Film Reviews by Strovey

This is film that enters some very well-worn movie territory. The parents that ruin your life. With a cast most producers would sell their grandparents for and a fine dramatic premise surely The Family Fang could not fail.

For me, it was a little from column A and little from column B. You have to hand it to Nicole Kidman her choice of starrers is eclectic and with Bateman taking on the directing reins and as well as a role he seems to be leading away from his more comic roles. He does a fine job. Walken and Hahn are old hands at this and probably hardly needed any directing.

So having said that, this should be a great film. But something was missing and I can’t explain what. Somewhere deep in the soul of the film that little spark that makes a standard film great was missing. It was impossible not feel sorry for Annie and Baxter but after what they had been put through, whether they agreed it was ‘art’ (they didn’t seem to) or not, you could not help feeling that they would not have anything to do with their parent whatsoever. Even America has a social services programme for children that are mistreated and whose parents make them commit illegal acts.

The story and performances kept me watching with the use of flashbacks in the form of a never used documentary ‘The Family Fang’ being a clever touch but I feel that you get out of the story what you bring to it.

For instance, I sort of get Caleb’s take on art, I truly do, but to take it as far as he does in the film leaves me cold. I could feel the pretentiousness washing over me as I watched. So, in the end, I couldn’t connect with them, I felt they was more of the touch of idiots about them and my tolerance for such people in real life would be lower than it was for this film. Therefore the treatment of the children just became abusive the more the story progressed.

If you want to be blunt this is about two selfish a-wipes who messed up their children permanently for art. How you feel about that is going to be how you feel about this film from the start.

The Family Fang is probably worth a watch but you really have to be in the right mood that’s for sure.

Paddington the little bear from Peru is now happily living in London with the Brown family. He brings joy and happiness to his local community with his positive outlook, friendly manner and marmalade sandwiches. His latest adventure starts when looking for a present for this Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday he finds a pop-up book in his friend Mr. Gruber’s shop. Having no money Paddington decides to earn some by getting any sort of job but no sooner is he near to having the necessary cash the book is stolen and Paddington is mistaken for the thief. Now it is up to the Brown’s and Paddington’s new friends in prison to prove him innocent, find the real culprit and get the pop-up book for his Aunt.

The first Paddington film, despite trepidation from the viewing public, was a great success, funny for everyone and endearing, almost the perfect children’s film for all the family to enjoy. Would Paddington 2 find the same success or would it turn out to be one bear too many?

Without a doubt, this film is a fabulous children’s film. All the same characters/actors return and feel like a nice comfortable pair of shoes. Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins make great parents of the Brown children and who better to play the anchor in the family Mrs. Bird but the multi-talented Julie Walters? All it needed was an interesting and fun story and a memorable villain. It has these.

Hugh Grant is the star turn as the boo-hiss Phoenix Buchanan a part he clearly relishes playing, perhaps taking from his film-making experiences over the years, who knows? On the flipside, you have the legendary Brendan Gleeson playing the uncompromising Knuckles McGinty and at a stroke, the writers add in two new characters played by good, reliable actors that slot into the on-screen Paddington world perfectly.

The film looks great with the surroundings both familiar to most of us but somehow seemingly childlike with vibrant colours and a mainly bright palette. The script is fun and funny both for the children watching and the older people accompanying them and the pace never drags or slows.

The makers have slipped in worthy messages to the audience about tolerance, kindness and maybe just being nice without being heavy-handed or earnestly ‘preachy’. Odd that some critics of the film take some umbrage at this being suggested to children like it was some sort of bad message to be spreading. The story is touching and not without peril, particularly to the younger film-goers, but this is Paddington 2’s strength. It even has a surprisingly strong moment of serious peril at the end that was both poignant and very sad that seemed to be from a more adult focussed movie before we quickly returned to the more familiar ground of the Paddington 2 story. Watch out for it.

Without going too over-the-top about what is essentially a children’s film, the sequel to Paddington is extremely impressive and ultimately fun particularly when considering the target audience. It seems some have lost sight of this when criticising/reviewing the movie.

Paddington 2 a safe fun night out for children of all ages, sit back, relax and enjoy the world of marmalade sandwiches and the occasional hard-stare.

‘C’ and ‘M’ live together in an old house, C is a composer who seems to have an affinity with the house, whereas M is more than happy to leave and move on to another property. Unfortunately, before the couple can resolve their position on the property and C is killed in an accident. His ghost on leaving the mortuary decides to trek back home back to his wife M and stay with her rather than move on to what appears to be another dimension. Unable to affect the real world, invisible to all, C’s ghost must endlessly watch life unfold around him as he stays the same, in the same place, waiting for some intangible event.

Goodness me, this film is the most polarising film I think I have ever seen. There appears to be one group of people who unresolvedly hate the film and another who absolutely love it but nothing in between.

