I have enormous respect for films that have big ideas but don’t necessarily have the budget to bring them to the screen in the traditional way. This intense little thriller from Denmark has kidnapping, murder, car chases and bar fights yet we see none of it, we simply hear and feel it!
Police officer Asger Holm (Jakob Cedergren) has been assigned to alarm dispatch duty until a court case he is involved in gets resolved. He answers a strange call from a woman who he eventually realises has been kidnapped. When the call is suddenly disconnected, the search for the woman and her kidnapper begins. With the phone as his only tool, Asger enters a race against time to save the endangered woman but soon he realises that he is dealing with a crime that is far bigger than he first thought.
This film is a rollercoaster of a feature. it’s a riveting, nerve-racking thrill-ride which is every bit as effective as any big budget actioner you will see this year. Whilst the picture we paint in our heads is powerful, it would not be nearly as effective if not for the compelling performance from lead actor Jakob Cedergren. He takes a script full of twists and shocking turns and gives us an emotive protagonist to experience it all through. We are drip fed information throughout the narrative that not only brings about new developments of the crime we are following but also new developments around Asger’s own mental state and what is going on in his life outside of the call centre. It’s powerful stuff and even though there are certain tropes that the more regular filmgoer will likely have seen before, they are done so well here that they completely warrant their presence.
For a directorial debut, this is really strong stuff! Gustav Möller gives us a whole lot of dramatic forcefulness out of the most simple and basic of elements. It is intense in the moment but it has definitely stuck with me afterwards as well. It will be very interesting to see what he does next!
I was fortunate enough to see Suspiria at the LFF on a cloudy Wednesday. Yes, I had taken the day off work and yes, it was worth it. It’s a gory horror with perfect casting and a beautiful meld of nations, generations of actors and film lore.
At first glance, the thought that Luca Guadagnino, who made Call Me By Your Name, could make such a violent, gruesome and tension-wracked horror film seems entirely incongruous. But of course it isn’t – the colours, the close-ups, the essence of a great story wrapped in immersive scenes and dialogue are all entirely consistent.
Suspiria is an uncomfortable, tension wracked fairy tale. Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson) is a young woman who is drawn to a Berlin dance academy, where she has managed to land a blind audition and stuns the teachers with her talent. She quickly becomes to protégé of Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton), and these two women circulate each other in an infinity symbol throughout the film, drawing the other characters in to their blood-filled whirlpool. Magic, witches and lore are at the centre of this horror, and the occult brings all the spookiness you can imagine. Johnson is fantastic – she is an actor that shines in this role, having previously worked with Swinton and Guadagnino together in A Bigger Splash. The trust is evident and the actors’ devotion to the movie (particularly Swinton, who plays three supporting roles) is clear and pushes the story forward in to the black unknown.
As a remake, it has its own legs and can support itself well. The script has added new layers which create new avenues to explore, giving the story a modern feel and making sure it can hold its own.
The colours are more muted than the previous, some being held back to be shown in full force in key scenes. Magnificent camerawork by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, the cinematographer, disorient the viewer and pull off incredible shots, still unknown to me just how. The manipulation of spatial rules serve particularly well to show the magic swirling in the air, and the bending of ordinary rules.
The gore is in full force here, as is only appropriate with a movie such as this. This is a fair warning that if you do not enjoy blood and guts, do not see this movie as it is front and centre. I couldn’t avert my eyes for a second during these scenes, however, as the natural body contorted and twisted (both in dance and in injury) served as a reminder of the witches’ magic over the preternatural realm. Also, as this was very much a passion project for Guadagnino (Italian, as well as Dario Argento who made the first Suspiria in 1977), he wasn’t going to skimp on any details.
The acting in this film is superb, supported by an incredible tale that was one of the highlights of the LFF.
I really should preface this by letting you know I had the pleasure of meeting Terry Gilliam before my screening of this film. It is relevant because it did affect my review in a very specific way. Last night THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE was the opening feature for the 38th Cambridge Film Festival and it was followed by an extensive Q&A with the man himself. Luckily, whilst I was networking (and greedily sinking plenty of free prosecco) at the gala reception beforehand, I spied Mr Gilliam in the room and anxiously went over to inform him of my fandom and hopefully not make too big a fool of myself. He was as warm and charming as I could have possibly hoped and as well as discussing how Fear & Loathing and 12 Monkeys helped develop me into the messed up person I am today, and how The Zero Theorum was critically and commercially a complete failure yet it made him even more sure of himself, we got onto his strange relationship with film criticism.
