Perhaps the most engaging aspect of Erica Tremblay’s short drama Little Chief, which has the honor of heading to Sundance next year, is the opening sequence. That’s not to say that the rest of the film fails to engage, it’s just that when a film has such a perfectly delivered, expertly crafted opening, the rest of the film either needs to deliver on that or is always going to suffer.
The rest of the film, for the most part, delivers, but just isn’t quite as good as the sequence that precedes it. It centers around a character introduction and is presented is such a uniformly pitch perfect way that it was always going to be difficult to top it.
In the opening sequence we’re introduced to Lily Gladstone’s protagonist, and exhausted but driven schoolteacher named Sharon. We don’t know she’s a teacher yet, though, and there’s little about the opening three minutes or so that would suggest we should know. Instead we watch as this wearied, tired young woman makes her way into a swanky hotel and nicks some bits from a maid’s trolly. This little mini heist is treated almost like an everyday occurrence, with Sharon moving quickly and with precision through the space. It builds a nice amount of suspense too, while never pushing over into absurd territory. Completely devoid of dialogue, it’s a great moment of visual storytelling (we even get a sense of her character when we see her “Warriors Respect Women” bag) and a it lays out a person who is mysteriously intriguing and hard to figure out.
This sense of mystery surrounding Sharon is quickly broken when we discover her occupation as a schoolteacher. But rather than undercut the work the film has already done engaging us in this narrative and engrossing us in this world, the revelation acts more like a further element of the mystery. Now we know who she is, the theft of items from a hotel maid’s trolly becomes part of a wider, far more complex character.
It’s a clever move, and it works in creating someone who not only can the audience relate to and align themselves with, but also in ensuring that Sharon is, in just a few short minutes, a complete, fully formed, three-dimensional person. And for a film that’s coming in just over 11 minutes in length, that is f**king impressive. I mean, that is really f**king impressive.
But we can’t talk about the character of Sharon without giving special mention to the actress who embodies her. Lily Gladstone is fantastic in the role. Her eyes portray a weariness deeper than anything a script could manage to convey, and there are moments throughout the short where the subtlest of looks or the exacerbated slump of a shoulder speaks volumes. It’s a performance worth taking note of. On the basis of this I would expect to see more of Gladstone in the future.
Unfortunately, for all the praise I’ve just heaped onto the opening sequences, and of Gladstone’s performance, the rest of the film, as I’ve said, doesn’t quite deliver on that set-up or that promise.
It winds up ultimately feeling somewhat aimless once we get into the school. Sharon gives a troubled student a ride and then comes to his aid again when the class turn on him, but none of it seems to amount to anything of much note. I’m not sure if I missed the point, perhaps I did, but there’s something lacking to the final two thirds, I felt.
It’s competently made and still worth a watch, but it just doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Perhaps this is in part due to the fact that Sharon, a character so brilliantly drawn in those opening moments, doesn’t actually move much throughout the course of the story. She has no arc, so far as I can see, and the film essentially boils down to be a general snapshot of her life rather than an important point in the life of the character.
It’s a shame, because the filmmaking on display (and not just the stuff in that opening scene) is really great. I was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed by the time the credits rolled though, as I could not help but expect something so much more from a film that gripped me so thoroughly within the first couple of minutes.
It looks beautiful, with its minimalist approach to composition and color playing wonderfully into the pacing and the overall feel of the piece. Tremblay as a director is more that capable of telling a story visually, and she obviously has something interesting to say, even if I didn’t quite get it. Maybe she just needs more time to say it?
By Naseem Ally. ‘A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life’ is the 2020 film written and directed by Staten Cousins Roe, that centres around ‘Lou’, a self-help addict who later finds herself caught up in a killing spree with her new ‘off the wall’ life coach, Val. The film opens with a tape recording from a self-proclaimed guru ‘Chuck Noah’ who gives a self-help schpiel to his listeners; ‘you wanna be like me, you gotta think like me’.
