Author: Alton Williams

Fame ***

With recent releases such as the Step Up films, Make It Happen, High School Musical and, dare I say it, Dance Flick, not to mention several others, dance movies are very much an in thing at the moment. Another in thing, at least in the eyes of Hollywood studio executives, is remakes. So, put the two together, and what do you get? A new version of the classic 1980 dance movie (and TV series) Fame, one that has clearly been brought up to date in order to attract the crowd that made the Step Up and High School Musical movies so popular. But will the young target audience enjoy it just as much as those films and also see it as more than just an American version of TV show Britannia High and will fans of the original 1980s film also get some appreciation out of it?

At New York City’s prestigious School of Performing Arts, students from all walks of life hone their talents and pursue their dreams. But it’s not going to be easy for this year’s batch of young hopefuls – Jenny (Kay Panabaker), Victor (Walter Perez), Denise (Naturi Naughton), Marco (Asher Book), Alice (Kherington Payne), Malik (Collins Pennie), Rosie (Kristy Flores), Kevin (Paul McGill), Neil (Paul Iacono) and Joy (Anna Maria Perez De Tagle). If they’re going to stand out from the crowd, the actors, dancers, singers and artists are going to have to overcome the some of the toughest challenges of their young lives. Under the guidance of their teachers – acting teacher Mr. Dowd (Charles S Dutton), music teacher Mr. Cranston (Kelsey Grammer), singing teacher Ms. Rowan (Megan Mullally) and dancing teacher Ms. Kraft (Bebe Neuwirth) – the precocious pupils must learn to overcome nerves, self-doubt, competition and heartbreak – all while trying to deal with the ordinary trials of high school life. And it’s going to take every ounce of talent and determination they’ve got if they’re going to walk away with the biggest prize of all – fame.

One thing that should be noted before seeing Fame is that it is not really a musical per se but rather a music drama that features musical numbers. This is basically saying that while there are indeed musical number sequences in the film they often feel like they are taking second place to the drama, and herein lies the key problem with the film. For drama to really work it requires distinct focus with characters getting plenty of character development and being involved in a range of dramatic situations. To the least observant of moviegoers it may well appear that the film satisfies these requirements as each character does indeed come from the own unique personal situations and faces trials that test their courage and determination. However, such elements are only seen so fleetingly that they barely count at all. It often feels like the filmmakers have just included the stuff because they felt they had to rather than because they really cared about the storyline. The really fatal flaw of the film is that there is too much of everything. Too many characters are present for any of them to be given adequate focus and consequently enough development and the fact that the storyline takes place over a period of four years – right through from auditions to graduation – means that the story, or what passes for story, is constantly being rushed with one scene meandering aimlessly into the next. As a result it is hard to truly care about any of the multitude of characters, a major failing for a drama. A lack of character development also means that many of the cast members are given little to work with. All of the adult actors are criminally underused with only Megan Mullally getting any significant attention but even then her comic talents, along with those of Kelsey Grammer, are not utilized. The young actors fare much better, if only because they get much more screen time, and make the most of what limited roles they have. Most are decent but unspectacular in their performances although it is at least nice to see rising star Anna Maria Perez De Tagle given the opportunity to break out of the stereotypical dumb girl roles that she has been seen playing in shows like Hannah Montana and Cake. There is one thing that the film does get right though – the musical numbers themselves. While there aren’t as many as there could with being the musical numbers are nonetheless very well executed, with great singing, great music and great choreography. For this reason the film does have some entertainment value and will likely be loved by most of its target audience. As a whole, however, Fame is a film that lacks the fun factor of High School Musical and the dramatic intensity of other dance dramas and while it is likely that both the High School Musical generation and the Fame generation will get some enjoyment of it both are certain to prefer their respective movies better. So, the film does have some value but it is ultimately rather unmemorable and, unlike its 1980 predecessor, will be completely forgotten once its fifteen minutes of fame is up.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

The Soloist ***½

With the awards season getting closer and closer once again we have one of the first of this year’s Oscar hopefuls in the form of The Soloist, a film which wears its Oscar aspirations on its sleeve, although reviews from its release in the states (and even some that have come in over here) suggest that it may well be setting its reach too high. In theory at least it certainly has all the ingredients of an Oscar nominee (if not a winner), with Oscar winner Jamie Foxx taking on the lead role and Oscar nominee Robert Downey Jr. as his co-star, not to mention an inspirational true life story (something which has been pushed quite heavily, often a sign of awards hopefulness). However, whether or not director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice and Atonement) is really the right man to do the story justice is the real question.

Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) is a journalist for the LA Times. His marriage is falling apart and a professional crisis has left him struggling to find the inspiration for his next column. Then one day, when walking through LA’s Skid Row, he sees a bedraggled homeless man playing beautiful music on a two-stringed violin. The man is Nathaniel Anthony Ayers Jr. (Jamie Foxx), a schizophrenic former child prodigy and Julliard student turned street musician who could have played packed concert halls the world over but actually wound up living rough in the tunnels and doorways of Los Angeles. While Steve begins to unearth the truth behind Nathaniel’s extraordinary life, the two men start to forge an unlikely friendship and begin to enrich and change each other’s lives in ways they never thought possible.

If nothing else there is one thing in The Soloist that does live up to its Oscar aspirations – Jamie Foxx. Following his award winning turn as Ray Charles in Ray, Foxx once again delivers a pitch perfect performance of a music virtuoso, with him bringing the character of Nathaniel to vibrant life, excellently capturing all the mannerisms and speech patterns that would be associated with his schizophrenic condition. This is a character who is completely believable and one who you will not be able to help feeling for, a man who has struggled all his life with homelessness and mental instability yet hasn’t given up in the face of adversity thanks to his one passion in life – music. The success of the character can be partly attributed to strong character development, of course, with screenwriter Susannah Grant providing numerous flashbacks that give important insights into the character, showing us exactly how he ended up in his current situation. Really though it is Foxx who makes it work and he really deserves an Oscar nomination. In the face of such a great performance Robert Downey Jr. couldn’t possibly stand up so well but, despite the character not being developed as well, a few scenes towards the end being pretty much it as far as back story is concerned, he delivers a strong performance and he shares a very good on screen chemistry with Foxx, with the relationship between Steve and Nathaniel seeming true to life and coming across as charming and endearing. The film is bolstered heavily by these two lead performances but the film doesn’t impress as much in other areas. Joe Wright, while not doing a bad job as director, doesn’t seem to be quite the right man to make the film as good as it could be. The commentary on the plight of the homeless and mentally challenged in Los Angeles is touching (and realistic thanks to the use of real locations – the true Los Angeles as opposed to the artificiality of Hollywood and Beverly Hills – and real homeless people as cast members) but it often seems like more of a distraction from the true story than a supporting point and it isn’t really put across with enough bravado to really make the impact it seems to be aiming for. Also, while Wright does manage to provide some quite beautiful visual flourishes, such as shots of birds flying through the air while Nathaniel performs on his violin, many of these are lacking true visual innovation, some being almost generic. Another flaw in the film is certain instances of humour that are present. Some of the humour is very welcome and a number of sequences feel completely at home and are extremely charming but other (possibly unintentional) humorous scenes just seem completely out of place, being little more than passable gags that have no value in a film such as this. This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t have some great points though. Despite a storyline that meanders from one scene to the next, without that great a flow, the tale is still beautiful, moving and inspirational, something which is definitely supported by the music, most of which may move you to tears. Ultimately it is this music that is really at the heart of the film, so despite many of the flaws that prevent The Soloist from being a true masterpiece of cinema it still has enough qualities to make it worth seeing. If nothing else see it for Jamie Foxx.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Surrogates ****

