Author: BRWC

Welcome to the first of a two part post belatedly discussing two of the biggest films at this years Academy Awards. Having finally managed to catch them at the end of their, generously extended, cinema run last week, The Descendants and The Artist, have been playing on my mind.

Depending on your views on The Oscars as an accurate or relevant score card for modern cinema, these films and their collective parade of nominations (which are, naturally, not limited to those little golden Oscar statues) could present tricky viewing, particularly when it comes to objectivity. Knowing a film has been critically and publicly lauded beforehand can have several effects on its viewing; you could blindly agree with what others have said or actively depart from collective opinion and find fault where it may, or may not, exist just to be perceived as having your own mind. A logical option is to watch the movie on its merits and try to ignore anything, good or bad, said by anyone else but, whilst that sounds perfectly well reasoned, once other voices have crept into your mind it can be difficult to reconcile them with personal opinion.

The Descendants and The Artist represent for me two polar opposites when it comes to this problem. Both movies received almost unequivocal high praise, with no dissenting critical voices, and so perhaps we’re lead to conclude that both movies are amazing works of cinema. I would contend that this is only a half truth; one of these movies lives up to its praise whilst the other is staggeringly overhyped, forcing me to wonder where I was when everyone else was drinking the Kool-Aid.

The Descendants, from writer and director Alexander Payne, opens with a water skiing accident in Hawaii, one we are thankfully not shown as to do so would have been superfluous. The story follows Matt King, played by George Clooney, coming to terms with the aftermath of this event; his terminally comatose wife (Elizabeth), his family upheaval, the discovery of his wife’s infidelity, and a looming multimillion dollar business deal. For anyone that would be somewhat of a handful, but Matt King has to also contend with the fact he has been seemingly absent from his life. He remains bafflingly clueless as to the goings on within his family and his marriage, not suspecting that his wife was in love with another man (played in a surprisingly fantastic turn by Matthew Lillard) and on the verge of leaving him, or that his daughter wasn’t speaking to his wife0 because she was aware of it all. Even his best friends appear to be complicit, causing me to wonder what the hell he’d been doing with his life up to this point.

Elizabeth’s accident, King’s realisation about her affair, and having to be the active parental figure all force him to reassess his life, presenting him with a wake up call to be present in it. This in turn effects the sort of person he chooses to be. Whilst it might sound like quite a lot happens in this movie it certainly doesn’t feel like it, The Descendants gently carries us along, equally surprised as King as events unfold. I’m a big fan of the fact we never meet Elizabeth, her part in this movie is from a coma-bed, and we see her from the perspective of the other characters. This kind of story telling is highly effective, engaging the viewer into the lives of the characters and allowing them to infer certain details. Successful movies show 2 and 2 and let the audience make 4, if you labour a point, effectively showing someone write on a blackboard 2 + 2 = 4, you’re story won’t be anywhere near as effective.

The relationship that builds between King and his daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) as they work together, both to investigate Elizabeth’s lover and to form a new familial structure for the younger daughter, is well crafted and unfolds beautifully. Clooney, whose style of acting I’m not often a fan of as he is too frequently indistinguishable in his calm aloof swagger, is here nigh on irreproachable. He’s also backed up by a very accomplished supporting cast in Nick Krause, Beau Bridges, Robert Forster, Judy Greer, and Michael Ontkean, whose appearances are carefully woven throughout the narrative.

For a movie set in Hawaii, The Descendants eschews the normal portrayal of a highly saturated island of wonder in favour of a respectably muted, slightly desaturated, palate of colour thus giving the whole movie a distinctive, but not overbearing, visual tone. As Clooney’s character says in the movie, ‘just because you live in Hawaii doesn’t mean you live in paradise’ and we’re certainly not treated to the overblown Hawaii on display in the likes of Lost.

Tinged with comedy, this moving and rewarding film was deserving of the praise that it received in its Academy Awards nominations; shockingly though it only won for Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay. Clooney was robbed of a Best Actor award (I’ll qualify this when I discuss The Artist in part 2). The movie isn’t flawless but it’s human, and as such it’s flaws are merely indicative of an imperfect nature. It was great to watch a film that was deserving of its praise, it won’t be for everyone – it’s certainly not fast paced – but having said that, the majority of people should come away having been engaged by the story.

Check back tomorrow for Part 2 in which I discuss the other big hitter at the 2012 Academy Awards, The Artist.

It’s always a risk when someone decides to name a film something like this. And I’m going to have to come out and say it now. This film did not make as much ‘perfect sense’ as I was hoping it would.