I can see why people would walk-out in cinema showings and hate the movie with a passion. Nothing happens as such, there is little to no story but I maintain that this is the point. When we are gone, life goes on slowly, inexorably, if we could observe it as a ‘ghost’ that is how it would seem. We have no idea but I would guess most of use through some longing would try and connect with those we loved and knew, we would return to places that were familiar to us, similar to the zombies in Romero’s ‘Dead’ films would we gravity to places that meant something to us, were important, in our lives.

There isn’t much dialogue and there are long stretches, 20 minutes or more, where little happens, the pie-eating scene is famous in the annoyance for some, yet for others, it shows the solitude of grief and how it can be dealt with. One real bugbear for me though, when there was some small dialogue, is Casey Affleck’s insistence on the realism of ‘mumblecore’. I could understand little of what he said. I’m old and my hearing is not what it was but it is also okay, I’ve had it tested recently, he mumbles and it’s hard to understand what he says. So annoying. Luckily as a ghost, he says nothing. Rooney Mara has I would less dialogue but skilfully acts emotions with just her face or even how she walks to and from a room or to a door.

This is not a film for the average film-goer and in particular the multiplex ‘action movie-romantic comedy’ crowd but if you are patient prepared for a quiet thoughtful film then you might be able to take something away from it.

I’m somewhere in between the two camps. I can see that the film does drag on and showing the futility of staying in a place where you no longer belong, trying to change something you can’t change and not letting go in glorious slow-time with little dialogue or on-screen stimulation is perhaps, whilst making a valid point, foolhardy. The idea of the ghost being a traditional Halloween sheet is a clever touch and seems to be saying it is a ghost but it doesn’t matter. To be utterly fair to Lowery and his cast I stuck without and overall I enjoyed it more than it rubbed me up the wrong way. I’m not sure about the time-traveling aspect or what it was adding to the story or what it was trying to say, perhaps ‘this goes on forever’ it is truly the circle of life and there is no end or beginning unless you choose to leave it. Only love helps you leave it. Perhaps, maybe?

Then again if you can stand the slow pace and the odd story this is probably the point you make your mind up about the story and what it means. It could mean different to each and every one of use.

Then again you could intensely dislike it, it will not be the first film that will make you feel this way nor the last, you could equally really like it. Who knows?

Thor is now held prison far across the universe finds he now has to get back to Asgard by any means available to save his homeworld from being destroyed completely by the threat of the all-powerful and seemingly unstoppable evil that is Hela.

I think it is clear I’m not the world’s biggest comic-book film fan but it is fair to say nor am I a negative detractor, I just don’t have anything invested in them. So for every Guardian of the Galaxy that I loved, there is an opposite and equal Avengers: Age of Ultron that nearly sends me to sleep.

The very thing that attracts so many hardcore fans to the franchise of the Marvelverse, the big characters, the bright colours, the non-stop action and destruction sends me to sleep at times. I think certain people can get desensitised to the kicking, punching, flying baddies, explosions and buildings tumbling down. Others love it and I understand that.

I find some of the smartmouth antics of seemingly superconfident characters annoying and no matter how anyone argues it with there is no peril for any of these characters whose superpowers they don’t seem to use very well. Dr Strange and basically control the world and several others.

I’m a fan of Taika Waititi so it pains me to say that I felt that the humour used throughout this film didn’t seem to fit or was sitting on top of the story. That’s not to say it was not funny at many points but for some reason, it didn’t seem slot in naturally as it did in Guardians of the Galaxy or Dead Pool for instance.

The performances of the main characters are as usual top notch with Jeff Goldblum way up on the quirko-meter as only he can be, Chris Hemsworth is Thor and he has the perfect enemy in the slinky Cate Blanchett who makes being ruthlessly evil seem somehow appealing.

Ragnarok has good points and it will definitely appeal to fans of the genre, although I have read that hardcore fans are not all onside with the humour that is front and centre. I do understand their point of view on this but perhaps not as vehemently as some and not for the same reason.

So to the disagreement and anger of some no doubt I can say Thor: Ragnorak was okay but that is it, just okay. The story at times was extremely silly, the spectacular set pieces, as usual, were spectacular and loud and banging, the comedy big and bold and the whole film was Marveltastic.

I watched it from start to end but I would not watch it again. I have watched Guardians of the Galaxy more than once. That is probably the biggest difference.

Caleb works for the biggest Internet company in the world, one morning he receives a message telling him he has won a company competition to spend a week with the companies CEO, Nathan, in his isolated private home. When Caleb arrives on his ‘adventure of a lifetime’ he finds it not the expected holiday to hang out with and pick the brains of one of the world’s leading geniuses but in fact he has to take part in a ‘working’ experiment as Nathan, wants him to interact and study his most exciting project. An apparently fully autonomous robot which is for all intents and purposes a beautiful young woman.

