Blog

  • Wonka, Thor, Damon: Weekly Round Up

    Wonka, Thor, Damon: Weekly Round Up

    Wonka, Thor, Damon: Weekly Round Up – For some reason I have never been able to quite fathom, Hollywood has something of an obsession with prequels. Now, I’m not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with the concept of a prequel, just that sometimes certain properties simply don’t need an expanded, in-depth backstory. Star Wars never needed episodes 1, 2, and 3, for example, while Alien didn’t need either a Prometheus or an Alien: Covenant, and I think the less we say about the Harry Potter world’s Fantastic Beasts franchise the better. That is, of course, not to say that there haven’t been times when the prequel approach has worked, but more often than not it seems it doesn’t.

    The reasons for this are undoubtedly more complex than I can go into here, but most of the time it would appear, to me at least, that the problem is simply that we just don’t need to know. When a story is crafted, often the writer or writers will put whatever information is needed into their work – this way it makes sense for the audience – and as a result the “back story”, if you want to call it that, is kind of already dealt with. Oftentimes prequels suffer from the need to reach an inevitable conclusion since they must, of course, ultimately line up with what came before. The times that prequels in Hollywood have worked are few and far between – in fact, Planet of the Apes seems to be the only real example that sticks out to me, although I’m sure there are some out there who would argue for Maleficent or Rogue One – and when they have worked it tends to be because of a radically new interpretation of the material or building the inevitable outcome into a sort of tragic endpoint.

    With that in mind, it is with great frustration and irritation that I bring you this week’s top story; that Warner Brothers are now in the process of developing a prequel to the Roald Dahl classic, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

    There have, of course, been two versions of the book already brought to the screen, the classic Gene Wilder film, and the divisive Tim Burton take, but regardless of where you sit on the, er, Wonka-fence, I think we can all come together in some sort of agreement in that we kind of don’t need to know what Willy Wonka, chocolate extraordinaire, was like in his younger years. As a character, he doesn’t work when thrust to the center of the story anyway… I mean, we saw that well enough with Johnny Depp’s take, didn’t we?

    The film will reportedly be titled simply “Wonka” (which is fucking hilarious when you’re a kid in the UK, let me tell you) and will be directed by Paddington and Paddington 2’s Paul King. Now, King’s involvement, admittedly, pricked my ears a little. While I remain skeptical about the whole prospect, I do feel the need to remind myself of how I felt when I first saw the trailers for Paddington, as well. So, yeah. I’ve been proved wrong before and would be happy to be proved wrong again. Still, I think this is something of an uphill battle for King and the folks at Warner Bros. since, other than King’s involvement, everything else about the project does seem to scream – for me at least – generic studio bullshit.

    “Wonka” will focus on the title character’s discovery of Oompa-Loompas and detail just how he became the owner of the world’s most famous chocolate factory. And if that didn’t have you sort of squirming in your seat already, the studio is reportedly eyeing up either Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland, or Timothee Chalamet for the role.

    Still, it’s not all depressingly predictable news this week. As I’ve mentioned before in this roundup, I’m something of a Guy Ritchie fan, and while I await the release of his latest crime thriller, Wrath of Man, which sees him reteam with Jason Statham, I am also eagerly lapping up news of his next project, a spy thriller titled Five Eyes, which will reportedly also star Jason Statham, who will be appearing opposite American actress Aubrey Plaza.

    Well, this week we got some new news from the work of Five Eyes in the form of a couple of new cast members, themselves reuniting with the director. The first up is Josh Hartnett, who appears in Wrath of Man, while the other is Hugh Grant, who is returning to work with Ritchie after appearing in last year’s The Gentlemen. For me, this news is doubly exciting, because I do quite like Hartnett as an actor, and it’s good to see him doing stuff like this, while Grant’s transformation from rom-com fav to intriguing character actor has been a joy to watch, so I can’t wait to see where he takes us next.

    Our final story this week concerns the MCU and specifically the latest outing for Chris Hemsworth’s Thor. The film, titled Thor: Love and Thunder, seems Hemsworth reteam with Ragnarok director Taika Waititi. It will also star Tessa Thompson, Jaimie Alexander, Christian Bale as the villain of the piece, Gorr the God Butcher, and Chris Pratt, reprising his role as Star-Lord from the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise.

    Perhaps the most interesting cast member, though, is Natalie Portman, who is returning to the series after creative differences saw her split from Marvel. Portman and Hemsworth aren’t the only stars from previous movies to return though, as this week we learned that Matt Damon will also be back.

