The Beguiled (2017) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

The Beguiled (2017) Directed by Sofia Coppola. With Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell, Kirsten Dunst and Elle Fanning. 


Sofia Coppola’s remake of the 1971 Don Siegel film of the same name draws less from that movie and more from the original source material of Thomas P. Cullinan’s novel. Coppola’s screenplay switches the perspective from the male gaze of the 70’s film to that of a group of isolated women who happen across an injured enemy solider (Colin Farrell) 1-year before the end of the American Civil War.

Winner of Best Director at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, Coppola and her cinematographer Philippe Le Sourd establish a strong sense of atmosphere, creating a tactile background canvas that evokes a southern gothic dreamlike quality to build an absorbing story which is in part a study of the power balance between men and women as told through the lens of the past.

What’s beautiful about Coppola’s adaptation is the way in which non-verbal communication is as much a part of the writing as the dialogue. The dynamic between the women is deftly applied; women who are trained to behave well around men, to please men, but until Farrel’s arrival, have had no opportunity to put their training into practice. His arrival disrupts their group, creating a sense of competition among them that is all of divisive, dangerous and excting.

Nicole Kidman is the matriach of the group – strong when she needs to be – the kind of woman who knows what needs to be done, struggling to fend off her own desires. As she tends to Farrell’s wounds, her wet cloth moves from his torso, down his abdomen to his inner thigh. It’s the sort of thing you’d find in a trashy romance novel and her yearning is palpable, but there’s dignity and sympathy in Kidman’s portrayal of a woman carrying a headmistress-like responsibility of being the leader of an inherited family unit.

The second elder of the group, Kirsten Dunst gives a more vulnerable performance than we’re used to from her, seemingly tapping into a younger version of herself. There’s something fragile but distantly hopeful about her. She’s different from the others, which is highlighted in a dinner scene in which she wears an off-the-shoulder dress (considered vulgar at the time), to which Kidman’s character points out how Dunst is from “town society with different rules”. Her competition with Elle Fanning’s more openly flirtatious character makes for a risky dynamic that adds intrigue to the drama. Fanning is self-absorbed but her youth makes her potentially the most inviting prospect to Farrell’s mysterious character.

The sudbued lighting and leaning toward the effect of natural light adds further texture and atmosphere. Shot on 35mm on one location in New Orleans, Coppola offers depth in her cinematic framing, but with a close intimacy that translates to the small screen.

The use of music is minimal and plays under the surface of the drama, which allows the natural sounds to be a more prominent feature in the tapestry of the storytelling. The distant boom of canons are met with wide long shots of beautiful treelines poisoned by plumes of war smoke. The lighting is notably subdued and natural – Coppola opting to use candles in the dark and plain daylight in the morning.

With a slight running time of 1hr-30mins, Coppola creates a good amount of drama and intrigue around a small setting. The young actresses are excellent in supporting roles, while threat lurks inside and outsdie the confines of the house they share. A dangerous liaision story of manipulation and desire told with artful style.


Posted in Film Reviews, sofia coppola | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Dunkirk (2017) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Dunkirk (2017) Directed by Christopher Nolan. With Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance, and Tom Hardy.

Writer-director Christopher Nolan’s love of cinema is a blessing to all of us. Small corners of the internet take issue with the god-like adoration directed toward him, however, he gives the impression of a man who could not be more humble when it comes to his place in the grand pantheon. Nolan’s relatively small back catalogue is a collection of epic, tactile tales of heroism and adventure. The scale of his work has widened since Memento, yet it is with Dunkirk that he seems to achieve a mature marriage of epic intimacy.

The film is effective in stitching together drama from various viewpoints, occasionally backtracking into a form of non-liner storytelling typical of Nolan’s work. His sparse screenplay seems to be about realising the essence of the situation, as intertwining stories of component characters are told from sea, land and air. In war we see the absolute best and worst of human nature pitted against itself. Nolan doesn’t shy away from darkness, but prefers to shine light on the best of people. In many ways, Dunkirk is more a superhero film than any one of his Dark Knight trilogy.

The allied British and French troops aren’t always portrayed as perfect heroes. Yes, they fight side-by-side against a notably off-screen advancing German army, yet among themselves they distinguish nationality to give preference to each other based on it, even at the cost of lives. No matter which side of the conflict they fight for and no matter what the cause –  human beings do desperate things to survive.