Terry Gilliam Q&A!
He asked two things of me before I write my review:
1) Try to keep away from any preconceived notions and just go along for the ride.
2) Don’t bloody focus on how long he’s been working on it 😂
So, out of respect for the man, I adhered to these rules and I’m so happy to say I really enjoyed the experience!
This is a film only Terry Gilliam could make. Whilst it is definitely more in tune with his latter work there are undeniable elements from film as far back as Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. The story is as fantastical as you would expect however it also feels purposefully grounded in a way that seems to indicate the two sides of the artist, the dreamer and the realist.
Toby (Adam Driver) is a cynical advertising director who finds himself trapped in the outrageous delusions of an old Spanish shoe-maker (Jonathan Pryce) who believes himself to be Don Quixote. In the course of their comic and increasingly surreal adventures, Toby is forced to confront the tragic repercussions of a film he made in his idealistic youth – a film that changed the hopes and dreams of a small Spanish village forever. Can Toby make amends and regain his humanity? Can Don Quixote survive his madness and imminent death? Or will love conquer all?
In my humble opinion the story here is less important than the feelings this film evokes. Whilst I can understand some critics finding the film messy and disjointed, I found the transitions between the three acts to be quite apparent. We begin with a creative person who has become emotionally bankrupt, we move on to a person who loses everything and begins to question his reality, and we finish with a person who has rediscovered themselves and dares to dream again. I hope that isn’t too spoilery but trust me, it’s the journey that matters.
The two central performances here are absolutely wonderful! Whilst Jonathan Pryce is widely regarded as one of the best actors we have, he still manages to impress with one of the most bonkers and committed roles of his career! It’s a joyful and often hilarious performance that is hugely entertaining but has enough pathos to bring the feels when necessary. Adam Driver has not given a bad performance yet. He is a hungry actor who consistently pushes himself into new territory and he has worked with so many diverse directors in such a short time! From Lena Dunham to Noah Baumbach to Jim Jarmusch to Martin Scorsese and now to Terry Gilliam. He has a confidence and charisma here that carries a lot of the film, even when he is not being the most likeable or relatable character onscreen. Regardless of how this film does in the long run I think this will go down as a performance to remember.
I met the great man himself!
No review of a Terry Gilliam film would be complete without some reference to the cinematography. This film is overflowing with creativity in terms of filmmaking craft! Practical effects and in-camera stuntwork are the order of the day with Gilliam and it has a tactility that is instantly recognisable. You feel the fabric of the sets and the props. The armour clinks when hit by real swords. The donkey that reluctantly becomes Toby’s mode of transport is endlessly unhelpful. It is very much the anti-blockbuster in that sense. A film with huge ideas and scope that is done in a very independent and DIY way.
Whilst I have been profusely positive thus far, I do have my quibbles with the film. Predominantly I think it is a bit too long. Certain characters and story threads are criminally underused and unexplored whilst other sections are crazily drawn out and over indulgent. I feel like Gilliam was intentionally making the film a chaotic piece of cinema, the overall narrative does strain at times and for all the wondrous joy that is abundant there is equally frustration and confusion. I suppose where you land with it depends entirely on your feeling for Gilliam as an auteur.
This film for me is a flawed success. A beautiful and ingenious piece of bold filmmaking which swings for the fences and hits way more times than it misses. For every moment that doesn’t quite connect there is something that raises a smile or a provokes awe. It’s a singular experience and I’m glad it exists. I really hope we see another film from the man soon as he really is one of a kind and deserves to keep giving us these weird little journeys!
Wobble Palace will definitely stand out as one of the more unique films I’ve seen this year. The story is a simple one, but it does open itself up to a lot of stylistic potential. Eugene and Jane are a couple struggling to keep their relationship intact. They’re bored of each other but both believe that moving on would be worse for each of them. They’ve both come to the decision of being in an open relationship. What follows is the different stories of the two of them meeting others, and the issues that come with bringing them all to the house that they both share. It can would as an art piece, a provocative drama or an off-beat comedy.