    For those of you who don’t know, Matt Damon made a brief appearance in Thor: Ragnarok as the actor playing Loki in an Asgardian production of that film’s predecessor, Thor: The Dark World. The scene was played as a little cameo joke, but it would seem that Damon is appearing in a more substantial role in Love and Thunder, as he is reportedly quoted as saying that he will be filming in Australia for “the next few months”.

    What his role in the film will be is anyone’s guess, but it is somewhat intriguing since Matt Damon remains one of the only major actors currently working not to have made a substantial appearance in a superhero film, so… yeah. Watch this space.

  • Our Friend: The BRWC Review

    Our Friend: The BRWC Review

    The painstaking physical and emotional tolls of cancer often find themselves as the subject of big-screen offerings. Given its seriousness and vast impact, the disease can be a challenging matter to depict onscreen, with several awards-bait efforts tripping due to weepy-levels of melodrama. After debuting at TIFF all the way back in 2019, the cancer dramedy Our Friend finally finds the light of day after enduring the stressors of festival purgatory. By embracing the authentic realities behind its true story premise, director Gabriela Cowperthwaite crafts an expressive portrait of love and hardship.

    Based on Matthew Teague’s thoughtful essay The Friend, Our Friend follows Matt (Casey Affleck) as he grapples with his wife Nicole’s (Dakota Johnson) recent cancer diagnosis. As their family tries to keep their head above water, their longtime-friend Dane (Jason Segel) comes to serve as a caretaker during Nicole’s strenuous battle. The film charts the trio’s unique history as they come to terms with their ongoing situation.

    I am unsure how Our Friend would work with a different cast, as the central trio here is tailor-made for their heart-aching roles. Casey Affleck’s insular delivery aptly represents Matthew’s deeply-seated turmoil, with the Oscar-winning actor naturally expressing nuanced emotional beats through a mere glimpse or facial tick. It’s also pleasant to see the usually-solemn star have some fun onscreen, particularly when he’s sharing it with Jason Segel’s Dane. As Segal has exhibited numerous times before (his towering performances in The End of the Tour still ranks as one of last decade’s best), his charismatic affability always has a way to draw laughter out of the toughest circumstances.

    He will always be adored as a comedic bright spot, but it’s the film’s more intimate frames where Segel exhibits his expressive abilities. His vulnerability onscreen morphs Dane from your typical goof-ball friend to someone longing for intimate connection in a judgemental world. Dakota Johnson holds the film’s dramatic weight together as Nicole, portraying the cancer diagnosis without an ounce of vanity. Johnson’s effervescent presence shapes the character’s formation considerably, as the dwindling of her vibrant energy expresses the lifeforce cancer extracts from an individual. The real secret sauce here is the trio’s equally dynamic and lived-in chemistry, oftentimes commanding the screen even when the film is at its most bare-bones.

    Our Friend’s dramedy tonality could have gone haywire in the wrong hands. Under Cowperthwaite’s assured direction, the narrative’s heart-tugging aspects never reach into mawkishly insincere territory. Where a lot of directors would throw-in grand dramatic speeches or operatic score choices to misguidedly “enhance” the steaks, Cowperthwaite presents the intelligence and self-awareness to trust her material. Her emotive frames present a quiet intimacy that speaks volumes about the Teagues’ difficult process. The grieving process is a taxing beast to endure, but I am glad Cowperthwaite never forgets the love present beneath this challenging undertaking. Screenwriter Brad Ingelsby also deserves praise for his deft handling of challenging sequences, marrying the tonal balance without a false moment.

    Our Friend impressively nails it’s most taxing sequences, but there’s a general messiness lying outside the periphery. Ingelsby had a tall task adapting Matt, Nicole, and Dane’s life-long friendship into a two-hour narrative. While he does an admirable job conveying the major plot beats, the narrative ends up becoming too busy for its own good. Subplots like Nicole’s cheating scandal don’t inject much aside from cheap melodrama, often taking audiences away from the more compelling character dynamics at hand. Whenever the focus remains on the three, the movie is all the better for it.

    Audiences may groan at the seemingly-familiar set-up, and I certainly understand the hesitation given the genre’s tendency for inauthentic truths. I don’t think that skepticism does justice to Our Friend’s soaring emotive strengths though. Imbued with sensitivity and care at every turn, this is an intelligently-drawn drama that earns its numerous tugs at the heartstrings.

    Our Friend is available in theaters and on VOD

  • Synchronic: The BRWC Review

    Synchronic: The BRWC Review

    Synchronic: The BRWC Review. By Luke Foulder-Hughes.