Keeping the aggressive force in the background adds suspense as the audience are given the same narrow perspective as the characters. We see and hear what they see – the terrifying threat of marauding enemy planes, gunfire and bombs.

Dunkirk is a film about heroes, but also about the cost of being a hero. It’s about what war does to a person – how when forced in a live or die situation, some ‘heroes’ might choose to save themselves first. The film making is mature and precise in its delivery, making it a rare example of a film about warfare that isn’t simply about the graphic or political nature of it – more a study on the forced adoption of a certain mentality.

The overall feel of Dunkirk is a one of respect. Respect for the remarkable things people did in the name of preserving a way of life. There are moments of heartbreak, but it doesn’t feature the full-on horror of warfare seen in Saving Private Ryan, leaning more toward being a focus on normal people doing what needs to be done.

Of the main story arcs, I personally found Mark Rylance’s to be the most moving. Rylance is a beautifully understated screen presence, so much so that I found myself willing the movie to be about him, his son and the plucky friend who joins the fight. Headed by Tom Hardy, the dogfight sections of the film offer a claustrophobic white-knuckle experience, while highlighting the bravery of the men willing to fly a tin can through the sky while being shot at on limited fuel supply.

Poetic shots of soldiers congregated on beaches, helplessly undefended against air bombing raids are poignant and devastating, but I did encounter brief moments when I lapsed into almost losing interest, mainly aspects of Foinn Whitehead’s central journey of survival, which I found less emotionally powerful than others. I’d attribute that to a combination of finding other sections so involving and the distracting presence of One Direction.

Perhaps the most potent aspect of Dunkirk is how the lyrical nature of Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography captures that defiant sense of homemade heroism. Hans Zimmer’s score amplifies suspense, but also gives way to a sense of pride in valour in the use of an adapted version Edward Elgar’s Nimrod. There’s a beautiful restraint in the way the music is employed to evoke sentimentalism with the brakes on, which is reflected in the authenticity and respect with which the film treats both the subject matter and the audience.



Posted in Christopher Nolan, Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Wonder Woman (2017) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Wonder Woman (2017) Directed by Patty Jenkins. With Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright, Danny Huston and David Thewlis.

The era of superhero films has been the dominant cinematic force of the past 10-years, yet while Marvel Studios appeared to find their rhythm from the very start with Iron Man and co, the DC playground had failed to affirm its stamp of quality. Until now.

As is now a familiar structure of these films, Patty Jenkins gets straight into the origins of Diana Prince (Gadot), which is given a fresh feel by the fact that all the characters are women. Though its roots story stuff, it doesn’t feel quite as laboured or drawn out as so many of these chapters in superhero storytelling can fall victim to. If that sounds like I’m damning it with faint praise, well…

Towards the end of the first act, Diana’s mother exclaims – “The world of men do not deserve you“. There’s also a feeling that Gadot deserves a better film constructed around her – not that Wonder Woman is a bad film – the contrary, it has fine moments and Gadot shines brightly. But the framework of the storytelling isn’t anything out of the ordinary for these movies. Of course, it’s a mountainous step up in quality from recent DCU offerings, most of which front-load an edgy collage of dampened drama that achieve nothing to elevate the soul. There is one dramatic shot when Gadot looks like an oil painting from Zack Snyder’s 300, however, under the eye of Patty Jenkins she’s a framed as a heroic Goddess to be worshipped, as opposed to a woman to be ogled.

Gal Gadot is stunning in that ridiculously beautiful kind of way, yet she’s portrayed in such a positive light, that it’s impossible to not fall in love with her. But we aren’t just falling in love with her physical appearance, we’re falling in love with her ideological insistence on putting others before herself. She has an extraterrestrial aura that modern superheroes can’t find. She isn’t suffering with the internal angst of Superman, Iron Man or Batman – she’s just plain good. And what’s wrong with that!? It seems that the trend for a superhero is to be brooding and complex, with a multitude of internal issues to decipher. Why can’t heroes just be straight up good like Christopher Reeve’s Superman, and have dilemmas and choices presented to them by the world. Gadot’s character is an emblem of hope.