The film was directed and written by and stars Eugene Kotlyarenko, as Eugene. Wobble Palace is definitely his passion project. That comes through with the style and, of course, the passion displayed on screen. There is energy to the film, particularly in the editing. There are a number of strange scenes and tones displayed in the film, and yet neither feels out of place with others. It’s all very coherent and goes at a quick pace.
The cinematography was not too dissimilar to that of a sit-com, with occasional movements to what feel like imitations of a small theatre. It’s not unwelcoming and does work well for the film at hand. In particular I liked any scene that involved the use of a mobile phone. We get that now familiar use of having the phone screen or text messages appearing on-screen. But with the ways it’s handled, with speed-scrolling, well placed photos and highlighting of plot important messages. It’s not new, but it feels new. That at the least has to be commended – they are the scenes that I’ll remember the most.
Unfortunately, what the film has in passion, it loses with its script and acting. The story was written well enough – again, the tone is balanced well and it’s all well-paced. The main issue is in character and dialogue. There is a problem when I get confused as to what’s happening because three of the characters are so similar that I was mixing them up. While Eugene and Jane are fairly distinct, the characteristics of the other characters were not only one-note, they all seem to share the same note to me. Not so much in what they do, but how they act and speak. Three of the male characters have dialogue that relies heavily on the phrases like “you know”, and they often take part in philosophical debates, usually on the same subjects. This wouldn’t have been so noticeable if the acting wasn’t fairly mediocre throughout. Kotlyarenko does the best job, successfully coming off as a socially awkward and desperate loser – the character’s voice, accompanied by way too many monologues did start to grate on me after a while, but otherwise he did well enough. Jane on the other hand, felt eerily similar to Kristen Stewart’s performance in the first Twilight film. She was monotoned, had too little expressions and, again, monologued way too much.
The major loss of the film is that I can’t tell really what it’s trying to be. There is a good argument for it being an arthouse film – some of the imagery and most of the dialogue back that up. But it does feel like it’s trying to be a compelling drama, with scenes like when Eugene shaves his head. It also feels like an off-beat comedy with scenes like a sex montage that reminded me a little too much of the one from Team America: World Police. Despite being coherent, well-paced and having a balanced tone in terms of its story, the overall film just felt awkward to me. That is how I would describe it – a passionate, yet awkward film. It wasn’t for me in the end, which is a shame as it started out strong. I do hold out hope for the creator’s next project, but I won’t revisit this one.
A biopic that is 10 years in the making, Bohemian Rhapsody is absolutely buzzing with excitement and oozing chemistry. This biopic of Queen, the beyond-legendary rock band, shows the start of their story, with emphasis of the incomparable Freddie Mercury. A musical ride and an emotional, moving tale, bookended by what is considered the greatest rock concert of all-time – The Live Aid 1985 show.
Freddie Mercury is brilliantly portrayed by Rami Malek (Mr. Robot). There is no doubt he carries this movie, when it flits between deep and personal biopic moments in to his life, and highlights of the journey of Queen. Joseph Mazello, Ben Hardy and Gwilym Lee play bassist John Deacon, drummer Roger Taylor and guitarist Brian May, respectively. Malek encapsulates Mercury, showing a deeply troubled and sometimes lonely man, only at home on stage, “singing to all the other misfits”. The musical moments of the band practising, rehearsing and recording are the highlights of the film. They exude fun, chemistry and risk-taking musicians, proving why Queen was almost mysterious in its composition – nobody knew exactly what Queen was, something the outsiders of the world identified with and was moved by.
Mercury’s life was certainly as trying as it was colourful, and this movie shows some formative moments of his life. His bravado fuelled first meeting with Taylor and May lay the foundation for their collaborative relationship, and intimate scenes with his family show the troubles he encountered as a Parsi immigrant, with parental wishes to live up to. Everything in between is pure fun and magic. For a two-hour movie, there is barely a dull moment – if there was I struggle to remember it.
The production team certainly gave the music of Queen it’s due – the concerts, particularly the Live Aid concert (which is basically their entire actual set and is the finale act of the movie) have such incredible sound and atmosphere. The camerawork in these moments are wonderful – drawing you in close when there’s thousands of people in the shot. That’s the crux of the movie – with so many people knowing Queen, and Freddy Mercury being so famous, being drawn in right next to them has a lasting effect that will stay with the viewer. This deep, intimate glimpse in to the heart of the greatest live performer of all-time will captivate the imagination and be music to your eyes.