Alex Garland is no stranger to writing interesting and different stories but this is his first dip in the waters of directing a film. He jumped in fully clothed and swam with utter confidence in those waters too. Make no mistake this is science-fiction for grown-ups. Whilst the special effects are up on the screen, there is a robot, there is a mystery, this film asks many questions once we get to Nathans ‘fortress of solitude’ but like good stories it doesn’t lead you by the nose and it doesn’t provide you with answers. Those are for you to make up for yourself. Therefore Ex Machina has as many endings and motivations to the tale as you want.

Certainly, we are here in the territory of Blade Runner, Channel 4’s Humans and the newest video game Detroit: Become Human among a few that come to mind. In all honesty, it is a topic, subject and line of thought that endlessly fascinates me and if it is approached with some skill and thought then I’m in. I’m biased. So it stands to reason I was always going to like this film.

Throw into this mix of great ideas a three-handed cast of top young actors with the film-making universe at their feet, Oscar Issac, Domhnall Gleeson, film by film eclipsing his father, and the utterly perfect Alicia Vikander and you have a fantastic prospect before you.

For a film the really does look at some very heavy and philosophical topics the story, running at just over 1 hour and 45 minutes, doesn’t drag and zips along at a pace. As I have said the film is asking nothing new nor will it stop you in your tracks, Phillip K. Dick had been asking these type of questions in his stories nearly fifty years ago so to my mind it is not the question but how it is asked. Ex Machina asks them in such an entertaining way that I was ‘in’ from the start.

The single location, for most of the story, is simple, uncluttered yet semi-futuristic and does not distract, it is the sort of the place you imagine the next centuries Elon Musk would inhabit. The visual effects are sublime with the slight Vikander looking as much like an advanced robot as you could wish. It may sound as if Ex Machina is a solemn, serious and pompous science-fiction film yet the story is infused with a playful sense of humour and yet richly dark vein as well.

Plot holes? Of course there are, this is a film about a robot so advanced you cannot tell if it is a robot or not so they are there. I enjoyed the questions it asked as much as the story. Oh dear I think I’ve said the thing about ‘asking questions’ about three times now.

I highly recommend this film to anyone unless you really are just an action film aficionado and even then give it a go.

Consciousness. What is it?

Chuck Wepner is a ‘club boxer’ he’s the Bayonne Bleeder. After a few fair to middling fights the stars shine down on him and he gets a chance at the World Championship against Muhammed Ali. The fight is expected to be a non-contest but Chuck can take a punch and doesn’t give up. He goes fifteen rounds and this makes him instantly famous and a hero to many. Elevated to the man that took Ali to fifteen rounds and despite being the inspiration for the Rocky film series, Chuck starts on a path that is going to cost him his family and eventually his freedom. Will there ever be redemption for Chuck, will his life pan out like the movies and end up happily ever after?

The story of Chuck Wepner needed to be told and it needed to be told in the this more realistic way rather than the bleached and neatly folded Rocky which is based on his life – yes Mr Stallone it really is and it is really obvious.

It’s difficult to make a film about a selfish a-hole but make you feel sorry for him, make him sympathetic but director Phillippe Falardeau has done this along with the not inconsiderable talents of Liev Schreiber. In his hands, Chuck appears to be aggressive and definitely in love with fame throughout the film. Not the greatest of attributes in a person but somehow during the running time you don’t think ‘Chuck is a dick I’m glad this is happening to him’. You can sympathise with Chuck but equally, you feel full empathy for his first wife Phyliss and his daughter Kimberley as they traversed the waters of the hurricane known as Chuck Wepner before they finally abandoned ship.

The look and feel of the seventies, spliced in with genuine footage is spot on without looking stagey or false and the idea of the protagonist’s spoken narrative whips the story along at a pace. After all, a lot of Chuck’s later life must have been an utter blur and no one who was there can probably remember it.

It is a truism to say there is nothing new in The Bleeder that you haven’t seen before, many celluloid characters have tripped down the path of excess that leads to ruin. This story is true and doesn’t too clean and sanitised for its screen outing. It has an interesting take on jail-time too and the ‘scales falling from his eyes’ moment is handled without much fanfare and did not neatly wrap up the story in happily ever after but told the truth of how these situations can play out.

Husband and wife team Schreiber and Watts real-life chemistry easily transfers to the film and the whole story is better for it and further to this, the easy chemistry between Elizabeth Moss and Schreiber makes the story much more believable from the start and helps to draw into the story. Schreiber is the main star and figure and his shoulders take the strain easily he is supported in his endeavour with some consummate ease by reliable stalwarts Ron Perlman, Jim Gaffigan and Michael Rapaport it’s an enjoyable ensemble.

This film must have been a labour of love for Liev Schreiber as he had a finger in nearly all the pies, starring, writing and producing and that love for the story, for the fragile human at the centre shows through. There’s no judgment of his ways, of his idiocy and throughout Chuck’s highs and lows., The Bleeder shows the simple honesty humanity of all the main characters. This is a film more people should see, this is a film Liev Schreiber should be proud of.

Sometimes life is like a movie. And sometimes it’s better.