Category: REVIEWS

By Jay Connors.

Ian McFarland’s ‘The Godfathers of Hardcore’ follows the lives of the leading two members of the New York band ‘Agnostic Front‘, now in their 4th decade of existence as a group that the mainstream world has never heard of. This isn’t to say the title of the movie isn’t accurate, it is in fact genuinely apt, simply that hardcore as a punk sub-genre has remained underground since it’s inception, staying true to it’s roots as a self made ‘do it yourself’ movement. To those who have either been involved in the scene for years, or even just coming up into it now, Agnostic Front are commended as being at the forefront of a lifestyle that is still going strong, while remaining invisible to society at large.

The Godfathers in question are singer Roger Miret and guitarist Vinnie Stigma, now in their 50s and 60s respectively, the two long time members of a band that has consisted of over 20 people in its long history. Miret and Stigma’s passion for the scene show a band that haven’t just reformed for a few shows to cash in, but a group that never went away. The film shows their current day lives, while splicing in archive footage from local TV as well as video and photographs of the band to guide along viewers who are unaware of where they came from. While hardcore bands can be found all over the world today, a lot of this can be traced back to the violent streets of New York City in the 1980s, full of kids who were fully of anger and needing a way to express it.

Being involved in hardcore has always been more than listening to the latest CDs, or wearing a t-shit of your favorite bands. The aforementioned DIY lifestyle is promoted widely by those in the scene, encouraging as much participation as possible from those who follow it. Can’t play guitar? Find a venue and book a show. Can’t design flyers? Find a place for the bands to crash. Write for fanzines. Take photos. Find something that the community is lacking, and fill that gap. This level of dedication is far greater than you might see going in, meaning the general demographic generally swings to younger people in their late teens and early 20s, who can keep up. The people who have time and energy to be involved with something that can eat up all your free time, as well as money. Most will start slipping out as they settle down with families and work ‘real jobs’, but an enthusiastic group will follow behind them. Like the rotating doors of high school, the scene never dies – the faces just change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehlrzjbHq-I

Vinnie Stigma, however, definitely doesn’t show signs of slowing down. Full of vigor and sporting a personality that could be the most genuine New York City tour guide ever, Vinnie knows his station in life and is absolutely 100% content with it. Still living in the same building his whole family grew up in, he eats, breathes, and sleeps hardcore to this day. This is in contrast to Roger’s circumstances, having moved out to Arizona with his growing family and leading a more regular life. It’s apparent that the scene still has it’s grips on him, though. Despite a health scare he knows he isn’t out and is soon organizing live gigs as usual, with nobody really showing any signs of surprise. Compared to how his first daughter was brought up, Roger has found the balance needed to keep Agnostic Front an important, but not overwhelming, part of his life. 

The one thing that exudes from the film is a general feeling of positivity. While more difficult subjects of growing up in a turbulent 1980s New York City and familial issues aren’t glossed over, they are used to frame how the music scene of the time took a group of young kids and forged them into something greater. While Roger and Vinnie are both on different paths outside of the band, they’re both shown as being in a good place surrounded by love. While Roger looks through his trunk of memorabilia and flyers from the 80s he’s hit with nostalgia rather than remorse, safe in the knowledge that both sides of his life are fulfilling. Vinnie on the other hand strives on knowing everyone in town, and being the center of attention. While some other stories might show this to be simply a facade, revealing a sadder portrait within, when it comes to Vinnie you’re completely sold on how much he enjoys life. It’s impossible to watch along without liking both of them.

Being a member of a prominent hardcore act in ‘Blood For Blood’ himself, Ian McFarland’s friendship with the band provides an intimate atmosphere throughout, treating the viewer like an insider to the proceedings through the lens. For those familiar with the band and their ilk, this is a world known and loved, while others are introduced to something that is totally new, but welcoming. While knowledge of the music and it’s growth is beneficial, it’s not essential as the movie carefully rides a line to ensure nobody is alienated. Interviews and establishing shots are filmed with care, while live footage is varied and exciting, ensuring an enjoyable visual experience that surpasses your generic band documentaries of the past. 

Due to the close knit nature of the scene, the film is relatable to anyone who has been involved in underground music.

