Forrest Fenn, an enigmatic man from Santa Fe New Mexico, apparently made a lot of money through selling Indian artifacts and art. He was a former fighter pilot who hustled his way into a lucrative business selling this art to the stars from his luxurious gallery. At times criticised for this, he was surrounded by long-held suspicions of his unethically gained wealth. Now in his 80s and having survived cancer, he announced in 2010 via a self-composed cryptic poem, that he had buried $3 million worth of treasure somewhere in the Rocky Mountains. The Rocky Mountains span 3,000 miles of western North America, including quite a few states. The poem began like this: “I have gone alone in there and with my treasures bold”…
According to Fenn, 65,000 people have participated in the treasure hunt. He knows this because of his website where searchers can send him questions. He has also stated that people have been within 50ft of the treasure. Has he planted sensors, cameras or is he making the whole thing up? Who knows. His clues stop there and there is a lot of land to cover.
Director and cinematographer Tomas Leach has made an impressive documentary. Despite a continuing stream of accompanying music, it is the silence of the mountains and the soft sound of tramping feet on rocks as the adults play, that has the most effect. Leach is not afraid of pauses and silence. The people he included – Mike, David, Katya, Billy – share the effect of the pursuit on their lives and their stories – cancer, solitude, deception, and the pleasure of camping under a star-filled sky. The film slowly reveals the transformation experienced by every one of the people in this film. Some have discovered a simpler life and others a taste of adventure and a forgotten craziness, far away from an ordered home-life. Two months ago NBC reported that three people have now died due to the treasure-hunt, with the latest being a 31 year old who fell into a river in July 2017. “Linda Bilyeu, whose ex-husband Randy, 54, died on the same treasure hunt in January 2016, shared the police’s concerns. She called the hunt “ludicrous, out of control, dangerous” and said it “should be stopped.” More than a pursuit for money, very cleverly Fenn has led thousands of people to nature and fun. And that is the beauty of this film.
Go and have a look at www.tomasleach.com to see his other work. From the hilarious and insightful DELAY to a beautiful presentation of Nick Cave’s ‘The Lonely Giant’.
Anyone familiar with Darren Aronofsky’s previous work, such as Black Swan, will think they know what to expect with his latest film mother! But in truth, there is nothing that can really prepare you for what lies in store. Everything you have heard about this film is true and then some, yet in many ways, it defies description. But let’s try anyway…
mother! Source: Vimeo
mother! stars Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, two Oscar winners at the very top of their game. He (played by Bardem) is a frustrated poet with writer’s block, she (played by Lawrence) is his wife, who keeps herself occupied renovating his burnt out old house in the middle of nowhere. All is fine until a stranger comes knocking at the door one evening and Bardem invites him to stay the night. This sets off a chain of events that spiral out of control so fast and so spectacularly, that you will be left breathless just trying to keep up.
Taken on face value, mother! is a completely over the top horror film about the danger of letting strangers into your home. A full house might be a great thing to have when you’re playing poker, but for Jennifer Lawrence, it is anything but, as the never-ending onslaught of visitors start to tear her home apart.
But then to take this film at face value is to miss the point completely. mother! is designed to work on so many other levels, from the seven deadly sins on display in Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris’s performances to a far bigger environmental message.
Heavily portrayed throughout the film is the allegory of the house as our planet, with too many people, all wanting their share, showing a complete disrespect for the environment. Some critics have an issue with how quickly the film descends into madness, yet when you look at the speed with which we have ravaged our planet, creating massive and destructive environmental problems in just a matter of years, it is perhaps not as far-fetched as it seems.
Jennifer Lawrence. Source: Wikimedia
mother! is certainly not a film for the faint-hearted, and many people will hate everything about it, whether they get the deeper meanings or not. Even Jennifer Lawrence herself has gone on record to say that it is: “not enjoyable while you are watching it”. “It’s hard to watch. It’s an assault,” she continued. And she should know; filmed in the first person, every single shot in mother! is either of Lawrence’s face, over her shoulder, or her direct point of view, with 66 minutes of the 2hours analyzing her expressions up close and personal.
