Whiplash

They say to budding authors to write about what you know and first time writer / director Damien Chazelle has done just that for his mesmerising film debut, telling the story of student jazz drummer Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) and his combustible relationship with volcanic teacher Terrance Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Plot wise that’s pretty much it, but Chazelle’s film doesn’t need to venture much further than that basic premise as it’s locked in place by two barnstorming performances by its leads, a tight script, economic direction and, as you’d expect, a foot tapping score. The battle between Neiman and Fletcher is what drives the entire film. From Neiman’s innocence and naivety in response to Fletcher’s early friendly putting him at ease encouragement, up to the scenes of physical and mental abuse, it’s a contest between the two that, crucially, is mainly controlled by Fletcher as he holds the keys to Neiman’s Kingdom. The two leads are an interesting mix. Teller has plenty of films under his belt already, though nothing to suggest he has the talent he shows here. Simmons on the other hand is great in everything he is in, but has never had that one standout performance. They’re both utterly superb here. Teller’s Neiman is in every single scene of the film, meaning that Simmons’ Fletcher is more of an enigma. The approach works though, as Fletcher is already the more (if flawed) rounded character, but Neiman has still to choose his path. I mentioned earlier that the film doesn’t stray far from the head to head between the two leads, but when it does Chazelle quickly and efficiently shows us what we need to know with the minimal of fuss and we move on. To wit – Neiman’s family and relationships. Though Paul Reiser appears sporadically as Neiman’s father, the whole family dynamic is explained away in a quick dinner table scene, which also includes the films best one-liner. It’s a proficient approach that in other film makers hands would have taken all day to explain. Any love interest for Neiman is dealt with in a similar fashion. He has a meet-cute which is expanded out into one date scene, before all is abruptly finished when he dumps her as he claims he won’t have time for her anymore due to his drumming. It’s brutality as honesty from Neiman, but it isn’t even the total truth. In reality Neiman feels she will impact on his quest to be one of the greatest of all time. Chazelle makes it clear to the viewer that nothing will get in Neiman’s way – hence the full blown horn locking that develops with Fletcher. Lets move on to Chazelle himself. As mentioned at the start, Chazelle wrote this based on his own personal experience of being a jazz drummer in a high school band. So the fact he knows his floor-tom from his hi-hat is hardly a surprise. He’s clearly a clever cookie though as, a novice director he may be, but he knows the basic rule of cinema and follows it to the letter – that being you only include scenes that move the storyline along and / or progress characterisation. The best TV drama’s have been doing that to a tee for the last decade (which explains why we’re in such a purple patch for unmissable idiot-box viewing), but so many films ignore this standard for fear of not having a bloody two hour plus running time. Whiplash is as lean as it comes and there’s zero fat here. OK, I slightly twisted it when I said this is Chazelle’s debut feature, but only the most factious would count his non-mainstream released micro budget effort Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench from 2009 as a feature film (however, that film was also a study in jazz, so the teeth cutting had already begun). Throw in the fact that this was shot in only nineteen days, it’s clear that Chazelle knows how to portray his vision. Plus, just to make us all feel worthless as well – he was only 29 years old when he shot this. Though the triumphal triumvirate of Chazelle, Teller and Simmons is what makes this one of the best films in recent memory, huge kudos must go to the films editor Tom Cross as well. Aptly named, he cross-cuts to such spectacular effect (especially during the musical numbers) that it was only on a second viewing of the film that I made a conscious decision to look at just how many edits there are. There are loads, but instead of getting a Tony Scott inspired headache, Chazelle and Cross have approached it in such a manner that you actually believe you are watching seamless panning. OK, that’s a bit arty I know, but films like this don’t come along very often so they deserve a wider analysis. All this and I haven’t even mentioned the sound. It’s a not quite a requirement on par with something like Berberian Sound Studio, but make sure you see this in a cinema with a decent (and loud) speaker system so you can get the full effect, from the gentle thump of the snare drum that subtly underscores the minimalistic title screen to the breath-taking mayhem of the drum solo that underpins the final scene. Some negative comments have come the way of this in respect of Fletcher’s bullying and crude and coarse insults, but such talk can only described as idiotic. He’s a character in a film. Plus, it’s hardly a plot spoiler to point out that Fletcher isn’t awarded the teacher of the year award come the denouement. Now – that ending. It’s an odd comparison, but it reminded me in a roundabout way of Juan José Campanella’s The Secret In Their Eyes in regards to each film having a narrative that twists and turns over a short period of screen time with the audience having no idea how it’s going to play out. In Whiplash its urgent, dizzying and compelling as the upper hand switches between Neiman and Fletcher minute by minute, until the killer sign off that’ll have you punching the air in response to the music in a manner unseen since the barnstorming climax of Radu Mihaileanu’s The Concert. I think I’ve typed enough now, so I’ll leave the final summation to film critic Robbie Collin who encapsulates the entire film perfectly when he says, “However genius may flourish, you know it when you see it, and Whiplash is it”. Rating: 10/10.

