An Italian adaptation of Jack London’s eponymous novel, built around a ‘we-come-from-different-worlds’ romance. It follows parvenu author Martin Eden’s journey from rags to riches in the febrile political climate of pre-WW2 Italy, and his passionate love-affair with an aristocrat’s daughter. Sounds like stirring stuff, but it’s marred by shoddy filmmaking.
Rhythm matters. Action, romance, comedy, all films and all genres are married to our pulses by editing. When those rhythms are disrupted unintentionally, it’s jolting. The editing here shunts regular beats off-centre, belying a lack of rigour in the production process. Beyond that, director Pietro Marcello employs a pair of aggressively arty devices that are always an eye-jab. Uno: annoying, unnecessary POV shots. This isn’t Silence of the Lambs. Due: Marcello’s framing of flashbacks. I appreciate they require a differentiating visual cue — audiences have to know what is and isn’t in the present. Changing shades of monochrome however? Pick a colour that fits and stick with it.
Accompanying the muddle in the direction is the chosen potpourri of musical styles, with musak, classical preludes and euro-pop all coming, clashing, coming again, and going. In a longer movie with more distance between scenes, they might have separated out into constituent parts. Indeed, it feels odd to characterise a 2-hour film as rushed. This contains the material for a sweeping epic, and 128 minutes isn’t enough to realise it —instead the narrative is inimically foreshortened. Take Martin Eden’s character development in the final act, for instance. The guy goes through one bad break-up and turns into a bohemian emo, and he gets one book deal and transforms from a pauper into a superstar. Both of these concomitant changes take place without a single coordinating scene.
Ultimately then, the erudite screenplay that thrusts Jack London’s early-20th century political philosophy into cinema, ends up being an interesting footnote to those drawbacks, rather than the film’s centrepiece. There’s a whole other essay to be written on the debates about individualism, collectivism, romanticism, laissez-faire, and everything in-between that it attempts to convey. Short of wherewithal though, this is the essay that was demanded. The troubled writer stalking Martin Eden would understand that.
“The Swarm” is a French film present in the list of the 2020 International Critic’s Week (unfortunately cancelled due to covid), a parallel section of the Cannes Film Festival, which aims to discover new talents.
“The Swarm” is Just Philippot’s first feature film, based on an original idea by Jérôme Genevray. It will go through several festivals such as the festival of Angoulême or Sitges before being known by the public during the international festival of the fantastic film of Gérardmer.
The film takes place in a small town in the French countryside. Virginie Hébrard (played by Suliane Brahim) started growing grasshoppers after her husband died, in order to feed her two children Laura (played by Marie Narbonne) and Gaston (played by Raphael Romand). But her farm is far from working as she had hoped, and she will soon be, like many farmers in France, drowning in debt and not having enough to live on.
At first, the film takes the direction of a social film, pointing out the difficulties that farmers can face in their job, such as lack of buyers or crop failure. But this “social film” aspect will gradually plunge into a more fantastic horror. The film approaches the theme of sacrifice in a very interesting way.
Financially supported by Karim (played by Sofian Khammes) a wine grower, Virginie Hébrard tries in vain to make her farm work until she loses her temper. This violent outburst will open the doors to madness when she realizes that grasshoppers react strangely to blood.
As if she had signed a pact with the devil, Virginie will gradually plunge into dementia and her obsession with grasshoppers will grow. As a metaphor for the condition of farmers, she will sacrifice her body and her soul to the point of exhaustion in order to survive.
The photography of the film, set in a beautiful French countryside, is very successful. The very precise visuals of the grasshoppers provoke a mix between fascination and disgust for these insects, which feed a feeling of unease.
Through their evolution and their mutation, the grasshoppers become louder, more threatening. At the beginning of the film they were just harmless, but gradually become a real source of horror.
The rhythm of the film is very well worked, some slowness, well executed, contributes to a progressive rise of tension and uneasiness.
Suliane Brahim of the Comédie Française, recently seen in Olivier Nakache’s “The Specials”, plays the character of Virginie remarkably well, a force of nature that seems to be led to the rupture.
We can also notice the excellent performances of Sofian Khammes, revealed for the public in Romain Gavras’ “The World Is Yours” (2018) and Marie Narbonne, who recently had a small role in Quentin Dupieux’s “Mandibles.”a Both of these French actors look very promising.
Combining social drama and horror, “The Swarm” is an excellent first film for Just Phillippot, who manages to make a poignant film of a great scenaristic, visual and rhythmic quality.
Black Widow Synopsis: Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), aka the Black Widow, confronts the darker parts of her ledger when a dangerous conspiracy with ties to her past arises. Pursued by a force that will stop at nothing to bring her down, Natasha must deal with her history as a spy while teaming up with her long-lost sister Yelena (Florence Pugh).