This result is a fully immersive, claustrophobic viewing experience that drags you into the action, rather than simply letting you watch. You will sit, gripping your cinema seat, with every muscle in your body tensed, and you’ll emerge at the end battered, baffled, and bewildered.
Jury president American director and producer Darren Aronofsky Opening of the 65th Berlin International Film Festival at the Berlinale Palast. Source: Wikimedia
Writer/director Darren Aronofsky says he wrote mother! in a five-day fever dream, and you will share that sense of delirious confusion; that disconcerting feeling of not quite knowing what is real anymore.
But then you will start to think it all through and you’ll find that you won’t stop thinking about it for a very long time. The more you think about it, the more you will find within the onion-like layers of this complex piece of cinema. And the more you find, the more you will come to appreciate its mood and meaning, until, like all the most terrifying fairground rides, you’ll find yourself wanting to rush back around to do it all again.
There is no denying that mother! is utter mayhem. It is madness. It is macabre. It is malevolent. But it might just be a masterpiece, too.
Call Me By Your Name is destined to be considered one of the great movie romances. Astounding breakout Timothée Chalamet (who was also astounding in last year’s little seen Miss Stevens) stars as Elio, a 17-year-old bilingual, hyper-literate piano maestro staying in Italy for the summer with his professor father. Elio knows a lot, but he admits himself that he knows nothing about “the things that matter”. The film is a coming-of-age tale that charts his process of learning about the ways of love and heartbreak as a brief but passionate romance develops between him and Oliver (Armie Hammer), an American student come to work alongside Elio’s father (Michael Stuhlbarg). Call Me By Your Name approaches first love in a wholly unique way. It allows its characters to fumble in their attempts to connect, and presents a relationship that is refreshingly balanced and supportive. There is little conflict in Elio and Oliver’s romance, so we are allowed the simple pleasure of observing two people yearning for and enjoying each other’s company ― shot through the sensual gaze of Italian director Luca Guadagnino. No conflict that is, except for the summer’s impending and inevitable end. The joy they feel when together is tinged by bittersweet sadness and regret for how much more they could have shared.
Going in to Person to Person I didn’t know what it was about. Turns out, it’s not about anything. Dustin Guy Defa’s retro 16mm portrait of scattered lives in NYC takes place over one day, and it’s a day I’d happily relive again and again. What at first appears to be a series of banal and sporadically funny vignettes builds to something much more ― without ever upping the stakes. Defa’s protagonists are not traditionally cinematic: amongst them, Michael Cera plays an immature, heavy metal loving investigative journalist, and Abbi Jacobson is his introverted new recruit who’d much rather be at home with her cat. Combined, the characters’ various amusing encounters add up to form a sweet, sensitive portrait of common decency and the joys of the everyday. It is as successful in achieving that as last year’s Paterson.
Takashi Miike’s 100th feature is proof that he hasn’t lost his magic. While Blade of the Immortal is often structurally creaky (and it would have packed a more lasting punch in a compact package), the fight scenes are choreographed with the effortless glee of a master. They are graphical, large-scale and often joyously creative. Takuya Kimura’s lead turn as a grizzled immortal samurai is masterful. He is the perfect reluctant action hero, managing to keep up his half-hearted, begrudging physicality while simultaneously murdering hordes of assailants.
Maxine Peake is predictably brilliant in Funny Cow, an awkwardly built but endearing British tragicomedy. Peake plays a woman who describes herself as having “a funny bone instead of a backbone” ― but one might argue that, in her case, the former serves the same purpose as the latter. As a child, she fights back against her abusive father with jokes. As an adult, she does the same to her abusive husband. Peake shines when performing stand-up comedy routines, and fills in the gaps in her unique and interesting character where the film itself fails to pick up the slack.