Interstellar

So where to begin with Christopher Nolan’s latest? Perhaps its subject matter. Cinema has been producing films about space exploration since the days of Georges Méliès, so Nolan is hardly breaking new ground here and the main plot strand (that of humans starting life on other planets) has been covered by a number of recent films (Oblivion, After Earth, Elysium et al.), albeit though not really all that successfully. The fascination though lies in Nolan himself. In Interstellar does he go further than the old chestnuts of gravity, perpetual motion, dreams etc.? – No he doesn’t, but that’s not really the point is it? It’s not that we want to watch an epic film about space and the future of the human race – the crux is how does Nolan portray such things? Right, that’s enough of the question marks. Plot wise we’ll be here all day (and keeping away from spoilers), but we follow a group of astronauts (Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway amongst them) as they journey into space in search of a new home, as ole’ planet Earth is on its last legs. So, any good then? It’s the old response: Yes and No. On the technical side of things, it’s hard to find a fault. The practical and digital effects are top notch (the robots in the film are superbly realised and, spoiler alert, don’t become murdering bastards!) and Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography is something to swoon at up there on the biggest screen you can find. There are also a number of stand out moments, including the scene where a number of the crew visit a planet, whilst the rest stay on board the spaceship. The catch being that for each hour spent on the planet, time dilation equates one of those hours as seven years for the astronauts left on the craft. Finally, despite it’s length (and a somewhat pat ending), things really kick into gear in the final third with some great plot twists and the surprise appearance of a Hollywood A-lister. The overall irony though is that despite it’s huge scope, this is actually one of Nolan’s least entertaining films. As you’d expect its all based on fact (or at least an agreed version), but that hardly leads to snappy dialogue. In fact, David Gyasi (as one of the astronauts on the mission) only appears to be in the film in order to be the cosmic equivalent of Basil Exposition. Not too mention a scene where Hathaway delivers a monologue about love that she looks embarrassed to be orating. There’s obvious nods (good and bad) to be made to 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Interstellar suffers from an accusation that Kubrick naysayers like to put forward – that of coldness. The lack of warmth and humour of the characters in Interstellar make them feel somewhat distant and, for a film that’s ostensibly about the fight for the continuation of mankind, there are actually very few of the protagonists whose death you would really mourn. Comment should also be made about Hans Zimmer’s overbearing score and the overall sound mix. The soundtrack is somewhat OTT and at times sounds like the B-sides from Tubular Bells, though Zimmer can’t be blamed for it being so damn loud throughout the film it’s actually difficult to pick up some of the dialogue. In addition, there’s far too much mumbling going on at times (particularly at a crucial reveal during a death scene) and what with the Bane fiasco, Nolan is beginning to development some form here. Some fun to finish off with though: For fans of Michael Winterbottom’s The Trip, Michael Caine gives us a new Michael Caine voice here – so no doubt Messrs Coogan and Brydon will be practicing. As for what’s next for Nolan? He’s distanced himself from Bond, but surely a contemporary thriller must be on the cards at some point……Rating: 7/10.

