Review Category: DVD/Blu Ray

The ghosts of the past return to haunt a couple on the eve of their 45th wedding anniversary celebrations after a skeleton falls almost literally out of a closet, in Andrew Haigh’s quiet and thoughtful film based upon the short story In Another Country by David Constantine.

On the Monday before the party to celebrate 45 years of marriage, Geoff Mercer (Tom Courtenay) receives a letter telling him that half a century after she fell into a glacier, the body of his previous girlfriend has finally been recovered. What follows is a study of the psychological effect wrought upon Geoff’s wife Kate (Charlotte Rampling), for whom the past has always been something best left unexplored, but who cannot now ignore the consequences of thinking about how differently things might have turned out had Katya not perished in Switzerland all those years ago. 

Distinguished by its entirely diegetic music score and long, languorous takes (most of the scenes herein play out with just a single camera set-up), Haigh’s film is as technically unassuming and as lacking in artifice as they come, and that allows him to concentrate almost totally on his two lead actors and their inner lives. Courtenay plays Geoff as someone drifting through life, occasionally impassioned (mostly on the subject of politics) but otherwise happy to let his wife be the dominant partner in their relationship. It is Rampling as Kate who is the film’s emotional centre, and whose journey we follow from receiving the letter and a reminder that before she and Geoff got together, there was someone else who might have filled her shoes. Rampling’s Kate is initially a flat presence, someone who has come to terms with her world and the things she has filled it with, but through the first forty-five minutes of the film her curiosity about Katya and Geoff’s journey threatens to unravel a contented relationship. Then, at the halfway point, there is an emotional revelation that changes things apparently irrevocably.

45 Years is a film for anyone who has ever questioned the choices they made earlier in life, and even more so for anyone who has ever questioned the choices their partner made. Its one capitulation to artificial storytelling is to have Geoff’s choice thrust upon him, rather than allowing him the agency to have made it himself, and it is this that causes Kate’s dilemma and robs him of the ability to help solve it. The second half of the film piles deception upon deception as Geoff’s white lies, designed to save Kate from any unnecessary misery, ultimately end up causing it. It’s an incredibly intelligent film, touching upon universal subjects without resorting to the hysterics of petty jealousy.

And Haigh provides no easy conclusion, leaving the characters in an ambiguous embrace before forcing the viewers to imagine for themselves what comes next – and perhaps also to imagine how they might feel in Kate’s circumstance, and what action they might take to try and resolve it – whether that be to save the marriage or to surrender to a force outside either’s control and walk away. 

Special Featuress: commentary, cast and crew Q & A, trailer

45 YEARS / CERT: 15 / DIRECTOR: ANDREW HAIGH / SCREENPLAY: ANDREW HAIGH / STARRING: CHARLOTTE RAMPLING, TOM COURTENAY, GERALDINE JAMES / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW
 

Extreme provocateur auteur Gaspar Noé returns with the relationship drama Love.

Murphy (Karl Glusman) is trapped in a relationship with a woman he loathes, and who loathes him in return, but who is also the mother of his child. When the mother of a former lover, Electra (Aomi Muyok), phones worried, asking if he has heard from her, he replays their relationship in his mind, tracing the ups and downs and forcing him to confront his mistakes.

There is a reason the film is called Love and not Sex. Yes, the film does contain explicit scenes of sex and nudity, and is mostly known for it, but Noé has created a film that is about Love. It is about being in a relationship, a highly sexual relationship, and it is about loving someone emotionally as well as physically. Surprisingly, the film is often very tender in its representation of the central relationship and the sex within it. The sex scenes aren’t there for titillation, they are there to give a rounded and realistic view of the relationship between Murphy and Electra and they effectively convey the love and desire that exists in their relationship. Noé is taking head on one of the last big taboos in cinema. Films are perfectly happy to show scenes of drug taking, swearing and gratuitous violence and gore but still there is a prudishness from showing sex, a very normal and natural act that everyone participates in. In presenting it candidly, Noé has created one of the most believable and realistic relationships in cinema.

All relationships come with their ups and downs and Murphy and Electra’s is no different. Murphy is a deeply flawed character, he professes his undying love to Electra but then cheats on her several times, a slave to his sexual desires and yet he is a hypocrite, talking his way out of his own mistakes but then screaming at Electra for doing the very same things. Electra and Murphy are toxic to each other, bringing out their best and worst aspects, and their relationship burns brightly before exploding.

Love is not without its flaws. As with other Noé films it is far too long, at 135 minutes our interest did wane at points, and this is part of the film’s self-indulgence. Murphy’s views on cinema are very similar to Noé’s and Noé even turns up as a gallery owner whose name is Noe. Its timeline is also a little messy, making it difficult to place certain dramatic events in the right sequence, partially dulling the overall dramatic effect of the relationship.

Gaspar Noé has made an interesting but flawed film. It won’t be to a lot of peoples taste but there is a refreshing honesty here and if you can look past the flaws you will find an interesting and honest relationship drama.

LOVE / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR: GASPAR NOÉ / SCREENPLAY: GASPAR NOÉ / STARRING: AOMI MUYOK, KARL GLUSMAN, KLARA KRISTIN / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

It is wrong to get angry at a film? Ultimately it’s not the film’s fault. But there are times when a film can generate anger, and that anger must be directed somewhere, so if not at the film itself, then where? A quick glance down the credits for Anger Of The Dead (irony?) identifies a suitable target, a name now synonymous with filmmaking of the lowest possible denominator: Uwe Boll.

The amazing thing is that despite an impressive record of producing, directing, starring in and probably making the tea on a list of fundamentally disappointing films such as Apocalypse Z and the In The Name Of The King franchise (did you know there was a franchise?) Boll is still making films that sully the straight-to-DVD market. And so now, as a result of this mystifying support, we have Anger Of The Dead; yet another zombie apocalypse films that’s “different”.

As a mysterious virus ravages the world turning its victims into cannibalistic killers, pregnant Alice (Sparta) struggles to survive with the help of Peter (Segal). Together they are seeking a mythical utopia; an island unaffected by the virus but there are others hunting them, and they have an entirely different agenda.

The problem is that there are now innumerable zombie films that claim to offer something new, ripping off the intelligence of productions such as 28 Days Later and the Romero classics, piggy-backing on the continuing success of The Walking Dead. For every success, as an example 2015’s stunningly bleak What’s Left Of Us, there are dozens of something-or-other Of The Dead that sap the genre lifeblood of this most popular of horror staples. Convoluted plotting mixed with nonsensical character actions and motivations give Anger Of The Dead a distinctly amateurish quality, and the potentially intriguing sub-plot of a woman carrying a cure is so bluntly handled as to be fanciful in its quasi-religious imagery.

Yet hiding behind the squalor of this abject filmmaking there is a shard of light; a diamond in the monotonous rough of rotting flesh. Roberta Sparta as Alice emits so much humanity and beleaguered charm that her performance almost, almost rescues a glimmer of hope for the film. Sadly, amidst palpable viewing frustration her character is forced by a desperate script to convince the audience the four months pregnant Alice would fall for the partially likeable Peter so soon after her husband’s demise. Times are tough; end of the world and all that, but really?

In hindsight it is wrong to get angry with Anger Of The Dead. It seems Uwe Boll simply cannot help himself and is perhaps playing some twisted game as he continues to gain funding for what can only loosely be described as films. Perhaps we should applaud him? Maybe if we did he’d stop. Worth a try.

ANGER OF THE DEAD / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR: FRANCESCO PICONE / SCREENPLAY: FRANCESCO PICONE / STARRING: ROBERTA SPARTA, AARON STIELSTRA, MICHAEL SEGAL / RELEASE DATE: VOD OUT NOW

It would be fair to say that Jesús “Jess” Franco is not a filmmaker known for his subtlety. It would also be fair to say that this very definition of a cult director populates his films with enough exploitation beats to tick any hardcore fan’s boxes. An immense filmography is populated with accepted classics such as Vampyros Lesbos, but it is also a filmography that can appear daunting and initially unapproachable. What’s needed is a simpler way in; an easier-to-access film that, while filled with tantalising promise supplied by some of Franco’s greatest hits, contains recognisable genre familiarity and playfulness. Step forward then Bloody Moon, Franco’s giallo-inspired slasher-thriller!

Set at a language school in Spain, Bloody Moon follows a tried and tested formula of having a masked killer picking off sexy young students in a variety of different and ridiculously inventive ways. With a loose plot-thread of a whodunit thrown in (and if you don’t pick up the twist you’re just not paying attention) this is an entertaining romp of a film that will tickle your Franco funny bone while satisfying any deep-rooted genre sensibilities.

The issues stem mainly from the quality of the performances (there really isn’t any) and the plot that never really feels thought through. Only the regular distractions from one sex-crazed student after another being murdered cover over the many cracks, but Bloody Moon is not a film to be analysed too closely with a critical eye. It is what it is, what its filmmaker wanted it to be; accept that and it will reward the viewer. Look too closely and its flaws are all too apparent, and may leave you wondering just why you bothered in the first place.

What is interesting about Bloody Moon when set against Franco’s work as a whole is that it could be argued it comes at a time when the director was on a downward slide. That perhaps explains the multiple influences and historic nods that make the film both confusing in tone while being simplistically entertaining. Less edgy than many of his films, but still extreme enough with its subject, Bloody Moon is well worth seeking out; if only for the elaborate way Franco kills off his nubile young cast.

BLOODY MOON / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR: JESÚS FRANCO / SCREENPLAY: ERICH TOMEK / STARRING: OLIVIA PASCAL, CHRISTOPH MOOSBRUGGER, NADJA GERGANOFF / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

 

Based on the real-life experiences of Philippe Petit, The Walk as all about one man’s dream and the chances he’ll take to achieve it.

It is 1973, and starting off as a street entertainer in his native France, Petit (Gordon-Levitt) finds that his greatest release is when he walks a high wire between the two towers of Notre Dame before being carted off by the gendarmes. He then spots the already under construction World Trade Centre towers and decides that he must walk between them.

Considering the North and South towers were 110 storeys high, this was an incredibly insane idea, but one that Petit was single-mindedly determined to undertake. So he travels to New York with his accomplices and sets into motion a plan to complete the once in a lifetime experience. Going against most of the wishes of his mentor, Papa Rudy (Kingsley), he and his group set a date and get the wheels in motion.

The day arrives and we get to see exactly how this amazing feat was accomplished, from set up to execution, although as the towers were still being completed and the early ‘70s were not as concerned with terrorism as we are today, this doesn’t seem like it was too difficult. Instead the fact that this was done in real life is a lot more incredible.

The film itself is as stunning as the stunt was absurd. This is probably some of the best and most beautiful use of 3D so far and we have director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) to thank for that. Honestly, some of the shots before and during the wire walk are nothing short of vertigo-inducing – even if you don’t suffer from it. Even if you watch this in 2D, you’re sure to want to keep your feet squarely on the floor.

Granted, some of the accents are weak at times, Kingsley being the main culprit here, but that’s not what we are here for. Like Petit’s life, we are here for the spectacle and it is served up to us in spades.

Without banging a drum, the film manages to serve as a salute to the Twin Towers themselves as much as it celebrates the achievements of the crazy Frenchman who took on one of the biggest daredevil stunts of all time.

Simply a sublime visual treat.

THE WALK / CERT: PG / DIRECTOR: ROBERT ZEMECKIS / SCREENPLAY: ROBERT ZEMECKIS, CHRISTOPHER BROWNE / STARRING: JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT, SIR BEN KINGSLEY, CHARLOTTE LE BON, JAMES BADGE DALE, BEN SCHWARTZ / RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1ST

 

Eddie Coyle (Mitchum) is a world-weary petty criminal who has spent most of his life in and out of jail. Facing yet another prison term for being involved in a truck hijacking, he turns informant for Dave Foley (Richard Jordan) an agent for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division (ATF) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in order to get a decreased sentence. 

Eddie uses Jackie Brown (Steven Keats) a furtive gunrunner to supply weapons to a gang who are busy robbing banks in the area of Boston. Whilst dealing with Jackie, Eddie discovers that he is in the process of supplying ‘machine guns’ to a gang of hippies. He gives Dave enough information to capture Jackie, yet this isn’t good enough for the authorities. They want him to become a regular informant before they consider giving him a more lenient sentence.

In this position, between a rock and a hard place, Eddie who longs to retire to Florida, has to grass on the bank robbery gang for a chance of eluding prison. You just have to look into Eddie’s eyes to see that his situation is desperate and that it’s not going to end well.

We are given a subdued, Autumnal view of Boston that is only brightened by Jackie’s green, growling 1971 Plymouth Road Runner that prowls across the screen and by a red Wells Fargo armoured van. The cinematography by Victor Kemper reflects the mood of Film Noir movies, the grubby, dull environments that these characters inhabit, Robert Mitchum’s earlier career and his character’s own twilight years.

Directed by Peter Yates, who is best known for Bullitt, the film is based on the novel with the same title, by George V. Higgins, who had worked as an Assistant United States Attorney before becoming a novelist. Using the knowledge supplied by Higgins, Yates shows in detail the execution of bank robberies, the taut meetings between the gunrunner and his underworld clients, the shadow of the mob, training newcomers in the ways of criminality and the wheeler-dealing between the law and the criminal classes.

The acting and detail of the film is wonderful, Mitchum delivers a masterclass in being downtrodden, yet fighting to survive in a changing world, Boyle is suitably creepy as a bartender who is better at working the system than Eddie and the rest of the cast provide strong performances as characters who have their own self-centred motivations that don’t consider Eddie for one second.

There are moments of action, but the pacing is generally on a slow simmer threatening to boil over at any time. For a gritty crime thriller without any gloss, this is it.

THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE / DIRECTOR: PETER YATES / SCREENPLAY: PAUL MONASH / STARRING: ROBERT MITCHUM, PETER BOYLE / CERT: 15 / RELEASE DATE: JANUARY 25TH

 

Someone once said, “If you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”. Whoever said that probably wasn’t a film reviewer though, as it can make things quite difficult…

Anyway, onto the review. After the Ball is a teen comedy that looks to splice together elements of The Devil Wears Prada, Cinderella and even Twelfth Night; though Willy Shakespeare would no doubt be turning in his grave if he knew his work was being abused to this extent.

The narrative concerns budding fashion designer Kate Kassell (Doubleday) who takes a job at her father’s clothing line after failing to secure one on her own merit due to her father’s reputation for stealing designs. Things go from bad to worse when Katie arrives, as her evil step-mother (Holly) and her two daughters (Natalie Krill, Anna Hopkins) take an instant dislike to her. The wicked trio then proceed to frame Kate for leaking designs and she is subsequently fired from Daddy’s company.

In a plan devised by her Godmother (Mimi Kuzyk), Kate agrees to pose as male designer named Nate, in an attempt to infiltrate her father’s company. The male disguise allows Kate to be independent and confident (which in itself is a glaring issue), and she works her way up to star designer. There is also a bumbling subplot concerning a conventionally handsome designer (Grondin) at the company, who Kate quite fancies. Honestly, this film is every bit as predictable as it sounds with no real effort to inform, let alone entertain 

For a film concerned with depicting the fashion industry, they do a good job of making it look shallow and imbecilic. In the first ten minutes, we see our protagonist not run, but FLY, away from her problems, before bumping into a door and falling over numerous times. The rest of the characters hardly get better treatment. It’s as if Walter Lippmann coined the phrase ‘stereotype’ for exactly this type of portrayal of one-dimensional, tedious shells of human beings. There’s the plotting step-mother, the absent father, the evil sisters, and almost every single male (except father and love interest) is presented as OVERTLY camp, as if no heterosexual male could ever be interested in fashion.

The film is also bloated with a consumerist, materialistic fetishism as lines like “I want that dress” or “what a cute hat, that’s so brave” are uttered without anyone batting an eyelid. Ultimately, if you want to choke on a narrative that is rife with clichés and devoid of any real moral message then stick After The Ball on, if not, there are surely more productive things you can do… Such as watching paint dry.

AFTER THE BALL / CERT: PG / DIRECTOR: SEAN GARRITY / SCREENPLAY: JASON SHERMAN, KATE MELVILLE / STARRING: PORTIA DOUBLEDAY, MARC-ANDRÉ GRONDIN, CHRIS NORTH, LAUREN HOLLY / RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1ST

 

Featuring an all-star cast of Emily Blunt, Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin, Sicario is a nail-biting, heart-pounding thriller. Directed by Denis Villeneuve, Sicario tells the story of how one promising FBI agent Kate Mercer (Emily Blunt), is enlisted by the CIA to help take down the Mexican drug cartel.

The task force is led by the enigmatic Alejandro (Del Toro), alongside the charming Matt Graver (Brolin). Their target is Manuel Díaz, one of the cartel’s most notorious hitmen. During the undercover operation, Kate begins to questions Alejandro’s motives and her involvement in the case.

It’s an unforgiving look into the vicious drug trade in Mexico, with a story that is truly gruelling and twisted. Providing a swift punch to the gut during its second half, Villeneuve manages to present an eerily realistic portrayal of Mexico and its drug problem, with Taylor Sheridan’s screenplay keeping viewers on their toes throughout.

Whilst it seems like Kate Mercer is the main focus of Sicario, Del Toro’s captivating performance as Alejandro takes centre stage. He’s been firing on all cylinders in the past few years, but Sicario really makes the most out of Del Toro’s wonderful acting abilities.

Despite this, Sicario does boast Blunt’s finest role to date. Whilst she shined in the superb sci-fi action movie, Edge of Tomorrow, she provides viewers with a sympathetic, incredibly developed lead here, like nothing beforehand. She presents forth a believable character, which is thrown into a world of mystique and unimaginable horror.

Sicario runs at a steady pace of just over two hours, and it features the most intense traffic jam in cinema history. Fantastically edited, the task force is on the hunt for one Manuel Díaz’s men, with the fear that any one of the cars stuck on the road may be holding armed criminals, who are ready to take out the CIA in any way possible.

Heavy themes of morality come into play during Sicario, and Kate Mercer’s journey throughout the film is riveting. The final sequence alone is enough to send shivers down the spine, with Del Toro displaying some of his finest work.

It’s beautifully shot, featuring some of the best cinematography of last year by Roger Deakins, who is renowned for putting together some of the most stiking shots in cinema history. Having worked on The Shawshank Redemption, The Big Lebowski, and Skyfall, Deakins can now add yet another grand accomplishment to his list – as Sicario is simply stunning, stylish and unforgivably raw.

Villeneuve’s previous entry, Enemy, was criminally under looked when it was released early last year. Thankfully, Prisoners and Sicario have now established him as a director to look out for. He has presented a masterclass in filmmaking, with a taut, intense, and wholly enjoyable thriller.

SICARIO / CERT: 15 / DIRECTOR: DENIS VILLENEUVE / SCREENPLAY: TAYLOR SHERIDAN / STARRING: KATE MACER, BENICIO DEL TORO, JOSH BROLIN, VICTOR GARBER, JON BERNTHAL / RELEASE DATE: FEBRUARY 1ST

 

You might remember that Britain was involved in your actual “Total War” from 1939 to 1945. Of course, that meant the civilians were involved and it won’t surprise you to know that our government thought it’d be a good idea to make sure they knew exactly what was expected of them, be it keeping themselves healthy or just digging for victory. So it was that the Ministry of Information commissioned (from Senate House – the real-life inspiration for the Ministry of Truth, fact-fans) a series of short, fairly light, instructional films to be shown in cinemas before the main feature. The BFI have collected a load of these on this disc and jolly good fun they are too.

The films are in five groups: “Cookery Tips”, “Save Your Shillings and Smile”, “Make Do and Mend”, “Fighting Fit” and “Dig for Victory” covering pretty much what you’d expect in each category. But the devil is in the details and there is some fascinating stuff in here. Have you any idea how much hassle it was to make porridge? Seriously, they had to build a box, fill it with straw and…actually we got lost there but we can confirm it involved leaving it overnight. Are you interested in cabbages at all? Then let us tell you that this is the DVD for you. It’s a bit troubling on that front because this was a time when apparently kindly grandmothers were more than happy to humiliate children if they used too much water. You’re mother did not make up the thing about carrots helping you see in the dark either, which is vital to know if you’re either a night-fighter pilot or a miner. We all know, of course, that we take tea pretty seriously but you have no idea what a life or death business it was in the ‘40s. Luckily the Empire Tea Bureau (no, really) stumped up the cash for a movie to tell us how to do it properly. The Germans never stood a chance against this kind of commitment. Mind you, while you can marvel at the way the meaning of “fit girl” has changed in the last 70-odd years, you can also be truly horrified at the sheer creepiness of Tommy Trinder as he decides which “lucky” member of his dance troupe will get the benefit of his attentions tonight. Subject of which, we also learn that poor quality foot health meant “some girls are more afraid of a sandal than a scandal”. We nearly choked on our tea in that one, when we completely misconstrued the phrase “going down”. Language changes and so does our idea of “weird”, so the masks to help prevent the spread of germs are apocalyptically terrifying today. But if all this wasn’t enough, the disc is worth it for numerous narrations from the much-spoofed E.V.H. Emmett. Yes, he really did sound like that.

If you’re interested in British cultural history, then this is an essential purchase. If you’re not, well you might still find it interesting and certainly amusing. Worth borrowing even if you don’t purchase it. But one thing we are not buying is that vitamin B gives you strong nerves. We don’t care how much bread we eat, we’re not jumping out of a plane into occupied Holland.

Special Features: Booklet

RATION BOOKS AND RABBIT PIES – FILMS FROM THE HOME FRONT / DIRECTOR: VARIOUS / SCREENPLAY: VARIOUS / RELEASED: OUT NOW