Thoroughbreds has almost nothing on its mind, but taken at faces value it’s giddily entertaining. Olivia Cooke shines as an emotionless, psychopathic teenager who is keenly aware of her own inability to experience emotion. Cooke treats her character’s condition with integrity, yet again elevating the material after she did the same with The Limehouse Golem earlier this year (a far weaker film overall). First time director Cory Finley does an impeccable technical job, and on a script level delivers an uproariously funny dark-comedy. It may be nothing more at all, but as pure entertainment, Thoroughbreds is a very impressive piece of work.
So much has been said about you already; most of it good, some of it not so much. When I first saw Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner I was not impressed; I was about fourteen years old and was expecting an action film with robots and Harrison Ford and all that comes with it. What I got was a lot of things, but that was not one of them. But, there is only so many times you can hear that a film is a classic before you decide to give it another go. I was twenty when I finally did, and I have not regretted it since. I own Blade Runner on Blu-Ray now and will happily call it one of my favourite films. Is it perfect? No, they wouldn’t re-edit it four more times if it was. It’s slow at times, with many shots of the cities great scale (which is still beyond impressive, by the way) taking probably a bit too long now-days. I’m not a fan of the Sabastian character and there’s a very awkward scene where Ford forces himself onto Rachel. But otherwise, I love it to bits. It’s not a film I would have pegged for a sequel though.
How long has this been in the works for? There have been whispers and rumours for over a decade now; then out of nowhere, here we are. Blade Runner 2049!
So, what’s the story? I’m not going to tell you! I honestly don’t want to say. I like to avoid spoilers, and I think that if I give a summary then I’ll spoil a part of the film for you. There are so many twists and turns that the story takes from the get-go, yet none feel out of place at all. I thought I had it pegged for a long time, but then the carpet was pulled out from under me. That’s how well plotted it is, and I don’t feel like robbing you of that. So, instead I’ll just discuss what I liked about Blade Runner 2049 – which is almost everything about it.
I’m not going to dance around the point – I really, really liked Blade Runner 2049. I think I loved it, but I’d have to see it again to be sure. The plot was fantastic – it never came close to retelling the first film. In-fact, they are both very different beasts. Ridley Scott did not return for this one, opting instead to give us Alien Covenant (which, given that films quality, was probably for the best) – so in his place we have Denis Villeneuve. The only over film of his I have seen was Arrival, which I really didn’t like. Thankfully, he has improved here in every aspect. The command Villeneuve had over this film was beyond great. He never over-played his hand, like I thought he had with Arrival. Every shot feels perfect. Every sound feels necessary. Every line of dialogue intrigued me. Everything this director could bring to the table worked perfectly.
It’s Blade Runner in the end, so we expect it to look like one of the best thing’s we have ever seen.
I’m happy to say that 2049 doesn’t let us down. Thankfully they didn’t even try to recreate that amazing shot at the start of the first film – flying over that city remains a special experience that can’t be topped – instead they show a different side to the same city, now upgraded. This is one of the best-looking films I have seen since, well ever. Mixing sets, models and CGI to perfect degrees. This is helped by the camera work, which always gives the best of everything on display.
Let’s not forget the acting either. This, Logan and War for the Planet of the Apes know what comes of pitch perfect casting. Nobody let me down. Nobody was just good. Everybody was perfect for their roles. Ryan Gosling as K, a Blade Runner hunting for the truth behind a conspiracy, give us his best. It’s such a subtle, naturalistic performance that I couldn’t even tell that it was acting. He was K, just as much as Jackman was Logan and Serkis was Caesar. Harrison Ford, who is not in this film very long at all, slips back into the role of Deckard like he never left it. Easily the best performance Ford has given us in years. Robin Wright, Dave Bautista, Mackenzie Davis, Ana De Armas, Sylvia Hoeks and Jared Leto all worked just as perfectly with what they had. And considering how challenging some of these scenes were, they all deserve what praise they get.
But, just like Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049 is not a perfect film.