It cuts to the title card and then proceeds to the main protagonist of the film, Lou, walking down a hill towards the beach where she’s wearing her headphones listening to Chuck Noah’s self-help audio recording.
As she’s contemplating her life and looking out on to the coast, taking in the message of ‘visualise the future you want’, this dreamy atmosphere quickly comes to a halt. She bumps into someone passing by, who bluntly tells her ‘watch where you’re fu**ing going!’ – ‘sorry’ is the only thing Lou can mutter, and she is abruptly brought back to reality. One thing I can praise about this film is that it sets up the world for the audience straight away and you get hooked into the main character’s dilemma, and you immediately feel invested.
Firstly, the theme is very relatable to most audiences as I’m sure at one point or another in your life, consciously or subconsciously you have made attempts to ‘improve’ your life, be it watching ‘motivational’ YouTube videos or signing up to the gym, only to end up arguing with them over the phone wanting to cancel your direct debit after a couple of months.
You know it’s true – new year resolutions anyone?
Lou is somewhat down on her luck. She’s a small-town lass living at home with her mother, working at an ice cream parlour and doesn’t seem to be doing anything groundbreaking with her life anytime soon. However, we can clearly see she wants a lot more out of life.
Katie Brayben does a brilliant job of playing Lou. Lou is a socially awkward outcast, that is essentially trying to find her feet in the world, but her mother doesn’t seem to have the patience.
From not receiving any letters in the post, and with no career prospects on the horizon, she definitely feels a sense of pressure to deliver the goods so to speak. Lou’s mother Maureen, played by Sarah Ball, compares Lou to her friend Betty, who is now a high flying lawyer.
With Lou not being able to divert from the topic discussed at the dinner table, there is a looming feeling of tension. This is even more evident, with Maureen visibly angry as she sticks her fork into her food.
Thankfully, we are removed from that very tense scenario and we see Lou making her first attempts at ‘improving’ her life. She attends a self-help seminar and there she meets Val, a shadowy figure standing at the back of the hall, who advises Lou to think twice about following down their pathway. Val pitched in with some hit and miss one-liners, but her character added some quirkiness to the film which I liked. The best way I could describe the character of Val is a sadistic ‘Morpheous’ from The Matrix.
A great job was done on the casting, as the majority of the actors fitted within their roles. There was a solid dynamic between Lou and Val. In terms of the cinematography, it’s simple, but it works. There are some superb shots of the English countryside as Lou and Val go on their ‘self-discovery’ journey, as well as the opening shots of Lou walking down the beach.
The locations used in the film made for beautiful backdrops, and I think the timing of shooting the film worked in their favour. It seems to have been filmed around Spring or early Summer and if it was the case, it’s paid off.
I loved the contrast of colours used in between Lou and Val’s individual scenes. Lou’s had more of a light-hearted, playful feel whilst Val’s was a lot more dark and gritty, perhaps as a reflection to the audience as to what’s in store for the both of them. In the first half of ‘A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life’, there is a very laid back ambience and as mentioned before, it helps to really put the audience into Lou’s world. The sound department for this film has done a solid job.
During Lou’s strolls on the beach, there are some subtle harmonic, even angelic sounds, and from listening intently it appears to be the strums from a harp. It’s simple but works effectively well for these scenes.
In general, I thought the pacing of the film was okay. There were a few filler scenes that left me scratching my head, as it didn’t help in moving the story forward at all. It seemed like they were trying to fit in as many witty one-liners as possible, just for the sake of doing so. The first eight to fifteen minutes are the strongest parts of the film, without a shadow of a doubt. There’s no fuss, it goes straight into the story and the characters, and you’re immersed in their world.
Having a compelling and relatable story also helps, but this journey of self-discovery that Lou and Val take completely throws this film off the rails.
A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life
It’s a shame because, honestly, the story was going so well only for it to then turn out like a ‘spin-off’ of ‘The Inbetweeners Movie’. Only this time, without Simon’s yellow Fiat. I felt this film greatly underused Lou’s mother Maureen. To be honest, I would have loved to see how Lou’s interaction with her would have changed over the course of her wanting to improve herself, and to me at least, this film didn’t attempt to do that.