    Synchronic was the first film from Moorhead & Benson that I have seen. Having heard great things about the directors, I was expecting more from this film. However, that’s not to say I didn’t think that the majority of the film was pretty good and explored some interesting concepts, as it was an experience that isn’t too similar to a lot of Sci-Fi/Horror films that are released nowadays. The movie is about two paramedics from New Orleans who discover a designer drug linked to deaths that are incredibly unusual and have other worldly effects.

    Firstly, I’ll mention my favourite thing about Synchronic, the score. It was nothing short of brilliant and fit its purpose in the film perfectly, as well as providing us with a sense of dread about what’s to come. Jimmy LaValle, the composer, is a frequent collaborator with Moorhead & Benson which is always great as he has a full idea of the directors’ vision and can orchestrate his music to perfection. Another thing I really love in Synchronic was the chemistry between Dorman and Mackie, they had a really believable friendship when on screen and you actually care about the characters and their motives through all the tough situations they endure.

    Their chemistry contributed to their good performances they both give, particularly Mackie, who is at the best I have seen him. Dorman was pretty good, however not on the level of Mackie. This being said, all the supporting actors’ performances were forgettable at best, some of the acting on show was just bad from some of the cast.

    The technical aspects in Synchronic are quite good, particularly considering the low budget that the directors had to work with. The cinematography is relatively decent, with some shots being excellent and nice to look at, particularly in the final scene. The writing is quite poor in my opinion, and doesn’t feel natural at all. The scenes with Dorman’s character, Dennis, and his family stood out to me as feeling very fake, as the writing did not feel real at all, as well as the actress playing his daughter poorly delivering her lines.

    Another technical thing I think was really well done was the injuries to the characters. They were incredibly graphic and looked so realistic, meaning that if you aren’t good with graphic injury detail Synchronic is not a movie for you. The charred body looked like it came out of ‘Se7en’, which I think does graphic and realistic injury the best of any film ever. 

    Synchronic takes on a difficult job as it introduces this concept unlike anything I’ve ever seen, it’s unusual for modern horror films to try something that is so ambitious and confusing to understand. What I like about the way the directors took this on was that they didn’t bog us down with exposition and made it so that we experience the film and don’t try to understand what’s happening, much like something by Stanley Kubrick. However, I feel this concept could’ve been done better with a bigger budget. The budget is one of the main restrictions of the film as I feel they could’ve expanded this and made a big blockbuster with a larger budget.

    Synchronic is definitely a film worth checking out when it officially releases to VOD or hopefully when it gets a proper theatrical release. The concept is really interesting and, despite the fact it wasn’t perfectly orchestrated, is done in a decent way by Moorhead & Benson. If you are a fan of Moorhead & Benson or the Sci-Fi/Horror genre you’ll likely enjoy this film.

  • Search Party: Jonathan Furmanski Interview

    Search Party: Jonathan Furmanski Interview

    Jonathan Furmanski is the cinematographer who lensed every single episode of HBO Max’s cult crime comedy series Search Party, which returned for its fourth season this month. 

    What made you want to get into filmmaking?

    Jonathan Furmanski: I’ve wanted to go into film since I was very young, though I can’t say I knew anything about the film industry except that there were producers, directors and actors. It all just came out of a love of going to the cinema and watching VCR’s and TV… I just devoured as many movies as I could find. Then I ended up going to film school, which is where I fell into cinematography. It was somewhat accidental but in hindsight it makes perfect sense. I was just completely enamored with cameras and camera technology, film stocks and lenses, and learning about all of the different tools and creative ways to put things together. It really happened when in film school we were split into groups and in mine no one really wanted to do any of the camera stuff so I just ended up doing it really on my own. It just snowballed from there. 

    Were you always interested in behind the camera work or did you start out thinking you would go into acting or directing?

    I think that most people go to film school – or at least when I was there – to be a writer/director. But in my personal experience that was really just out of ignorance of not knowing what the other jobs were. Like a lot of people at the time, I went into film school with the idea of being like Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee but it became really obvious really quickly that my talents were not in writing and/or directing. And so it felt like it really just worked out for me with the camera stuff, we sort of just found each other. 

    What are some of the films that sparked your passion for filmmaking?

    Jonathan Furmanski: The seeds of it all definitely started with things like Star Wars – the thrill and excitement of that experience as a kid. But then when I started to see movies like 2001, although still a kid I could understand that there was something poetic about the visual language being used by filmmakers like Kubrick. I started to take the idea of being a filmmaker more seriously then, just by knowing that there were more serious things going on in film. My parents were very good at taking my sister and I to art movies like Fitzcarraldo and 2001 when we were very young.