Years of intense planning skillfully conjured the climatic wonders of Avengers Endgame, a blockbuster event that transcended the Marvel Cinematic Universe formula. While Marvel fans still discuss the film’s sizable impact today, the superhero juggernaut now finds itself in an intriguing new place. Without franchise staples like Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, producer Kevin Feige and company must develop a new wave of beloved heroes for fans to rally behind.
Before a new generation of heroes makes their cinematic debut, Marvel is closing another chapter with the long-delayed Black Widow spin-off. Widow’s shocking death does make this feature an odd proposition (no offense Marvel, but we shouldn’t have had to wait over a decade to give this character her own film). Thanks in large part to a skilled cast and a well-calibrated emotional core, director Cate Shortland creates a solid, albeit slight, rendition for Natasha Romanoff’s swan song.
Shortland, the latest indie stalwart to take the sizable leap to blockbuster cinema, helps steer Black Widow in a semi-fresh direction for the MCU. She develops instant intrigue from her mean-and-lean introduction, whisking audiences into a Bourne-esque tale of espionage and deceit with Widow on the run after Captain America: Civil War. A change in flavoring allows Shortland to repurpose Marvel’s distinct sensibility into a hard-hitting high-wire act formed from more realistic textures. The spy pastiche makes a sound fit for Widow, conveying the character’s self-assured swagger while also confronting her enigmatic identity throughout the years. She has always been on the run from her haunted past, but now those demons have finally caught up with her in this latest mission.
On a character front, Black Widow excels with flying colors. It’s a delight to finally delve into Natasha’s backstory, with the trio of screenwriters intimately analyzing the lingering abandonment and distrust that define her rigid persona. At the core of those feelings lies a shaky family dynamic. Natasha’s parental figures embraced KGB propaganda over their own children, creating an interesting conflict of interest that isn’t entirely disconnected from real-world sentiments. The writing sticks to fairly broad strokes, but the grounded conceits help make a refreshing change-of-pace from superhero’s usual planet-saving conflicts.
An all-star cast also elevates the intriguing material. Scarlett Johansson’s poise and transfixing gravity have always been on display, but the starring role provides the actress with newfound wrinkles to play upon. Her ability to balance Natasha’s self-assured bravado with impactful vulnerabilities morphs the longtime supporting role into a feature-worthy figure. Florence Pugh’s meteoric ascension only continues to rise as Yelena. The actresses’ infectious presence and nuanced delivery make her a fitting partner next to Natasha, with the duo forming a consistently compelling pair as siblings rekindling their long-forgotten bond. David Harbour and Rachel Weisz also charm as Natasha and Yelena’s parental guardians. The personable quartet work to evolve the group’s initial bitterness into an endearingly makeshift family dynamic.
Black Widow’s fresh pastiche still can’t escape the homogenized aesthetics of MCU properties. Some fans may not agree, but I find a majority of the MCU offerings suffer from visual stagnation. While Shortland’s thoughtful introspections benefit the material, the talented director is left standing on the sidelines as dozens of assistant directors and VFX artists conjure the same setpieces we’ve seen done to death. The camerawork lacks proper dynamism, and while the idea of imbuing hard-hitting realism has promise, the lack of naturalism prevents the setpieces from escaping the bombast of blockbuster thrills (I’m not asking for a hard R-rating, but some blood and cuts wouldn’t hurt to sell the punchy impact).
Even with two years off from MCU films, some of the brand’s storied staples are starting to show their age. The studio seems unable to allow their films to embrace a completely new identity onscreen, often pulling back from the espionage lens to introduce a lackluster array of hokey comedic bits, half-baked villains, and forced MCU references (each Avengers quip lands flat on its face). I get the significance of the MCU’s interconnectivity, but that dynamic should not come at the expense of the film itself (the ending feels like an anti-climax, focusing more on the future rather than giving Natasha a proper send-off). Black Widow could have been even better if the filmmakers were allowed to go full force into the realism direction.
Still, Marvel knows how to craft a breezy piece of summer entertainment. Black Widow’s fresh inclusions add just enough depth and charisma to reanimate the studio’s rigid formula. That being said, I do hope Marvel is willing to grow cinematically as their universe expands. They may be at the top of their game right now, but audiences could eventually grow weary of the conventional approach.
Black Widow debuts in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access on July 9th.
America: The Motion PictureSynopsis: A chainsaw-wielding George Washington (Channing Tatum) teams with beer-loving bro Sam Adams (Jason Manztoukas) and other historical figures to take down the Brits in a tongue-in-cheek riff on the American Revolution.
After crafting comedic staples like 21 Jump Street and The LEGO Movie, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have impressively transformed their initial success into a beloved brand. The duo keenly developed an impressive slew of innovative animated efforts, winning an Oscar for overseeing Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse while developing one of the year’s best films so far, The Mitchells vs. The Machines. I appreciate how they entrust a diverse array of talent, allowing filmmakers to pursue creative avenues that aren’t typically embraced by animation’s defining juggernauts.