Paddington

Prior to release, Paul King's Paddington was already making headlines as the character that was one protagonist too far for uberthesp Colin Firth - that character being the eponymous bear from Peru. Guffaws aside, you do wonder why he was put forward in the first place as surely most people would expect a younger voice to emerge from the hirsute South American rather than that of a man in his mid-50's? Anyway it was Ben Whishaw who got the gig in the end so let's move on. The storyline is a basic as it comes; Paddington arrives in London, a family takes him in, then can't decide if too keep him or not, whilst a boo-hiss museum owner looks to capture him and stuff him for display. However, despite the script not pulling up any trees it does exactly what its required to do, i.e. just be a peg onto which to hang many silly and amusing moments, plus of course, messages about families and friendships. King's only other previous film to date was 2009's bonkers, but surprisingly tender, Bunny And The Bull. The balance isn't quite the same here (more cheese than real emotion), but its thoroughly entertaining on the comedic front with plenty of laughs for children and adults alike, the latter coming with its dry comments on the banalities of British life and some inspired moments including a sat nav instruction and the best gag ever concerning the "Dogs must be carried" sign on the London Underground. Speaking of the capital, be warned: This is the animated equivalent of Richard Curtis' London. It's all warm colours, empty streets and polite manners. Peeps who live in London (I'm one of 'em guv'nor) might think about a lawsuit for false representation. Stuffed with actors you'll know from mainstream British TV (The Earl of Grantham! Super Hans! Malcolm Tucker!) the performances range from standard to appreciatively more than is required. Sally Hawkins is great as the mother of the clan - Julie Walters "comedy" Scottish cleaner appears to only be in there for the North American audience. Plus, Nicole Kidman basically just channels Cruella De Ville in her role as the baddie, but at least she appears to be having fun and she does a good job. On the animation front, the effects range from seamless to, err, not quite so seamless, but overall this is great fun and one for the whole family, though not quite enough here for adults to take in a second viewing. Rating: 8/10.

The Imitation Game

There’s already plenty of visual media out there surrounding Bletchley Park and the Enigma code, from Channel 4’s informative 1999 series Station X to Michael Apted’s so-so Enigma film from 2001 (complete with Mick Jagger cameo!). Director Morten Tyldum is the latest to throw his hat into the ring, though The Imitation Game focuses squarely on the mastermind who was behind the unlocking of the "unbreakable" German cypher, one Alan Turing (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). The film is basically split into three parts. We have Turing's difficult times at boarding school, his secret work at the Park and, finally, his criminal conviction for his (at the time) illegal homosexuality. Despite the heavy subject matter this is actually quite a light concoction for the majority of the running time, namely as a large portion of the film is based around the middle third of Turing's life, that of his exploits at Bletchley. Cumberbatch is superb in the lead role, though the nature of his distracted performance hints at a mild form of asperger's a la Sofia Helin of Bron / Broen fame. His riffing off the other cast members is great fun, especially Charles Dance giving good stiff upper lip. Matthew Goode gives a subtle performance as a fellow cryptographer and it’s great to see Mark Strong continuing his run of being in every film ever made. Advance warning though: Keira Knightley affects her porsh English accent in this. Speaking of Blightly, there's plenty of British wit on display throughout, no doubt helped by the Scandinavian Tyldum's Norway sharing our similar dry approach to humour. Speaking of Tyldum it’s good to see him being given the keys to the Kingdom following 2011’s bonkers Headhunters and he directs here with a minimum of fuss. If you want negatives, the script is somewhat formulaic and your enjoyment may depend on how true to life you expect Tyldum’s account to be. The film is riddled with historical inaccuracies both in dates and actions - even the sign off regarding Turing’s suicide is actually disputed in many quarters. Regardless of all that, this is solid entertaining stuff, topped off with another starring turn from the chameleon that is Cumberbatch. One other thing though: Regardless of it being named after one of Turing's tests (which isn't even addressed in the film), that title's a clunker. Rating: 8/10.

Nightcrawler

Dan Gilroy has been living in brother Tony’s shadow for a while now which, considering that Tony was the director of The Bourne Legacy and Dan was the writer of Freejack isn’t really all that surprising. It’s good news for the Gilroy family though as Dan has come to the party as writer / director of the highly enjoyable Nightcrawler. Despite being marketed as a sleazy trawl through the LA underbelly, this is more a character study of Jake Gyllenhaal’s Lou Bloom, a young man who stumbles across a car accident one night and becomes fascinated by the freelance camera crews (“nightcrawlers”) who film the situation and are then paid by the news channels for their footage if it’s deemed worthy. What a character it is too, thanks to Gilroy’s sharp script and Gyllenhaal’s star performance. Gilroy’s film sets its stall out early on, picking up Bloom in the opening scene showing him assaulting a security guard and pocketing his fancy watch. He’s a low-life, but he is oddly fascinating as we watch him slowly integrate himself into the nightcrawler scene, eventually reaching Man Bites Dog-esque territory as Bloom starts to become directly involved in causing the carnage that he subsequently films. Gyllenhaal’s performance is superb, helped by Gilroy’s decision to steer clear of mentions of his background and for us to instead just invest our emotions with an individual who at times is so robotic in his approach to life, that he’s like an Alien impersonating a human being. Though this is Gyllenhaal’s film, there is also strong support from Riz Ahmed as Bloom’s naïve “assistant” (look for the hilarious job titles and appraisals that Bloom subjects him to) and Rene Russo (Gilroy’s real life missus) as a news editor torn between her job and submitting to Bloom’s quasi-blackmailing in the shape of having to sleep with him for his video footage. Away from the individual assessment, the rest of the film is solid if not spectacular. Though it appears Gilroy is satirising US news reporters, European audiences will still be cringing at the (true to life) alarmist paranoia put out during the forecasts. Plus, a shock twist towards the end of the film is clearly telegraphed if you’ve been paying attention. Overall though, this is one of the films of the year. To wit: Bloom isn’t a anti-hero, he’s a morally bankrupt sociopath with a serious dark side but, somehow, Gilroy and Gyllenhaal mess with your head so much that you’ll remember Bloom as a charmer who you actually care for. Rating: 8/10.