    Can you explain your role as a cinematographer from pre to post filming?

    That’s a tough question to answer for me, strangely enough. The simple answer is that the cinematographer is responsible for what everything looks like and what the visual language is of a movie, TV show, music video or commercial. It’s creating a visual experience that reinforces the story, whether that’s drama or comedy or whatever. But more specifically you’re involved from the beginning in terms of creating the visual atmosphere and mood and your working in conjunction with the director and producer and department heads, then taking that all the way through to the finishing of the movie, not just the filming, but working with the colorist and visual effects artist and making sure all of that work creates one big cohesive and visual expression for the audience.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSmvtX-d6GU

    How would you describe your cinematic style? Would you say you have a distinct style or that you adapt according to the project?

    Jonathan Furmanski: I like to think that I can adapt to whatever the requirement of the project is. That said, I know that there are certain things that are just not in my nature to do. I think of myself as a naturalist. And when I approach something – whether that’s something that’s supposed to have a little bit of a horror feeling or comedy or drama – I kind of always start from a naturalistic approach and then hone that and modify it to fit the specific genre. Conrad Hall always feels very real and grounded even when it gets to the fantastical elements like the dream sequences in American Beauty, he keeps it feeling like you’re still actually in the world, so I try and do something that approximates that more than going into the more expressionistic looks.

    What was the inspiration behind your work on Search Party?

    When we did that pilot we were still figuring out what the show was, not just in terms of the photography but the story of the entire season, which had not been mapped out yet. We just knew someone was missing and this goofy collection of friends was going to try and figure it out. But what we talked about a lot was the idea of keeping things “off kilter”. We knew there were going to be these mysterious elements to it so we wanted to have this sort of voyeuristic feel. In Dory’s mind, where she feels a little bit rudderless, we thought about how she could also feel a little “watched”, so we referenced a lot of Kubrick and David Fincher, to try and keep it just a little bit off-balance. At the same time Search Party is equal parts drama and comedy, and so we didn’t want to do anything that undermined the comedy aspects to it, so it was about trying to keep that all cohesive. Later we noticed that each season had a different feel, like season 1 was a little bit like Scooby Doo as they go off to try and solve the mystery within their little friend group, but then season 2 took a little more of a Hitchcock skew, courtroom drama for season 3, and season 4 I don’t want to give too much away but it gets into some realty crazy territory. 

    Is there a certain methodology you have specific to comedy? How did you maintain the comedic aspect in Search Party whilst allowing it to also be a crime/thriller?

    One of the things that we also talked about was trying to find a way of not relying on typical comedy conventions. Historically comedy was about shooting it wide, keeping it bright, and don’t move the camera too much, just let the comedy speak for itself. We didn’t want to sacrifice this greater visual language for the sake of the comedy, but at the same time we didn’t want the visual style to undermine it. So for example when we have the four main characters at the table we would be making sure we have a frame where we can see what everyone is doing. Because actors like John Reynolds and John Early do every take a little differently and you never know what your going to get out of them. So it was basically about giving them the room and being a little bit looser with what we were already doing so that they could basically do what they wanted. And then in the moment where we got out of that and Dory was maybe sneaking down the hallway, then we could dive a little bit more deeply into creating something more dramatic without it feeling like we were taking a big turn in one way or the other and having it feel schizophrenic. Unless we wanted that… sometimes we did!

    What is your future dream project?

    Jonathan Furmanski: For a long time I’ve really wanted to do a classic slasher/horror movie … like Halloween and Friday the 13th. I love those movies and I think they look like a lot of fun to make and I would just love to be apart of one. I think it would be pushing me out of my comfort zone a bit, but also just a really fun experience.

  • Matt’s New Release Breakdown: January 22nd

    Matt’s New Release Breakdown: January 22nd

    Matt’s New Release Breakdown: January is an infamously slow month for film releases, often being utilized to prop up catch-up releases over any new content. While COVID-19 has prevented a consistent output of theatrical releases, several distributors have taken advantage of the dwindling mainstream attention. In this week’s New Release Breakdown, I highlight three intriguing January releases for VOD audiences.

    PG: Psycho Gorman – Directed by: Steven Kostanski

    Synopsis: Siblings Mimi and Luke unwittingly resurrect an ancient alien overlord who was entombed on Earth millions of years ago after a failed attempt to destroy the universe. They nickname the evil creature Psycho Goreman (or PG for short) and use the magical amulet they discovered to force him to obey their childish whims.