Coming a couple of weeks after the so-so thriller Whiteout we have yet another movie based on a comic book, and again one that is not about superheroes, even though the more fantastical concept of Surrogates is considerably closer to recent comic adaptations of the superhero variety. Right out of the gate Surrogates (based on the comic of the same name by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele) and is guaranteed to be an improvement upon that last comic adaptation to hit cinema screens, with a central idea that could be right out of a Philip K. Dick story (Minority Report, Blade Runner and Total Recall among the numerous films based on his works), an extremely capable director in the form of Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3) and a decent cast ensemble, with Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell taking on the leading roles. A lack of confidence on the part of the studio, as demonstrated by the decision to release the film in September – often considered a dumping ground for films with limited potential, may not do much to inspire cinema-goers to check the film out but trailers have been promising, showing off futuristic sci-fi action and the potential for a good, thought-provoking storyline – two crucial elements in futuristic sci-fi fare such as this – but does the film really stand out or like Whiteout is it just another passable piece of comic based cinema that may entertain slightly while it lasts but will leave you with no desire to ever see it again?

It’s the year 2017 and people now live their lives through surrogates – humanoid robots they can control using the power of their minds – the purpose of these surrogates being to create a safer and better world for all. Many humans now live in isolation as they command their surrogates to act out their wildest dreams, all from the comfort and safety of their own homes, never leaving their houses for real. When two people are killed while connected to their surrogates – the first murder in 15 years – the authorities are rocked by the scandal and send out FBI agents Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell) to investigate. Soon, the agents begin to unearth links between the homicide and the creator of the surrogate phenomenon. But when Greer is involved in a near fatal accident and his surrogate is destroyed, he is forced to bring his human self out of isolation in order to uncover the truth.

Surrogates may well face criticism from some for coming across a lot like 2004’s I, Robot and such criticisms are certainly valid (it even has James Cromwell playing the role of the creator of the machines, just like in that film). However, look past issues relating to the film’s originality and there are many positive things that can be identified. For starters, this isn’t just a leave-your-brain-at-the-door action movie but a film that manages to be quite thought provoking at times, raising a number of key issues – loss of humanity in favour of technology, the notion that anyone can be ANYONE, the replacement of people by machines in war and the decay of users in their homes while they live out their fantasies through their eternally perfect surrogate selves. Such issues are well interwoven, if not thoroughly explored, into a convincing futuristic work which, while not looking especially futuristic as a whole, despite some very good futuristic set design in places, is very believable as it really isn’t that hard to picture such a future coming to pass. The world portrayed has a certain creepiness to it resulting from the distinct artificiality and power of the surrogate machines. The surrogates (all portrayed by real actors – de-aged and perfectly flawless thanks to some CGI work, Bruce Willis being made to look like a young man once again and convincingly so) look like real people but simultaneously have an artificial appearance to them. For this reason they make very convincing machines and have a very eerie screen presence. It is quite interesting to see the stark contrast between the characters’ real selves and their surrogate selves – a good visual representation of reality vs. fantasy and what reality turns into when fantasy becomes reality. The realistic portrayal of a slightly (but not too) futuristic world works well thanks to some very good effects work and more importantly a well written script that delivers a strong storyline that allows for some action sequences (the action being pretty good if not phenomenal, and being quite sparse overall) without it ever feeling like plot is being compromised in any way. There is also a plot twist late on that may be quite surprising to some, if not everyone. Another strong point is the performers. As their characters’ surrogate selves the cast members seem quite cold, sterile and emotionless, further heightening the illusion of them not being real people, but as his character’s real self Bruce Willis really gets some pretty good stuff to work with, delivering some quite emotional sequences very well and perfectly capturing his struggle to fit into a world surrounded by machines. Radha Mitchell is also decent but sadly we only really see as her character’s surrogate self, preventing any further exploration of the character. Also of note are James Cromwell, who gets a slightly meatier role than in I, Robot, and Rosamund Pike portraying Greer’s surrogate obsessed wife. Overall, Surrogates is not the best film of its type but with it’s Philip K. Dick style vision of the future, which isn’t entirely implausible, it manages to be an interesting and entertaining piece of sci-fi action nonetheless.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)