Snyder co-wrote the story and is onboard as a producer, meaning his visual style is fully present, though his tendency to fetishise isn’t carried forward by Jenkins who aims to make Wonder Woman far more than a simple object of desire. Her ethos of ‘love wins’ might seem like jumping on the bandwagon of a hashtag, but it’s an important message for our world and Allan Heinberg’s screenplay aims to make a firm point of it.

One centrepiece action sequence is given a visceral kick-start, before branching off into spectacular slow motion mayhem, accompanied by Rupert Gregson-Williams’s excellent banshee wailing score. Seeing Wonder Woman in close combat makes for some remarkable visual imagery, though some air comes out of the tyres in less convincing CGI shots of her.

Chris Pine takes what would traditionally be the female sidekick role. It’s a switch that works for him as an actor. Pine isn’t always credited for the strength of his performances, possibly due to his ‘Ken doll’ good looks, but his character doesn’t get in the way of who Diana is, rather adding to her through his own arc. Touches of humour let in some light, which is found in various responses to Diana’s naivety.

Though filled with undercurrents of darkness and a few stock baddies, where Jenkins triumphs is that she attempts to embrace the soul of who a hero is, rather than shying away from it with embarrassment. The final act ‘boss level’ almost squanders much of what comes before it, and it’s a real shame the character has to be wasted as part of the overall DC extended universe. On this evidence, she should leave them all behind and forge her own path.



Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Directed by Wes Craven. With John Steadman, Janus Blythe, Dee Wallace, Suzie Lanier-Bramlett and Martin Speer.


Wes Craven’s original exploitation offering, The Hills Have Eyes (it now has sequels and a remake and a sequel to a remake) is an American horror story about a vacationing family whose car breaks down in the hostile Nevada desert. Craven also penned the script, in which the group are forced into a survival fight against hungry local cannibals.

As one of those anachronic people who saw Aliens before Alien, my first impression of The Hills Have Eyes ’77 isn’t helped by the fact that I saw the 2006 remake years ago. Due to limitations of age, budget and technique, the original isn’t as visually assertive as Alexandre Aja’s more cut-throat 2006 version, although the plot is identical, but with more humanisation of the cannibals, many of which are named after planets in the solar system.

Poorly aged though it sometimes is, there’s a narrative of family vs family woven into the fabric of what we see. One civilised family – one not so much – Wes Craven wants to tap into the fear of leaving our comfort zone. By design, it’s a film to make you mistrust people – to feel paranoia toward the motives and agendas of those you don’t know. With a caravan in tow, it’s cosy suburban living forced to face the wild unknown it commonly shelters from. The sanctuary of the family unit, invaded and ripped apart like a meaningless old rag. These are the kind of crazies who give babies special treatment on account of their potential delight to the tastebuds.

Though I confess to being repelled by the sight of a massive spider and an angry rattlesnake (I’m a wuss), as a horror film in 2018, The Hill Have Eyes is unlikely to shock, surprise or upset anyone versed in the genre, yet it remains a soft recommendation for anyone doing their homework. Over time, it’s the little flaws that can be the most damaging – one prolonged close-up reveals a facial makeup prosthetic not sufficiently glued down. Sacrilegious as it might be, I regret to admit I found the remake a more compelling piece of entertainment. Be that as it may, Craven builds and maintains an unsettling tone that’s effectiveness is only obstructed by the fact that its orignal elements have suffered a dilution of their shock value.


Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Kill Bill Vol 1 (2003) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) Directed by Quentin Tarantino. With Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Daryl Hannah, Julie Dreyfus and David Carradine

Quentin Tarantino’s deep melting pot of influences is perhaps most noticeable in Kill Bill Vol 1, his modern samurai revenge film about a woman (Uma Thurman) with a shopping list of assassinations to carry out. From a shocking black & white introduction onward, Kill Bill is one of those rarities – an entertaining movie in which style becomes substance.

Accompanied by lone tremolo guitar chords, Nancy Sinatra sings ‘Bang, Bang, My Baby Shot Me Down‘ over the titles (it would’ve made a perfect Bond theme). There’s an instant feeling of quality, like we’re in the hands of a director in the mood to show us a good time. There’s a texture to the film that seems to leap off the screen with a sense of cool elation, as cinema from across the globe is invoked in a collection of scenes and sequences fed directly by Japanese, Chinese, Italian and American influences, both mainstream and exploitation.