While most don’t get to play the open air festivals we see footage of, the dark and small clubs also shown will ring familiar to anyone who’s been to, or played, gigs. You might be at a show with a legendary act who’ve traveled halfway across the world to be in your club, but at that time and moment you might just be a foot or two away from each other. With no security or barrier you’re almost on stage with them, and in that moment a connection is formed between performer and audience that isn’t possible elsewhere. The close up experience of these performances is brought into the home effectively, providing a familiarity of venues we’ve never been in as an audience. For those of us less active these days, the film provides a sentimental look back and an understanding the changes Roger has had to make, while those still regularly heading to small venues each week know exactly what keeps Vinnie going.

‘The Godfathers of Hardcore’ is absent from rock star personas, betrayals, breakups, and twists. There’s no mansions, or swathes of handlers and executives rushing around. It’s a story of how two guys formed a band that many hold very dear, and despite their lives taking different turns it’s evident that the bond between the two of them will never be broken. It’s never a bad thing to have a happy ending.

Close, whose main character is based on real life bodyguard, Jacquie Davis, is the latest Netflix exclusive action adventure to star Noomi Rapace (Bright, What Happened to Monday?). Rapace plays Sam Carlson, a bodyguard whose job takes her all over the world and puts her life in the line of fire. After being contacted for a job ensuring the safety of a rich heiress named Sarah (Olivia Jewson), Carlson reluctantly agrees and finds that Sarah is just as disapproving of the arrangement. Then one day an attack on Sarah’s family home leads the bodyguard and the heiress to go on the run and they soon find that they have to be very careful with who they can trust.

In 2002, The Bourne Identity rejuvenated the action genre. The film’s use of visceral, fast paced fight scenes shot on handheld cameras put the audience right in the middle of the action and since then many films have copied that style to evoke the same adrenaline pumped feeling that the Bourne films gave its fans. Even James Bond got a shot in the arm from Jason Bourne. Cut to 2019 and its influence is still being shown and unfortunately some are not as successful as others. Close is one of those films that tries to remind its audience of the Bourne franchise but ultimately leaves them wanting something much better.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWKsiHEpiJM

It’s not the fault of its star because Rapace puts in a solid performance as the hardened and emotionally distant bodyguard but it’s the script, the budget and lack of originality that pulls the film down. Even when the film realises that its format is all too recognisable and cliché, its attempts at adjusting the audience’s expectations come too little and too late. The more successful female led action movies (La Femme Nikita, Aliens, Kill Bill) have taken into consideration the lead’s gender and have treated them as individuals rather than cookie cutter place holders that a man would have filled. Unfortunately, Close falls into the cookie cutter model of the action movie star and it suffers for not having the character development or the chance to show a bond between two women who are put into such an unusual situation. There are moments where Sarah shows warmth and gratitude for everything that Sam has done for her but the chemistry is never really there so the audience doesn’t believe in the bond, despite the harrowing ordeal that the pair have endured.

The budget is probably one of the biggest problems for the films because despite its ambitious tone and promising set pieces, the film comes across as more of a televisual affair, like a pilot for a show rather than something more cinematic. Considering television is becoming more cinematic these days, that is no easy feat as it suggests that most of the budget must have gone into the fee that Rapace’s name commands.

Overall the film is nowhere near as good as it could have been. The potential is wasted on what could have been a more unique film, maybe basing it on the real bodyguard’s life. Instead what the audience get is a forgettable, disposable action thriller that makes the audience wish they were watching something better. When thinking about the more exciting and enjoyable movies in the genre, it pains me to say it but this one doesn’t even come close.

Based on real life memoirs from both father and son, Beautiful Boy chronicles the inspiring yet crushing experience of abuse, recovery and relapse. Beautiful Boy is as chilling as it is powerful as we watch a family torn apart by addiction.

Beautiful Boy treats us to a magnificent performance by Timothée Chalamet as Nick Sheff from start to finish.  His performance is a constant reminder that the route to sober is never a straight path, and his painfully realistic portrayal of struggle, anger, fear and addiction is second to none. Steve Carrell is equally as adept as father David Sheff, whilst Maura Tierney and Amy Ryan give equally brilliant, albeit secondary, performances.

Beautiful Boy is a far cry from your usual Hollywood portrayal of addiction which poses ‘giving it up’ as the most difficult part. Instead Beautiful Boy is a tale of trying to ‘stay clean’, and doesn’t shy away from the difficulty of living life sober. Its haunting end gives us a portal into real life by describing real life Nic Sheff as 8 years sober, but never free from addiction.