When I put this film on I thought, two great actors, a lot of money behind it, a storyline that makes you think. What could go wrong? I’ll answer that for you now. Everything and nothing.

Let me first start with the plot. Suddenly people all around the world start crying. A lot. They then lose their sense of smell. Pretty annoying right? Oh wait you’re going to be even more pissed off when you lose all of your other senses (touch funnily enough is missed out). I know these ‘end of the world’ films are pretty popular, Contagion being a prime example. But a part of me thinks, if you’re going to depress people, at least make it dramatic. Let there be chemical warfare, mutations and Will Smith roaming the mean streets with his loyal dog. Don’t make a film that is going to depress me about the world ending, it would be depressing enough as it is without being unable to smell, taste, hear or see!

In principal having a storyline that is a bit different to all the other apocalypse films is good. I like a film that makes me think and I relish a mental challenge but I just didn’t connect with the storyline and at some points found it pretentious. Add to this mix Eva Green and Ewan McGregor and a budding romance and it became a little bit stale. The film focuses too much on them having a lot of sex, getting angry at each other because of the ‘disease’ and then having a lot more sex. The world could have been returning to normal but we wouldn’t know about it because Ewan McGregor’s arse and Eva Green’s tits are the focal points. (I know I shouldn’t be complaining).

One minute there is chaos on the streets and people are running around confused. The next minute the streets are desolate with no real explanation as to what’s going on.

I sit here and I think about the 89 minutes I have just spent being told that we’ve lost touch with ourselves and how it isn’t the end of the world that is devastating, but that of losing our senses of who we are and I just think. Who cares? This film hasn’t made me appreciate my senses any more than I already did. In fact it made me want to lose my ability to hear or see just to save me from any more of the rambling pretentious narrations that seem to pop up every 10 minutes and lecture me on how ungrateful I am about being able to smell, taste, hear and see!

I’ve sat writing this review and ranted about all that is wrong with this film, but that’s what makes this film good too! It may be pretentious, it may have a weak storyline with characters that you don’t connect to and far more sex than is necesarry for a film of this subject but it’s different, its sobering and it’s intelligent.

I’m torn between saying it is the worst piece of drivel I have seen in a long time (please refer to Sand Sharks Review) and saying what a refreshing change it is to have a world disaster film that doesn’t end with everybody living happily ever after.

Whatever you do, if you watch this film, embrace the emotions that you feel when watching. Let yourself love some parts and hate others. Just be thankful that it is able to provoke a reaction and doesn’t make you feel numb! (Please refer to Sand Sharks Review).

A gentleman arrives home from a trip out and about. Where he went? I don’t know. What he did? Who cares?

He looks upset. No, that’s not right. He’s in shock. Shock. Getting out of the his car he stares at his car in disbelief. What could he have done? Done with his car?

He goes inside where his sister (I’m assuming one of them is divorced, which would explain why two grown siblings are living together) is waiting for him to give her a lift out. But he can’t. He can’t go back to the car. He’s in shock.

Wrangling from her brother why he’s in shock he reveals that he’s just mowed down a child. Shock!

Bit like when Lili Tomlin ran into a child in Short Cuts, but this is way more shocking. And there’s a twist at the end that I won’t spoil I’ve already been a bit of dick reviewing Aftershock anyway.

The trick with a memorable short film is a simple, punchy premise that sticks in the memory through sheer concept or distinguished visuals. While has a nice little idea “what would you did a hit-and-run on someone?” it is undersold through poor acting and little dialogue. Director Trevor Smith – who produces under the name Bigg T, I was hoping it was Busta Rhymes, his name’s Trevor Smith – concentrates mainly on the cinematography, which is suitably bleak, and the editing which is punchy and unnerving.

The main issue comes down to the script and his two leads. The dialogue tries to sound naturalistic but comes across as improv performed by two high school students. When the brother relays his horrible ordeal it has all the impact of someone telling you that a mosquito just hit the windscreen and it won’t wipe off. Sorry to the two actors who are clearly doing their best but maybe actors that actually cost money to hire would have brought some slight tension from the script. Half of the film is taken up with the brother character stumbling around the car and driveway in Aftershock, the other half is his half hearted confessional. At ten minutes long it feels as though a longer running time may have wrung some more horror from the situation. Perhaps with better actors.

As it is Aftershock is ten minutes that you will likely forget pretty quickly. The twist I mentioned will also bring up more questions that you weren’t that bothered about finding the answers too. It would set things up nicely for a sequel though. It would probably need to be a knockabout crime caper. Now that would be fun.