It turned out to be a ‘horror-stoner’, ‘buddy-trip’ movie…or something along those lines. I can see the approach the team behind the film were going for, but it just doesn’t work in this case. Again, considering the first fifteen minutes of this film where it was right on the money, for it to then swerve into so many different directions, takes away from what otherwise would have been a superb film.
I would be interested to know if there was perhaps another writer brought in as a replacement or as a co-writer, which could possibly explain this ‘horrific’ turn of events. As I mentioned before, it would’ve been great to see more of Maureen, played by Sarah Ball, who did a fantastic job playing Lou’s mother. There’s one scene, in particular, to look out for, involving Maureen and Lou that is the centrepiece for this film.
For a comedic film, that scene really brings any laughs to an immediate stop. Watching that scene with Maureen, took me back to the time I first saw Fences, with that powerful scene from Viola Davis. Sarah Ball was the standout performer in this film and it’s a shame to not see her get as much screen time in this film, as her fellow castmates.
There was a good amount of one-liners sprinkled throughout this film, but some of them felt a little ‘corny’. But, there was one that stood out in regards to the mispronunciation of a certain country starting with the letter S. For me, there was too much inconsistency with this film, not so much with the comedic side, although that is one aspect, but with the story as a whole. In recent times, I haven’t seen any British ‘comedic’ films that have hit the mark.
Even with shows that later turn into movies like ‘The Inbetweeners Movie’ and ‘David Brent: Life On The Road’, it just turns to be really…flat. I know that ‘A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life’ is an original film, but it appears like they’ve followed the same route. ‘People Just Do Nothing’ is having it’s very own film, set in Japan nonetheless, but I’m not even sure if that will be worth the wait.
The last great British comedic film I’ve watched has got to be Four Lions. It’s got a structure that works and that film has stood the test of time. Four Lions wasn’t just filled with ‘laugh out loud’ moments, but, there was actually a story behind it. I think that’s what’s being lost nowadays, not just in British comedic films, but in films as a whole. Is it due to us having shorter attention spans because of technology overload? – maybe so.
Four Lions was made in 2010. It’s 2019 going on to 2020, where technology is continuing to grow at a rapid pace. Is this perhaps a reflection of the current state of cinema where films are just pumped out, to eventually end up on streaming platforms? ‘A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life’ veers off from what was initially a very good story, which makes it even more frustrating because I want to like this film.
No, scratch that – I like this film, but I want to LOVE this film.
In an alternate universe, if this film was rebooted I’d be up for putting myself forward for writing the film, and building on the great story it already had from the first fifteen minutes. Overall, this film shines a light on a topic that will be ever more prevalent with the new year of 2020 around the corner, where everyone and their dog will be looking to improve themselves.
It reminds me of the time I went to the infamous ‘Landmark‘ forum over the summer to have a ‘breakthrough’. Thinking back on it now, it was absolutely boll*cks. If only I had seen this first, I would’ve saved myself so much time. I think we could all do with Val giving us a reality check on ‘self-help’.
‘A Serial Killer’s Guide To Life’ is released on 13th January and can be pre-ordered now on iTunes https://apple.co/2RGlh4g
By Naseem Ally. By Naseem Ally. 2019 has been a great year for film and what better way to celebrate the closing of the year, then reflecting on the brilliant films that have graced our theatre screens.
Now let’s crack on with the festivities, and take a look back at what I consider to be, the best films of 2019…
5. Beautiful Boy/The Laundromat
I’m going to have to start off this list with a tie, as I’m equally torn between the films ‘Beautiful Boy’ and ‘The Laundromat’. Considering the time between the release dates of both films, ‘Beautiful Boy’ being released back in January and ‘The Laundromat’ in September, it’s common to forget about the films that hit theatres earlier on in the year.