Being based on memoirs means that Beautiful Boy is a very personal story and focuses heavily on father and son played by Carrell and Chalamet; Ryan and Tierney bleed into the background, as their own heartbreak is only viewed through one or two key scenes. Yet, that’s what Beautiful Boy is, it’s a personal story from two points of view. It’s about a father’s vision of his son versus the reality.

Director, Felix van Groeningen tries to supplement this truth versus reality idea by zipping through time between the father’s picture of past joy and the pain of the present. However, van Groeningen continues this in unnecessary places, allowing Beautiful Boy to become confusing and convoluted. Beautiful Boy also end up about 20/30 minutes too long, trying to fit too much detail with too many jumps, undoubtedly a product of a chaotic editing period for the director, forced to bring in others to help him finish his vision. Nonetheless Beautiful Boy is as incredible as it is depressing. It’s a great film, and a must watch for me, and if I were choosing the Oscars I’d give it an award for tackling a subject in a way that I’ve never seen in Hollywood before.

Freak Show: well-meaning but half-baked teen drama. By Fergus Henderson.

Billy Bloom (Alex Lawther) is different. He is a preternaturally talented teen drag queen, fully out, transferred by his buttoned down father into the most aggressively hetero normative private school in North America. Amongst the mean girls and jocks of his new school, he dresses like Adam Ant and performs book reports in character as Zelda Fitzgerald. He quotes Oscar Wilde in witty voiceover and idolises his untameable, ever-absent diva mother (Bette Midler), channelling her spirit when applying make-up in his show-biz mirror. Before long he will be fighting against the homophobic slings and arrows of conservative America in microcosm. 

Freak Show, the directorial debut of long time producer Trudie Styler, is a film that knows what films like it are supposed to do. It is a coming of age dramedy about the value of acceptance and the necessity of questioning gender norms. Styler uses her extensive experience to ensure that the film constantly hits all the right notes as its races through its narrative. All the characters you might expect are here: the closeted bully, the jock with a sensitive side, the bible thumping mean girl, the macho gym teacher, the estranged father, etc. We are never in doubt as to what kind of film we are watching.

It has three distinct sections in the manner of three separate films, charting Billy’s trials and victories in his new environment, each section ushered in by a dramatic set piece. At first it is a tale of bullying and individuality, then it is a drama about family estrangement and friendship, then a comedy about Billy’s bid for homecoming queen.

I draw attention to this because it is rather noticeable, and in the abstract this is what films generally do, progressing through a variety of emotional terrains. Freak Show, however, seems to rush through each new section, doing what it expects itself to do in order to reach the next one. Thus it is never fully any of the films it is trying to be. Aside from the aforementioned set pieces it never truly allows any one scene to breathe, its focus somewhat lacking throughout. After a while the film starts to look like a series of tropes, strung together to form a coherent but lightweight narrative. It becomes a little performative.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KhzVIY895Y

This is all rather disappointing, as its source material is the novel of the same name by infamous Club Kid James St James. St James’s own story is a wild and salacious one, and yet whatever wicked energy might have been in the original script seems to have been toned down, presumably so that the film can reach a wider audience. From recent teen films like The Edge of Seventeen all the way back to pensive stoner classic Dazed and Confused we know that teen films can take risks, can use strong language, can be frank about sex and drugs. Why, then, would this film, based on a book written by one of the all-time party animals, be so tame?

Luckily for us, the main players are strong.  Lead actor Alex Lawther is a unique screen presence, sliding gracefully around the frame, coy yet charismatic. He draws from a deep emotional well, bringing dignity and nuance to his character. As a Brit with a background in more underground fare he is naturally at odds with the rest of his brash, straight-ahead American cast. He floats above and through the film, always one step ahead.

Brief turns from Bette Midler as Billy’s boozy mother and a feisty Laverne Cox as a local new reporter breathe life into the film. It says something about the tepid script that these sadly truncated characters move the story along more than the other main characters, who are left to tread water, doing what they can with their formulaic arcs.

When the film cannot rely on its frequently expository dialogue to clue you in to how you should be feeling, a bland soundtrack descends, utilising the EDM-lite sounds of inspirational adverts to move things along. With the exception of the film’s strongest scene, in which Billy is violently attacked to the haunting ‘Queen’ by Perfume Genius, the soundtrack is uninspired and overbearing. This, in a film whose aesthetic is rooted in drag culture, is baffling.

Once the film enters its third act it picks up some steam, the film finding a good if generic antagonist in cheerleader cum religious zealot Lynette (Abigail Breslin), who explicates the film’s larger political relevancy (a certain odious American politician may be invoked). Unfortunately this sudden clarity of narrative purpose arrives too late for it to feel consequential.