Thurman’s presence is a curious one – sexy with her tumbling blonde curls, yet somehow bridging a fine line between the sexes, incorporating variations of the classic Hollywood tough-guy alongside her soft femininity. Whatever she’s channeling, she’s fascinating to watch. The action sequences are beautifully designed and shot, with combinations of wire work, dizzying angles and inventive usage of the eye-catching environments.

The leftfield nature of Tarantino’s dialogue is conveyed with a knowing tone by the large supporting cast, be it Michael Parks as a Texan homicide detective or a venomous Lucy Liu as one of the ‘Deadly Viper Squad’, everyone seems to invested in the joke.

Visually, the film has a broad canvas; the dry Texas desert, middle American suburbia, crisp Tokyo snowfall (the latter feeling like something from a dream). The high style combined with the globe-trotting cultural criss-crossing affords an amount of visual depth rarely captured. It’s part of what makes the film feel so fresh and unique, even though most of what we see is directly recycled from something Tarantino loves.

Tarantino’s offbeat sense of humour is central to the fun, as the wacky violence takes on the larger-than-life appeal of a comic book, especially in the riotously over the top final act. Indeed, one captivating section describes O-Ren Ishii’s back story in the form of anime with graphic explosions of visceral violence.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 is a visually ambidextrous first half of a tempting double bill, complimented by a glorious soundscape of musical selections that feel instantly iconic. There’s inbuilt cult appeal to a film that feels like a greatest hits of Quentin Tarantino’s hyperactive subconscious.


Posted in Film Reviews, Quentin Tarantino | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) Directed by Rian Johnson. With Mark Hamill, Daisy Ridley, Adma Driver, John Boyega, Carrie Fisher, Kelly Marie Tran, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis and Laura Dern.


Lucasfilm never envisaged their sequel to The Force Awakens would become the most divisive film in recent memory, but then in Rian Johnson, they hired a smart and progressive film-maker whose highest profile release to date had been the respected sci-fi thriller, Looper. Together with his long-time producer and collaborator, Ram Bergman, Johnson cultivates what is the most enterprising addition to Star Wars canon since The Empire Strikes Back.

After the goose-pimples of “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” and the never-ending elation of John Williams, the film begins with space combat reminiscent of a World War II thriller, with Resistance bombers taking on a First Oder dreadnought (not a Death Star in sight). There’s bright early humour to re-establish Oscar Isaacs’s Poe Dameron as he toys with an increasingly hapless General Hux (Domnhall Gleeson), whose sniveling character is firmly set in that mold by Johnson.

It doesn’t take long to sense a shift in tone from where J.J Abrams left us, as we finally get to see how that literal cliffhanger of an ending plays out. This is exactly the moment where Rian Johnson affirms that Luke Skywalker line in the trailer – “This is not going to go the way you think.” From thereon in, this isn’t the ‘Star Wars’ you grew up loving, but it’s the ‘Star Wars’ it needs to be. Think of it as your parents making you eat your greens. You didn’t agree with them at the time, but one day you’ll know they were right. If parts of The Empire Strikes Back were about growing up and making life-altering choices, The Last Jedi is about not knowing how to grow up and accepting failure. If you stop and think about that for a second, it’s a bold hand to play in a series as widely ingrained into the everyday consciousness as Star Wars, and despite the voices of discontent across the internet, it feels right.

For many fans, seeing Mark Hamill back as Luke Skywalker was always going to be emotional, but Johnson only allows his audience a fleeting glance of the Luke they know. Instead, we meet a 30-odd-years later Jedi, disillusioned and in self-imposed exile on Ahch-To – also home to Porgs, the most loveable creatures since a baby Ewok. Despite Hamill’s well-known misgivings about the direction of his character, he summons a gutsy performance as he resists Rey’s desperate pleas for him to join the fight.

Dark and grey as the writing is, the film still carries that beacon of naive humour that people sometimes forget is a central theme of George Lucas’s beloved original trilogy. For a saga that has always been so clear-cut in its distinctions between good and evil, there’s also a surprising subtext about the scepticism of war. A distinguished Benicio Del Toro spouts to John Boyega’s Finn – “It’s all a machine, partner. Live free, don’t join“. Its moments like this that Star Wars is playing for the grown-ups, but then, seconds later we see silliness as the ball droid BB-8 operates the laser cannons of an AT-ST (the chicken walker things from Return of the Jedi). We might groan a little, but then Star Wars has always been a series that aims to play to young and old.