Boyhood

It's experiment time! Richard Linklater's latest film Boyhood follows the coming of age of young boy Mason Evans Jr (Ellar Coltrane). The twist being that Linklater has intermittently shot the film over a twelve year period, so we literally see Evans Jr grow before our very own eyes. Predictably this approach has had the high bow critics drooling, with the film appearing at the number one spot on many film of the year lists. However, is such adulation worthy for a film that has numerous issues. Firstly, why such plaudits for a technical approach that is hardly original? Francois Truffaut indirectly did the same thing for his character Antoine Doinel back in the 1950's and there are a number of TV documentary series that began in the 1960's that have been following their real life protagonists ever since. For something more contemporary Michael Winterbottom spent five years filming his characters for his 2012 release Everyday. Secondly, it becomes pretty clear early on that Coltrane can't act for toffee and gets worse as the film progresses. By the time he hits his teenage years its hard to tell if he's actually just given up acting or if his character is just reverting to the standard mumbler that permeates virtually all of Linklater's films of this ilk. Also, not much really happens in the near three hour running time, apart from Mason's divorced mum (played by Patricia Arquette) repetitively choosing unsuitable partner after unsuitable partner. There's also some seriously clunky moments in the script, the low point being when the children are being treated to a meal by their mother and are moaning about their lot in life (i.e. indirectly blaming Arquette) when the manager of the restaurant they are in comes over and announces what a special person their mother is due to some advice she had given him in the past. How handy! On the plus side, there's some decent acting to enjoy. Linklater's real life daughter Lorelei is fun as Mason's sister and Marco Perella (as one of Arquette's partners) is terrifying as a controlling aggressive drunk. The performance of the film goes to Arquette though. I know that's hard to believe as she's never really dazzled throughout her career - Plus, can you actually name a film she's been in over the last ten years? Here though she's totally convincing as the single mum who does all she can to financially keep her family afloat, including a heart breaking scene where she breaks down due to her believing she's been a bad parent. In effect, though this is called Boyhood, it's more about the adults of the story as they aid (for good or bad) the development of Mason's personality. On that front, more could have been made of Ethan Hawke's absent Dad, but it's clear that Linklater had thrown his lot in with Mason and he could hardly change things halfway through. Something Hawke has said about the film did strike me though, calling it "Tolstoy-esque in scope". I can only assume ol' Ethan hasn't read much Leo. This isn't even Toy Story-esque in scope. Rating: 6/10.

Transformers: Age Of Extinction

The perceived wisdom is that critics (what ever the discipline) have more fun tearing apart something dire than giving praise to something of artistic merit. I'm not sure that's quite true as I want to spend as little time as possible passing comment on the latest cinematic travesty from our old friend Michael Bay. In fact, if I add this is the new Transformers film from the Bayster, do I really need to type much more? In order for completion I will confirm what you already suspect. Yes, this is over long, loud, stuffed with awful one-liners and is basically scene after scene of the same battle being repeated over and over. At least the awful Shia LaBeouf has been jettisoned, but his replacement as the male lead in the form of the bland Mark Wahlberg is like discovering you've won a million on the lottery, but then discovering it's a million Italian Lira. Any plus points? Well you can't fault the special effects and Stanley Tucci is fun as the smarmy businessman planning on building his own robots, but unless there is some sort of alteration in the space-time continuum, like a goat chained to a post, the output of a Michael Bay film will always chew the cud within a limited circle of mediocrity. Perhaps I'll leave the final word to a young girl who, at a screening of a different film I was at, when Wahlberg popped up to present the trailer to this film with the words "I'm hear to introduce the trailer of my new film Transformers: Age Of Extinction", she replied out loud for the whole cinema to hear "No thanks". Smart girl, she'll go far. Rating: 3/10.