    Tapping into the 80’s genre film’s colorful allures, The Void director Steven Kostanski’s latest PG: Psycho Goreman boasts an affectionate adoration for its subject matter. Kostanski aptly apes the playfulness of beloved staples like Goonies while infusing his own mature edge along the way. The violence is gleefully over-the-top, with Goreman’s blunt personality leading to a few brutal kills that live up to his name. I also love the usage of practical design work to bring these frames to life, as Kostanski unearths his own twisted macabre vision to elevate the material at hand.

    It’s hard to condemn a film radiating with passion and affability, but Psycho Goreman doesn’t quite nail its finite tonal balance. Kostanski’s vibrant energy oftentimes feels overbearing, with his thinly-developed cast of characters standing in to deliver generic and inauthentic dialogue (the kids here are flat tropes taken from superior films). There are a few fun frames mocking Goreman’s dour murderous streak, but most of the narrative sequences land with an awkward thud. Kostanski utilizes 80’s tropes without imbuing the wit or humanity that made those films beloved stalwarts. Between the sparks of lively craftsmanship, Psycho Goreman treads water with simplistic narrative devices.

    For nostalgic audiences, Psycho Goreman could scratch a long-ignored itch. Outside of that core demographic, the film’s well-intended homages can only take the material so far.

    PG: Psycho Goreman is available to watch in theaters and VOD on January 22nd.

    Run Hide Fight – Directed by: Kyle Rankin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INsOFjpuAes

    Synopsis: 17-year-old Zoe Hull uses her wits, survival skills, and compassion to fight for her life, and those of her fellow classmates, against a group of live-streaming school shooters.

    It’s only January, but I’ve already discovered the year’s most deplorable release. Framed as Die Hard set amidst a school shooting (yep, you read that right), the wildly tone-deaf Run Hide Fight lumbers in as a vile and utterly pointless work devoid of positive qualities.

    That’s not to say writer/director Kyle Rankin is entirely talentless. His film’s dim visual aesthetics prove to be a good match for the close-quarters setting. I could see Rankin morph into an accomplished action director with the right material, but Run Hide Fight is clearly not that. His screenplay approaches the controversial subject matter with a tactless simplicity, depicting an all-too-familiar scenario without an authentic punch. Rankin adds nothing to the conversation other than thinly-veiled critiques of social media-obsessed youths. Some films have successfully utilized school shootings to thoughtfully ruminate on the triggers behind them. Rankin’s film treats these occurrences with an ambivalence that’s frankly vile to endure.

    Taking out the film’s morally-corrupt politics (much has been made about The Daily Wire’s backing of this film), Run Hide Fight fails as a compelling genre picture. Zoe’s journey registers with a mawkish maudlin streak, including the heavy-handed inclusion of Radha Mitchell as a ghost of her deceased mom. Every dialogue exchange and character moment feels ripped from superior actioners, while Rankin’s frequent stretches of plausibility take viewers completely out of the film.

    I could go on about Run Hide Fight‘s deficiencies, but the film doesn’t deserve the attention. Similar to the horrendously-timed Songbird, this repugnant film approaches the serious subject matter with a detestably flippant careless streak. Avoid at all costs.

    The White Tiger – Directed by: Ramin Bahrani

    Synopsis: Based on a novel, the film follows the personal journey of Balram, a poor Indian driver who must use his wit and cunning to break free from servitude to his rich masters and rise to the top of the heap.

    Rags-to-riches stories are a timeless tradition in Hollywood, yet few have reinvented the time-honored framework quite like Ramin Bahrani’s latest adaptation. The White Tiger marks Bahrani’s most lively and assured feature since his early festival days, with the beloved filmmaker finding his groove after a few mixed bag efforts.

    By following Balram’s usurping of the restrictive caste system, Bahrani infuses new life and purpose into a familiar tale of class warfare. White Tiger often operates at its best when intimately exploring the unjust system restricting 99% of India’s population. The cultural dynamics are constructed with more reflection and depth than your typical Hollywood film, never forgetting the ever-beating purpose behind Balram’s journey. Bahrani skillfully displays the bevy of information accessibly through his slick presentation choices. The utilization of intimate framing and zeitgeist song choices release a pulsating pace that rarely lets up. I also think Adarsh Gourav deserves significant praise for carrying the narrative on his shoulders, always finding a source of empathy from Balram’s struggles to the top.

    While the film does get tripped up by familiar biopic devices (the narration spoon-feeds certain character beats with a lack of grace), The White Tiger thrives as the year’s first truly accomplished offering. I hope this is the start of more great features from Bahrani, as his thoughtful endeavors have truly been missed.

    The White Tiger is available in theaters and on Netflix January 22nd. – Matt’s New Release Breakdown: January 22nd