And, I won’t lie, I can see some people not liking this film – or even hating it. First thing’s first, like the first one, don’t go in expecting an action film where Ryan Gosling and old-man Ford have to take out Jared Leto and his robot army, because that is so not what you get. What you do get is a colossally long sci-fi epic – clocking in at nearly three-hours. While I was never bored, it’s a slow-burn to be sure. Other issues I personally had were with the music and villains. The first films soundtrack is easily among my favourite – look it up. This film feels a little off to me. Most of the time, it works well, but then… Looking at the credits I saw two composers for the film and boy did my eyes role when I saw the name Hans Zimmer as one of them. Zimmer has done great scores before; but now, save for the odd exception, his scores all sound the same to me. Here in Blade Runner 2049, he committed the cardinal sin – his score for the film actually took me out of the scenes it was so distracting. As for the villains, they’re fine. Perfectly performed and carrying a little charisma with them. But it’s the case of one is a little one dimensional and another’s motives don’t match the character. Not much more than a nitpick, but it was an issue.
With scenes like Ford’s introduction, the final moment, a giant advertisement, and an incredible scene involving a robot and a hologram (you’ll know it when you see it), more than save a great film from minor shortcomings. Despite being a sequel it’s just as original as the first film – I don’t think I’ve been able to say that since Aliens. I’d love to say that it’s the best film I’ve seen since Logan, but I’d have to see it again to be sure – not that it’d take a lot of persuasion. Go and see it. If you like or love the first one then you will this one. If you didn’t, then still give it a go as they are very different films. A beautiful film that is all heart through the grit of reality, that is what we have been given. Will it be regarded as a sci-fi classic to stand the tests of time, like the first film, or will it be lost in time, like tears in rain? Only time will tell.
Ingrid Goes West could have easily been condescending. It’s not a film about how the internet is bad though: it is simply a perceptive, empathetic (but also satirical) portrait of internet obsession. A statement rather than a lecture; this is how it is, now you decide how it should be. Aubrey Plaza plays Instagram obsessed Ingrid with an understanding that her character is mentally ill. The film is very funny, but it ultimately takes her mental illness seriously. Elizabeth Olsen is equally as good. Her performance as a vapid LA lifestyle blogger recalls Emma Watson’s brilliant turn in The Bling Ring. Ingrid Goes West is a whole lot of fun, and maybe a bit too relatable.
In Jeune Femme, Laetitia Dosch plays the young woman of the title with unapologetic ferocity. The film starts with her splitting open her head and manically pleading directly into the camera’s lens. Jump cuts immerse us in her fractured, impatient mind. As a character study, Léonor Serraille Camera d’Or winning debut is impeccable, if not exactly gripping. Jeune Femme is aimless and happy to be. It lacks momentum, but it cannot be faulted for the execution of its intentions: to show the stagnant life of a woman who challenges the limits of likeability, and never once sugar-coat.
Stuffy British period dramas are easy to dismiss, and that seems to be the fate of On Chesil Beach given the initial festival circuit buzz. However, the film is so much more intelligent than that label gives it credit for ― in fact, it is a comment on the stuffiness of the era. Both emotionally resonant and intellectually stimulating, director Dominic Cooke and screenwriter Ian McEwan explore the relationship of a pair of newlyweds (Saoirse Ronan and Billy Howle) who are caught up in class barriers and changing times. It is an excellent, classically crafted film that only fails itself in its epilogue, which slides into more conventional territory and sidelines Ronan’s character just when it ought to have dug deeper.
That Saturday Church fails miserably as a musical almost doesn’t matter when its heart is as big as it is. It would be difficult not to fall for this tale of Ulysses (Luka Kain), a New York teen questioning their gender identity and sexuality. Director Damon Cardasis finds the story’s heart in Ulysses’ discovering of an LGBT+ community that supports and accepts each other where parents and peers may not. Bad songs, half-hearted choreography and flat out terrible lip-syncing be damned… the earnestness of Saturday Church making for wonderful viewing.
Beast doesn’t work, but it’s fascinating to watch it try. Director Michael Pearce attempts to tackle the thorny topic of sexual violence, and he almost hits on something true ― but Pearce’s screenplay constantly veers away from its most interesting ideas. Jessie Buckley’s impressive performance is wasted on iffy characterisation. It’s a visually promising debut that almost gets there… Pearce just needs to learn how to distinguish his good ideas from his bad ones.
