characters shouldn’t be something we celebrate in the 21st century. Especially considering that we’re at a century of accessible filmmaking that has distributed across the globe. AFter everything that has happened globally regarding women’s issues such as voting rights, reproductive rights, fighting the wage gap, it’s unsurprising that the fight for the female experience through a woman’s perspective has been equally difficult. After all, film is a brilliant and affordable medium to translate issues to a global audience using visuals to gain awareness for issues. Take last year’s Oscar-winning short documentary Period. End of Sentence. that looks at female poverty in India where women are forced to quit school due to periods as they are unablt to afford sanitary products. In terms of fictional feature films, we have seen a resurgence of female driven comedies with Bridesmaids accredited with starting this trend. Other offerings in recent years have reverted back to teenage years with 2019’s Booksmart and 2017’s Lady Bird among the big fish. it’s great to see original stories created by women being given mainstream releases and have subsequently done well in the awards circuit. As well as comedies, we have also seen female-centred dramas such as Todd Haynes’ beautiful and iconic LGBT love story Carol (you can read my review here) starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara, which I would argue is the best love film of the century so far. Now these Indie films do incredibly well, but why hasn’t this translated as well into mainstream films? I’ll try to break this down.

It’s known that the majority of people who will go and see an original story created and performed by women is going to be seen by women. That’s all well and good but considering that men are the majority of the cinematic audience statistically, it’s important to get men to see films created and performed by women too. This is for a number of reasons and since the film industry is a business, the most important issue is money. If more men see the films then more money is given to the filmmakers and then more films created by women can be made which would eventually make the idea of the “female film” as old and traditional as the Golden Age of Hollywood. This brings me to the gender swap remakes. If you looked at the highest grossing films in recent years, chances are that they are filled with sequels, reboots, prequels and remakes. Using this information, it is a smart idea that in order to bring a female perspective to a high-grossing film, you must incorporate strong female roles into these films. However, this hasn’t been without a share of complaints from a small portion of the male audience. Take the Marvel and DC Universes for example. Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of the Marvel Universe but I have never heard such negativity from a male audience regarding it’s iconic female characters before. It seems that every other film is released with no issue, Marvel films particularly tend to sell out every initial screening and exceed in both critic and audience circles so when they decided to do a film dedicated to Captain Marvel, this should have been a celebration for a strong female character to join the achievements of its predecessors; however, this sadly wasn’t the case. A portion of the male audience was outraged by Brie Larson’s interpretation of the role as well as her feminist statements. It’s all well and good when the male superheros want to prove their stereotyped masculinity (which is an old school trope that Marvel appear to be fighting as well by bringing vulnerability into the male characters) but when Captain Marvel doesn’t need a man to save the world and more importantly, doesn’t want a man with her to save the world, this is a major issue. It was a role that should have been celebrated but instead, while Endgame was adored for bringing its emotion to the male characters (Iron Man specifically), Captain Marvel is viewed in a negative light because she veers away from the traditional “eye-candy” trope that Golden Hollywood has been feeding the audience with for years. I hope that as these franchises expand and more female characters are incorporated into their respected universes, the male audience that openly despises the likes of Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman may be open to the idea of the strong, independent women without thinking of them as simple love interests or sidekicks rather than the leaders of their own stories. Despite this small male audience who tweet outrageously about the femalecentred films, DC is clearly proud of the overwhelming success of Wonder Woman as they are bringing Patty Jenkins back for the second film (I did actually enjoy Wonder Woman! The first segment featuring the Amazonians is astonishing direction and writing).

I am not writing this article to be negative or bash the male audience because the male audience is important to the plight of female filmmaking as well and it is only a small portion. I think that there has to be an understanding that it is much harder for a woman to get a film made than a man. Once that statement is understood and acknowledged then the discussion of female film becomes a welcome idea and celebrated. But in a world where the Indie films created by women are renowned for their originality, why do we need gender swapped films such as Ghostbusters? Do we actually need them?

As I said at the top of this article… yes, yes we do!

Why do we need them? By remaking films with gender swapped protagonists, it gives the audience a new perspective on a femiliar setting. It’s easy to be angered when a classic like Ghostbusters is given an update with the best female comedians much like the original with men. It’s a brilliant film by itself (it obviously isn’t as good as the original) but I don’t think the intention was to “outdo” the original. I think it was to show that women could be given an ordinary role without the woman part being of any importance. I think that if Ghostbusters was remade with a male cast, there would be the usual complaints of “we don’t need a remake” but the abuse hurled at the stars of the film showed that there is sexist view from this portion of male audience. It seems to not only be that women have “taken” the roles, but that women are put in powerful positions without being the love interest. There is also an argument that representation is important and when given the opportunity to make these remakes, it’s another opportunity to put women in the driving seat which is only a positive.

Some of the films I love such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Frances Ha feature brilliant female characters. Clementine Kruczynski (played fantastically by Kate Winslet) in the former and Greta Gerwig as the quirky titular character in the latter are women who have their flaws and struggles but at the end of the day, are independent and strong. Both films directed by men but show the important of strong female presence in film. Eternal Sunshine’s script won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award suggesting that there is a demand for these female characters. Another film that is a force of nature is 2016’s Turkish offering, Mustang, about five young sisters who are forced into marriage after wrongly being accused of sexual activity with a group of boys in their class at school. Written and directed by Deniz Gamze Erguven in her directorial debut, Mustang is one of the best films I have ever seen. The film is shown through the eyes of the youngest sister, Lale, giving the audience an innocent glimpse into an oppressive world without explicitly saying so. Much like the message of the film, the writing and directing is subtle with a lot of stillness and peace in moments of chaos. Another brilliant female-led offering is 2018’s The Favourite which was hugely snubbed in the Oscars this year and has not one, not two but THREE stellar leads in the form of Olivia Colman as Queen Anne (who deservedly won an Oscar for her performance) and Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone as the women vying for the queen’s attention. It’s a complex triangle of lust, power and manipulation. This answers the question whether women can carry a film with a resounding YES!

At the end of it all, more needs to be done to finance and distribute mainstream films created by and starring women but this isn’t to say that none exist at all and the offerings we have had in recent years particularly show a huge improvement to the films of the Golden Era. Women have proven time and time again that they can create films that are both critical and commercial (when given the chance) successes.

What are your favourite films created by and/or starring women? Let me know in the comments below?