Lord and Miller’s latest production, America: The Motion Picture, might be their most obtuse yet. Spewing with brash vulgarities and more than a little creative license, director Matt Thompson and screenwriter Dave Callaham craft their eccentric revisionist history with infectious wild-child energy. Sadly, this mildly amusing romp gets lost amidst an inconsistent array of juvenile pratfalls.
The nucleus for America: The Motion Picture is honestly quite brilliant. By clashing posh historical figures with the crass extremes of our modern zeitgeist, Callaham’s screenplay presents glimmers of thoughtful reflection. Some setpieces humorously take to task our storied forefathers, while others zero their sights on America’s evergrowing division. When the jokes hit, Callaham’s biting wit and observant insights help transcend the project’s stoner comedy form.
I can’t appreciate Callaham enough for his bold departure from standard conventionality. Combined with Thompson’s jagged yet spirited visuals (never thought I would see George Washington chainsaw dozens of British soldiers), the duo craft an audacious assault on America’s overly-lionized history. The energetic voice performances also help in selling the over-the-top lunacy. Channing Tatum and Jason Mantzoukas have a blast screeching profanities as beloved founding fathers, while Olivia Munn and Raoul Max Trujillo add sharpness as outside observers of the colony’s twisted practices.
America: The Motion Picture spotlights the kind of confrontational comedy I love to see. If only Callaham could replicate that formula throughout the entire duration. For every bit that works, Callaham peppers in a half-dozen or so flat modern references alongside the crass antics (here’s another comedy that confuses buzz word references as jokes). I like the conceit of altering American lore, but Callaham far too often resorts to button-pushing as a means of generating laughter. The more bizarre the gags get, the murkier the film’s intriguing vision becomes.
Callaham and Thompson’s film just isn’t succinct enough to represent its nuanced ideas. Far too often, the duo’s embrace of busy pratfalls only works to distract from the material’s purposeful bits. It’s a comedy that suffers from a failure of identity, ranging between Adult Swim-type shenanigans and political insights without ever merging the dissident identities.
America: The Motion Picture could have been a meaningful satire, but it ultimately reduces into the empty brashness that the filmmakers attempt to condemn. Still, I am thrilled this movie exists for its radical edge. Don’t be shocked if the film discovers a cult audience in the coming years.
America: The Motion Picture is now available on Netflix.
With the original Disney+ show ‘Monsters At Work’ coming to the streaming service on the 7th July, I thought it would be a nice idea to revisit the original Pixar animated classic. ‘Monsters Inc.’ was a film that I remember seeing with my family and loved it at the time of release. Not only was it a unique and fantastic film, but it was also a technological achievement for the animation studio, when it came to creating realistic fur. But this is a film that I haven’t watched in a long time, so I wonder if it has stood the test of time?
‘Monsters Inc’ follows James. P. Sullivan, or Sully for short (John Goodman – Kong Skull Island, 10 Cloverfield), and Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal – When Harry Met Sally) as scarers at the titular company. In the world of monsters, children screams are the energy source for their city. However, when a human child named Boo accidentally wanders into their world, it’s up to Sully and Mike to get Boo back into her world.
Despite the film being ten years old, it’s still a classic. While it has aged a little, specifically in close up shots, the animation still looks fantastic. The detailing in the fur, like on Sully’s body, is great but the various textures of the monsters are all different and are of the same visual quality. Whether this is fur or scales, this film proves that Pixar knew what they were doing in terms of improving their animation skills. It also demonstrated that, with each new film, they were learning to animate a new environment or detail and achieving that goal with outstanding results.
And it isn’t just the animation that’s fantastic; the cast is also perfect. There isn’t a bad voice performance featured, and Billy Crystal and John Goodman worked beautifully as Mike and Sully. While they are an odd casting choice, the two leads have amazing chemistry with each other, which is essential for making the audience believe that Mike and Sully have known each other for years. But their friendship with the human child Boo is what makes this film even more special. The leads’ development, from thinking that human children are toxic, to learning to accept and befriend Boo is sweet and heart-warming. But the film does have a villain in the form of the lizard-like Randall Boggs. Voiced by Steve Buscemi (Fargo, Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams), Randall is a cunning creature, rival to Sully and has one goal in mind: to beat the company’s scare record and become the best scarer. Buscemi’s performance here is also fantastic (also personal confession: Randall was my favourite character in the film. While other children owned Sully Toys, I had a Randall toy that I still own).
‘Monsters Inc.’ still earns the title of a Pixar classic. Turning the ‘monsters in the closet’ concept on its head, as well as being a commentary on company corruption and how far it would go to stay afloat, this film is still enjoyable. The animation is amazing, even a decade later, and demonstrated that Pixar were constantly improving upon their animation skills. The voice cast is great and is perfect for the film and the story it’s telling. If, for some reason, you have not seen ‘Monsters Inc’, then add this to your Disney+ watchlist.