They tend to become more of a distant memory than something at the forefront of your mind. Especially in the month of January, where cinemagoers are spoilt for choice with all of the award-nominated films. ‘The Favourite’ and ‘Vice’ are just some, to name a few.
However, ‘Beautiful Boy’ is one for the ages, as this film has stood out to me amongst a number of great films that kicked off 2019. So, for me, that’s definitely saying something about this film.
‘Beautiful Boy’, starring Steve Carrell and Timothee Chalamet is ACTUALLY, based on a true story of Nicolas Sheff, a teenager at the time, who seemed to have it all going for him at home and school until he falls into a vicious meth addiction cycle, forcing his father to intervene to save his son and family.
In arguably Steve Carrell’s best performance in a film, ever, he holds his own on-screen as a loving father who is going out of his own way to do extensive research, flying across the country to meet with clinicians to really try and understand, and get to the root cause of Nicolas’ addiction.
Alongside Steve Carrell, is Timothee Chalamet who does a brilliant job playing Nicolas. From starting out in the film as a happy go lucky chap, we slowly begin to see the deterioration of him as a result of his heavy meth addiction. Timothee really dedicated himself to the role, and I honestly felt for his character and the anguish he goes through during this period.
He really pulled off this role, even from his portrayal of the denial and withdrawal symptoms that are common amongst addicts of any kind. I couldn’t help but fall back into my chair when he had a relapse, just rooting for Nicolas to make it through to recovery. I wouldn’t be surprised if Timothee took a page out of Leonardo Di Caprio’s performance as ‘Jim’ in ‘The Basketball Diaries’ as his display in ‘Beautiful Boy’ was of that calibre.
Great performances from Steve and Timothee. Their on-screen chemistry made it really feel as if they were actually, father and son. I honestly can’t think of too many films that follow a similar narrative to ‘Beautiful Boy’. I’d love to see more films of this ilk, that shine men in a positive light instead of this recent phenomenon of ‘toxic masculinity’…(rolls eyes).
This film took me by surprise, as it didn’t have any underlying themes, it was just a genuine portrayal of a father trying to build a connection with his son, navigating his way through this thing called ‘life’. I’d like to see more films like this in the near future, with characters like Steve Carrell’s ‘David Sheff’ as role models for young men.
Beautiful Boy.
‘Beautiful Boy’ was superb. So much so, I picked up a copy of Nicolas’ book of the same name that the film is based on. Great read by the way.
Now, moving on from that, towards the latter stages of the year the Netflix original film, ‘The Laundromat’ has been one of my best films of 2019. It helps to have an all-star line up consisting of Meryl Streep, Gary Oldman, Antonio Banderas and David Schwimmer (pivot!), but it wasn’t just their star power alone that sealed the deal.
There were a number of other great performers that helped to raise the bar and make this another awesome ‘financial expose’ film of recent times. Nonso Anozie was excellent as ‘Charles’, and added a great deal of humour to the film.
The Laundromat.
‘The Laundromat’ follows the similar theme of narration in financial expose films such as ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ and ‘The Big Short’. However, it’s not done in the same manner as the former films, per se. It has its own unique selling point that works.
The cinematography in this film was so vivid and crisp, visually, I can’t fault it. I was lucky enough to see it at a preview screening, and thinking back on it now, streaming this wouldn’t have done it justice.
As well as the cinematography being on point, credit should also go to the costume and set designers. I’ve previously mentioned before in my review of ‘The Laundromat’, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the costume and set designers were to walk away with a few gongs, come award season.
Netflix are giving major motion picture studios a run for their money, with the quality of films that they’re pumping out. To think no studios wanted to purchase ‘The Irishman’, which I’ve yet to see (what!?); Netflix seems to be doing a great job of being a maverick in the film industry, forcing everyone else to play catch up.
Keep it comin’ Netflix – and yes, the ‘The Irishman’ will be on my watch list.
4. Green Book
‘Green Book’ had ought to be in my end of year list with it winning best picture at the 2019 Oscars, but it necessarily didn’t need that award to prove it’s worth. With very strong performances from Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen as Dr.Shirley and Tony Lip, who during the course of the film form a ‘complicated’ bond over their tour of the deep south, neither of them do not waste a second of screen time.
Green Book.
Their respective characters build each other up, and they both learn from each other tremendously making this another fantastic on-screen duo of 2019, similarly to ‘Beautiful Boy’.
‘Green Book’ is another film that had a great deal of help from the set and costume designers in bringing this picture to life.
A solid display all round, and that’s why it’s in my list of the best films of 2019.
3. Once Upon a Time In… Hollywood
Quentin Tarantino delivered once again with his much talked about ‘Once Upon a Time In… Hollywood’.
Starring Brad Pitt and Leonardo Di Caprio as stunt double Cliff Booth and dwindling Spaghetti Western actor Rick Dalton; two buddies looking to rekindle their Hollywood flames. Over the duration of the film, we see their journey of them navigating through ’60s Hollywood all the while, a certain Charles Manson lurks not too far away from the Hollywood Hills.
I know I’ve praised set and costume designers before, but this film really takes the cake. I remember seeing this the day it released at Picturehouse and being in awe of the shot of Brad driving down L.A at night, with the beautiful backdrop of neon lights…effortlessly cool.
Leonardo Di Caprio gave another acting masterclass as Rick Dalton. I couldn’t help but contain my laughter at his very strong country accent – ‘this is my stunt double, Cliff BOOTH!’
As well as great acting, he brought a lot of personality and bravado to the film and in my opinion, this is Leo’s best performance since ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’.
What about ‘The Revenant’ I hear you say?
Yes, he did a solid job in that movie as always, but I believe he was at his peak as ‘Jordan Belfort’ in ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ and it still boggles the mind as to why he didn’t pick up the award for best actor at the 2014 Oscars.
Just ‘that scene’ alone with the Lamborghini Countach is absolute gold.
Nonetheless, his display in OUATIH along with Brad’s should make award season very interesting. At this point, ‘Rick Dalton’ and ‘Cliff Booth’ have got to be some of the coolest, iconic characters in cinema history.
Brilliant stuff.
2. Joker
If ‘Once Upon a Time In… Hollywood’ was the most talked-about film of the year, ‘Joker’ had to have been the most hyped film of the year, which it most definitely was. Did ‘Joker’ deliver on the hype?
Yes. Yes, it did. Matter of fact, it did more than that and quite possibly changed the face of the ‘comic book’ genre of movies as we know it.
There were questions at first with Todd Phillips director of ‘The Hangover’ series coming on board, but with talk of him wanting to create a mashup of Martin Scorcese’s ’70s classics, whilst experimenting with the 1988 graphic novel ‘Batman: The Killing Joke’, ears perked. Once Joaquin Phoenix was confirmed to play ‘Joker’, or ‘Arthur Fleck’, it was pretty much confirmed that this would be the ‘must-see’ film of the year, which it was.
Regardless of all the fear-mongering and talk of ‘incels’, this film brought back a glimpse of some of the greatest cinema from the ’70s. Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and The French Connection come to mind. ‘Joker’ is made for cinema purists. There’s no-nonsense, no faffing about, it’s a piece of work that is very pleasing to the senses.
In a day and age of ‘woke’ and pc culture it’s not often we see this take a backseat, allowing the audience to be immersed in the world of the director as THEY see it, even ifit ‘rubs people the wrong way’.
Of course, a stellar performance from ‘Don’ Joaquin Phoneix as ‘Joker’ was the icing on the cake. Prior to the announcement that Joaquin would play the iconic villain, there was talk of Leonardo Di Caprio possibly taking on the role.
However, I’m not too sure if the film would have turned out the way it did if Leo ended up grabbing the role. Joaquin Phoenix hit a home run as Joker. Even the scene of him abruptly bumping into the hospital exit, and the dazed, helpless look on his face as he’s waving his arms figuring out how to get in, is just…pfft – I mean, what can I say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtERxVzqXM
The little subtleties in his facial expressions that are so hard to capture and to make look authentic when performing on the screen, is a testament as to how great of an actor he is.
As I was watching that scene in the theatre, I just nodded and said to myself ‘Now, that right there, that’s acting – that’s how you act!’.
I’ll be taking notes, Joaquin.
Marvellous!
1. Capernaum
You surely weren’t expecting this one as my top pick, huh?
As I said, I’ve yet to see ‘The Irishman’ and even though ‘Joker’ was out of this world…still, I have to put my hands up and say, nothing can come close to matching this film. Honestly, ‘Capernaum’ is that good.
Nadine Labaki did a terrific job on directing this film and she had a major influence on the casting, and it shows. Everyone in this film clicked.
But of course, a lot of the plaudit for me has to go to a certain, now 15-year old, called ‘Zain Al Rafeea’. He stole the show and carried the film on his young shoulders.
I must have seen it at least 4 or 5 times, and he never failed to impress me, not for a second. Every scene he’s in is magnificent. He’s also hilarious without even trying, adding in dashes of humour at just the right time – momentarily letting the audience feel a quick sigh of relief, before wanting to put him in our pocket and rescue him from all the turmoil around him.
Even the baby Yonas, that is forced to tag along with Zain on the streets of Beirut did an amazing job – he’s just a baby for crying out loud!
It’s a shame ‘Capernaum’ didn’t get all it’s due praise outside of Cannes, as we are now seeing with films like ‘Parasite’, with the director Bong Joon-ho making an appearance on Jimmy Fallon.
Not that ‘Capernaum’ needs approval from a major network TV show, but it would help to further attract a mainstream audience. But winning best picture at Cannes is a victory in itself, so Nadine and co should be very proud of their hard work.
With films like ‘Parasite’ and ‘Capernaum’ and this continuing trend of foreign films winning best picture at Cannes, I think major studios could learn a thing or two.
For one, let’s have fewer superhero movies and reboots. At the end of the day, we just want to see great cinema. Give the people what they want. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next best picture at Cannes is a foreign one, as it seems foreign filmmakers put the art of the craft first before thinking about opening weekend numbers.
Huge budgets and star names are not everything. It all starts with a great story. Stories are what films are, essentially.
And of all the ‘stories’ I’ve seen this year, ‘Capernaum’ tops the lot. Whether or not Zain decides to go further with his career, he has a bright future ahead of him.
I’ve always thought, what if there was a film simulation game like ‘Football Manager’, where you look to scout for the next ‘wonderkid’…I don’t know, call it ‘Oscar Manager’. That’s the best name I could think of to be fair!
Could you imagine that, setting up your scouting settings and landing on Zain in your shortlist?
Zain Al Rafeea – ‘Media Description: The Next Robert De Niro’.
‘Media Handling Style: Nonchalant’.
‘Mate, watch out for this kid called ‘Zain Al Rafeea’. He’s gonna be an absolute ‘worldie’ in the next couple of saves. 2027 Oscars, ‘Best Actor’, I tell ya – just look at his stats’.
Hey, I know I’d buy a copy of that game.
Anywho, if he does continue in film, I’d be over the moon to see him and Nadine work on another film, or a series of films together.
Who knows, they could be the next great director and actor pair since Scorcese and De Niro.
This is up there as one of my favourite films of all time with ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Scarface’, but you know what – I’m pretty confident in saying that ‘Capernaum’ is NOW my favourite film of all time.
Magnifique!
Let’s see what’s in store for 2020, but please, as a public service announcement, I just want to see brilliant film – that’s all.
There are hopeful signs of the beginning of a new renaissance of film as we’re seeing now with praise of Netflix’s ‘The Irishman’, the highly revered ‘Parasite’ and the commercial success of the unorthodox comic book film, ‘Joker’. At the end of the day, films are meant to be enjoyed and talked about for decades to come.
Personally, I don’t need to be marking points off a film for not meeting certain quotas. A great film is a great film. Period. At this rate, films are going to have to start coming with ‘trigger warnings’, essentially milking the creativity out of filmmakers and studios.
We go to the movies to escape from the bland moments in our lives, now surely we don’t want our movies being bland, do we?…at least I don’t.
Cats: The BRWC Collaboration Review – Written by Megan and Kerry Williams.
A couple of days ago, I went to see Tom Hooper’s big screen adaptation of the musical Cats. As my background is not in musical theatre, I asked a guest with this knowledge, Kerry Williams, to supplement my review through her eyes. This is what she felt about Cats:
With award winning music, lyrics adapted by T.S.Elliot’s poems and the sensational ground-breaking original choreography by Gillian Lynne, the big screen adaptation of Cats should’ve been a sure fire success. So how have they got it so wrong?!
Megan had asked me to attend the screening to help review the musical theatre side of the film ……I wish she hadn’t! The screen choreography, by Andy Blankenbuehler, was dismal and uninspiring. With so many talented dancers from The Royal Ballet Company, New York City Ballet and experienced performers from the West End and Broadway, I cannot fathom why he didn’t make use of their prodigious talents?
In fact, the dancing was very limited with only the occasional glimpse of ballet from Francesca Hayward, and Steve McRae’s tap-dancing skills. The singing was passable, although Jennifer Hudson’s constantly running nose was a distraction. Her characterization of Grizabella had nowhere to develop as she started so distressed that there was little moving room to see how desperate the character gets towards the end of the film.
At the end of the stage show, Grizabella desperately sings the final lines ‘Touch me, it’s so easy to be me’ with such heart rendering sorrow that you are moved to tears. With the film version I just wanted to stand up and hand Jennifer Hudson a tissue and tell her to give her nose a good blow!
The only redeeming feature was Robbie Fairchild as Munkustrap, who literally carries the film. Robbie is an exceptional dancer but watching this film, if you blink, you will miss him dance. I was literally gripping hold of the cinema chair with embarrassment throughout the film and at one point, when the music builds to the heart stopping dance number ‘Jellicle Cats,’ I wanted to stand up and shout at the screen ‘For Gods sake do something – anything but don’t stand there in a position that looks as if you’ve wet yourself’!
It was 2 hours of my life I’ll never get back and I feel sorry for the talented performers who were in it, who deserved be in a film that this young generation could be inspired by, as I was as a young student watching the original production.
————–
As for myself, I grew up watching the recorded Broadway production on VHS; it was one of my favourite musicals. It was unique and exciting and, while I think this would’ve been a challenging musical to bring to the big screen, I couldn’t help but think how did director Tom Hooper get it this wrong?
When the first trailer came out, it received backlash and criticism due to the CGI and face merging on the cat cast. While it does look like something out of Basement Jaxx music video for ‘Where’s Your Head At?’, the weird CGI is only a part of the problem of why Cats is the worst film I’ve seen this year.
The original show’s main focus is on the dance choreography and music, with the plot being a minor part of the action. And that’s fine if the dancing in this was any good…but there wasn’t any. Like my guest has mentioned, the ‘dancing’ consisted of side stepping to the music and their ability to not wet themselves in the process. The score was actually very good, while the songs were very hit and miss.
Jason Derulo’s performance as Rum Tum Tugger was lukewarm at best; he was clearly the wrong choice for the character, and it’s obvious that Derulo was chosen to play the character based on his name alone. In short: he was trying too hard. The rest of the cast were trying their best with what little direction they were given.
Francesca Hayward, who plays the lead character Victoria, was bland and was presumably told that her only job in the film was to make surprised faces at everything she saw. I actually feel sorry for her because this was her big screen debut. She does get an opportunity to show off her singing talent with the new song ‘Beautiful Ghosts’. However, the impact of the song is taken away by the terrible continuity editing of the scene. E.g.: in one shot, Francesca is looking down at the ground but, in the next shot, the camera is facing her and she’s looking up. Basic editing mistakes like this occurred throughout the film.
The song ‘Macavity’, which was sung by Taylor Swift, was completely wasted. Taylor Swift was the worst thing in the entire film and was also trying too hard to be sexy. Rebel Wilson was awful and playing the same character that she does in every film. Adding insult to injury, her song (‘The Old Gumbie Cat’) was terrible, and the visuals were equivalent to a drug trip; if Tom Hooper wanted to be the next Cronenberg, then he succeeded with this number.
Even Idris Elba, whom I usually love, was unconvincing as Macavity and couldn’t act as the villain to save his life. This is the man who voiced Shere Khan in 2016’s The Jungle Book! Out of the whole cast, Jennifer Hudson was one of the best voices in the film.
It’s no secret now that Cats was rushed, and an incomplete version of the film was sent to cinemas; this is the version that we got to see. An example is during the ‘Skimbleshanks: The Railway Cat’ number. A small group of the cast are walking along a set of train tracks, which are unfinished and unrendered, making them look like something out of a Disney film from the 90’s. In another scene, a cameraman is seen running through the scenery. Instead of removing him from the scene, however, he was instead (lazily) turned into a cat character by only placing a tail on him. And, throughout the film, some of the cast have feline feet while others just have plain human feet. The complete lack of attention to detail is painfully obvious.
And lastly, the pacing was a mess; the first half happened too quickly and needed to slow down and take a breath, while the second half slowed to a snail’s pace. I’m also convinced the cameraman was drunk because some of the cinematography was wonky and constantly moving, making me feel dizzy. This was especially highlighted in the opening sequence where the camera spins round a circle of the cast. However, the camera’s moving so quickly that you can’t discern the faces.
Overall, Cats is an open letter to Hollywood and Tom Hooper on two aspects:
1. Just because you can adapt everything to the big screen, doesn’t mean that you should.
2. Don’t rush a film just because you want it out in time for Christmas.
While it was a challenging musical to adapt to screen, Cats was a mess and I regret not drinking a lot before seeing it. If Tom Hooper really wanted to bring this musical to the big screen, he should’ve just re-released the original recording of the Broadway production, because that is miles better than this film will ever be.
Exploring the old adage that there is no honour among thieves, Cody Stokes’ debut feature is a rollicking blaze through a number of existing properties, but unfortunately lacks its own identity.
Concerned with a recently released criminal, Nolan (Garland Scott), his facially disfigured sidekick, Stitches (a revelatory Frank Mosley, who in part reminded me of Dan Aykroyd in ‘Trading Places’, but mainly because he spends the entirety of the film in a Santa outfit with blood on his face), and Nolan’s almost-gone-straight former squeeze, Lena (Alexia Rasmussen), ‘The Ghost Who Walks’ follows the spectral ex-con as he scrambles to meet face-to-face the daughter he has never met, before his former boss Donnie (Gil Darnell) can catch and kill him as retribution for ratting him out five years previously.
Alas, ‘The Ghost Who Walks’ treads very little ground that many films of a similar ilk have already worn ad infinitum. For most of its tiresome 106 minute running time the faint Gotham-esque neon of St. Louis, Missouri brought to mind the vastly superior ‘John Wick’ series, which is quite evidently the primary influence on the narrative.
Tropes aplenty litter the script, which ordinarily isn’t a problem with this genre, but as caricature-like as they are, and as signposted the narrative cues present themselves, you can be forgiven for losing interest in the story.
That said, there were strong elements. As previously stated, Frank Mosley’s performance is at once entertaining and affecting, particularly in a later scene.
The violence, ugly as it is, has a realism that Hollywood is normally wont to glamorise, which elevates the film to something rather more than the stinker it might’ve been. Also, the poster design which accompanies the film’s release is quite wonderful; moody, colourful, surreal, and actually quite special.
It’s just a shame that the finished article has troubles living up to its marketing. The film shows promise, but is largely a disappointment.