This is certainly a film with an important message, and a much stronger film might emerge in a re-edit which emphasised longer scenes and more defined characterisation. Unfortunately it is too slight and non-committal to hit its marks, and save for a wonderful lead performance from Alex Lawther it does not have enough to recommend.

Freak Show is out now and available to buy now on DVD and Blu ray.

By J Simpson.

Peter Jackson’s impressive new documentary on The Great War, World War I, transports you across yawning expanses of time, for a first-hand glimpse of the atrocities committed therein.

In a world of 24-hour news cycle and constantly refreshing social media feeds, it can be difficult to remember what life was like two days ago, let alone years, or decades. In this current temporal climate, 100 years might as well be a million. Continuing that analogy, Peter Jackson’s documentary about the lives of British soldiers during World War I is like witnessing perfectly restored footage of Triceratops and T-Rex. It’s awe-inspiring as a time capsule and porthole into a very different world, which helped birth our current society.

There’s no shortage of war documentaries and dramatisations out there. While WWI is not as talked about as World War II or even Vietnam, there’s still plenty of documentation out there. There was even an epic 26-episode miniseries made back in the ’60s. What does Peter Jackson’s depiction of the British front of World War I add to the conversation?

The Significance Of They Shall Not Grow Old

They Shall Not Grow Old goes so far beyond the “talking head” style of documentary it belongs in a separate category. It’s also leagues apart from your usual newsreel-style historical deep dive, drawing out scratchy old footage from eras past. Jackson’s film lies somewhere between the two forms, creating something entirely new and utterly breathtaking.

For the 100th anniversary of the Great War, Peter Jackson and his team of technicians embarked upon a nearly impossible journey. They delved into the archives of actual footage from World War I, predominantly of life of British soldiers in the trenches of the French front. Jackson and his team then first completely restored the footage and then colourised it using the most cutting-edge photography. The results are beyond belief. The bright, bold, lifelike colours are vibrant and vivid, looking fresh off of a Hollywood soundstage rather than from the mud, blood, soot, and ashes of 100 years ago.

This modernisation achieves two main results.

1. The high production values and contemporary pacing make They Shall Not Grow Old more approachable and engaging for modern audiences.
2. Being more relatable, things hit closer to home. The horrors of war are in your face, inescapable and undeniable.

This second point hits at one of the more subtle issues of war films, as a genre. Are these movies glorifying war? Or are they a cautionary tale? Sometimes, they may be the former masquerading as the latter.

Here’s where Peter Jackson’s documentary finds its humanitarian footing. 100 years ago seems impossibly distant and difficult to imagine. To paraphrase the common cliche, when we forget history we are doomed to repeat it. World War I is a unique moment in history, acting as a boundary between the classical world and the crashing immanence of modernity. World War I, itself, is like the trenches of France, dug in and defending a way of life that would never be seen again.

Most significantly, World War I was the last war fought predominantly on the ground and hand-to-hand. World War II and beyond would become increasingly mechanised, distant. These days, you don’t even have to be on the same continent as someone to kill them.

This was not the case during The Great War. While most of the war was fought at an impasse – trench warfare – huge climactic surges were fought in No Man’s Land, in a hellish landscape of barbed wire, mustard gas, mud, and corpses.

Many of these scenes are recounted with excruciating detail by actual World War I veterans. They speak of rivers of rats gnawing on the bodies of their fallen friends. They talk of vomit and shrapnel, of fire and fury. They also speak of honour, bravery, and courage, even of their enemies. In fact, many British soldiers refused to kill their German captives due to admiring their grit during combat. This is a far cry from today’s dehumanising, sociopathic lack of empathy for The Other.

Instead of glorifying war, Peter Jackson and the veterans of World War I are warning against it by showing it for what it is. War is not noble. It is not exciting or admirable or advisable. War is hell. Seeing it in its pure, raw, unadulterated state shows that in all its infernal agony.

Final Thoughts

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it’s worth a look, to help make sense of the past and the role it played in creating our current world. It’s a hard scrutiny, however, make no bones about it. People truly do the most terrible things to one another. If we forget the hundreds and thousands and millions who laid down their lives in the mud and trenches of World War I, it may happen again, but with today’s technological capacities, that could make World War I look like a game of playground tag.

War is hell. Don’t forget it.