As the conflicted Kylo Ren, Adam Driver provides another performance of moral complexity and depth. In terms of villains, it’d be easy for Star Wars to rest on its laurels, yet the events in Johnson’s script seem to mock convention, bypassing the internet theories with character arcs that are often surprising. Kylo Ren is a villain for our times;  undermined, abandoned, misunderstood, confused and bursting with rage.

There is a ‘space casino’ middle-section that plays as a droopy detour away from what we’re interested in. The section is headed up by John Boyega’s Finn and newcomer Kelly Marie Tran as Rose and feels like an unusual return to the feel of the ‘prequels’. It’s ineffectiveness makes Finn much less a character than he was in The Force Awakens, while Rose is an affectionate attempt to make a character who is representative of us all, but despite one beautiful line, that doesn’t quite work either.

Then there’s our Princess, Carrie Fisher. The film was never supposed to be our goodbye to her, but sadly, it’s imbued with a sense of poignancy that was never supposed to be there. On top of everything else that happens, the contribution of this inherent sorrow is perhaps a reason why so many left the theatre feeling flattened. Fisher is Leia one last time and Johnson gives her much more to do than J.J did. When Luke kisses her head after saying “No one’s ever really gone”, don’t be surprised to find a lump in your throat.

The voices of discontent have been loud and clear, but the narrative of burying the past and forming a new future away from the established norms is not only a development in the plot, it’s Rian Johnson’s philosophy for the future of Star Wars. I’m with him all the way.



Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

The Hateful Eight (2015) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

The Hateful Eight (2015) Directed by Quentin Tarantino. With Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, James Parks and Bruce Dern.

To the accompaniment of Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight opens with a stunning showcase shot of the Panavision Super 70 lenses it’s captured in. We pick up in the deep blizzard of a wintry Wyoming landscape sometime after the Civil War, as a horse-drawn carriage escorts John Ruth (Kurt Russell) and his prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) across treacherous terrain. On their way, they encounter Major Marquis Warrena, a fellow bounty hunter in the charismatic form of Samuel L. Jackson. From the offset, the movie sets its stall as a tense examination of deception and lies to survive. For Russell, the film is reminiscent of The Thing; the arduous snowbound setting, the distrust of who is who they say they are, the enemy within.

Tarantino’s 8th film is his tightest and most disciplined since Kill Bill Volume 1. Lengthy though the running time is, it never sags under that weight as the writing allows each actor ample space to bring something new as the story unfolds. Among so many fine performances it’s hard to pick a favourite, which is testament to how well the film itself performs – you could highlight any number of the performances as your standout and I wouldn’t argue. Most prominently, the storytelling is focused and purposeful.

The Hateful Eight doesn’t meander or get away from Tarantino like Death Proof, Kill Bill Vol 2 and parts of Django Unchained did. He’s on tip-top form and it shows from the very start. The reprehensible nature of almost every character creates a thickening air of distrust for anything anyone says, which is underscored when innocents cross their paths. In this world, innocence, like hesitation, is weakness. It doesn’t matter how nice you are to the bad people, they’ll you show no mercy. This is an unforgiving land in which taking prisoners is risky – ‘kill or be killed’ is the motto. You learn that fast or you die.

As we know with Tarantino, his stories are told in chapters (always good for a home viewing tea-break), lending a book-like structure to the narrative. His adoration of cinema is woven into his work with such a sense of geeky affection that it builds a vital edge into each movement. As excesses of inevitable violence erupt, it manages to be both signature Tarantino and fresh in one take. That’s his simple ability as a writer shining through – to invest his audience enough in what has foregone to make them care about what comes. Often in the space of a few lines, each character gains identity and a sense of history.

You get to the end of The Hateful Eight and realise Tarantino has done it again. Once again he takes a genre and seasons it with his own unique spice of dark, irreverent humour to make it feel new again. With two-thirds of the film confined to one location, it isn’t hard to imagine a stage play being born of the material. It evokes memories of Reservoir Dogs, as deepening grooves of mistrust develop between the characters, allowing the audience plenty to chew on. I shouldn’t mention the word masterpiece, because it almost is.



Posted in Film Reviews, Quentin Tarantino | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments