Enemy
Canadian director Dennis Villeneuve’s Enemy (2013) is a film that has gotten its fair share of love this year. In particular many have praised the mind bending thriller aspects of the film as well as Jake Gyllenhaal’s dual performance.
Going into the film, I was fully expecting to be befuddled. Those expectations were raised even further when the quote “chaos is order yet undeciphered” appears on the screen at the start. But to be honest, there was not all that much to be confused about (ok, except the spiders) as the narrative is really pretty simple. Or perhaps sparse is a better word. I love a lot of films with little narrative thrust, but for whatever reason this one just never managed to grab me. Part of that may well be because the visuals are equally sparse. Usually a film needs to be driven by visuals or narrative, but in being driven by neither, this one just seemed to meander. The film concerns two characters, both played by Gyllenhaal, who are doppelgangers. They meet up. One hounds the other and then they swap those roles. One pursues the other’s girlfriend. That’s about it. They occasionally realise how warped this situation is. On a couple of very brief occasions they try and work out what exactly the situation is. But really, from a plot perspective, there was not enough interrogating on the part of the characters into what was happening to them.
For all my issues with the film, it is definitely far from a write-off. Gyllenhaal is very good, his ability to imbue the two, physical exactly the same, characters he was playing with subtle differences to create two clearly identifiable characters is not at all easy to do. Sarah Gadot and Melanie Laurent are also really good in the few interesting moments they are both granted. But both of them could have done with a whole lot more to do. In addition to the solid performances, a number of interesting ideas come out of the slow, obliqueness. None of them are as fully formed as they could have been (or they were just not explained to me fully enough), but they were still what probably piqued my interest more than anything else that was going on. There is a definite likening of life in a contemporary western city to that under a dictatorship. The repetitive, controlling nature of day to day life – same day, same bus, same sex. Where I would have really loved some more thematic exploration was in relation to the nature of self and identity, which obviously come under attack in any doppelganger story. There are dashes of the crushing anxiety that having an actual doppelganger would have on a person’s state of mind, but the idea is discarded all too quickly. Also, those spiders. Feel free to sound off in the comments with a big spoiler warning if you have any idea what that was all about.
Verdict: Despite the interesting ideas and good performance from Gyllenhaal, Enemy never managed to grab on to me. There is nothing wrong with a film being slow. But for this to have had the intrigue it probably required, it needed to get whipping along at a snappier pace. Schooner of Carlton Draught
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: Trailer for your Weekend: Enemy and Computer Chess.
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
Trailer for your Weekend: Cub
Shout-out to Ryan from Rhino’s Horror for this one. Have just been reading a few articles he has put up about Cub (2014), an indie horror I had not really heard about, but am now pretty keen for it. The film looks to be riffing on slasher conventions by having those in peril in the woods being young scouts rather than promiscuous teens. Having it be young kids in trouble always makes the stakes jump up a fair bit, so hopefully this delivers something gnarly. There is a whole lot of energy in the trailer that is hopefully also present in the final film. What do you guys think of this one?
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood and Trailer for your Weekend: Dracula Untold.
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
Worth Watching September 2014
Again, another far too quiet film watching month for me in September. The writing of Sydney Underground Film Festival reviews took up pretty much all of my time devoted to film. And Amy and I were married a week ago, so the planning and carrying out of that awesomeness took up most of the rest of my energy. Let me know your thoughts on these flicks though in the comments section below.
Worth Watching:
- Easy Virtue (1928), Alfred Hitchcock – This is the first of Hitch’s silent films I have seen. It almost looks like Kubrick shot it in parts. There is plenty of playful camerawork and creative POV shots. Based on a play, in terms of story, there is next to nothing going on. Though the family politics/machinations right at the end are of moderate interest. If you are a Hitch completist, this is a cool exhibition of his early style. Everyone else can probably afford to skip it though. You can check the whole thing out here:
- The Past (2013), Asghar Farhadi – I actually prefer this to A Separation (2011). There are dense layers of meaning and relationships. Which makes it sound like a slog, but it is so well written and acted that it breezes by. Ali Mosaffa brings Ahmad to life with a really nuanced performance and he is one of the best characters of recent memory. A very good, slow burn drama film.
- What We Do in the Shadows (2014), Jermaine Clement & Taika Waititi – What a stellar year for Kiwi comedy. This is a piss-funny film, both silly and smart. Actually one of the few recent films that drew genuine laughs pretty much non-stop from me. Jermaine Clement and the other stars are all really ggood with the characters helping to hold interest. The sharehouse familiarity, combined with vampire ludicrousness and mockumentary stylings help it to stand high above the average comedy.
Not Worth Watching:
- God’s Pocket (2014), John Slattery – The stellar cast – Philip Seymour Hoffman, Christina Hendricks, Eddie Marsan, Caleb Landry Hones Richard Jenkins and John Turturro – can’t save this poorly scripted effort. There is a reasonable sense of place, but no sense of character and story. There are just no stakes and the grime and dirt of the life that is supposedly being shown is just not there. No texture and some horribly misjudged characters make for a dull overall experience.
- The Maze Runner (2014), Wes Ball – A killer concept wrecked by appalling writing and performances. The latter coming from some people who I have seen do really good work, such as Will Poulter and Thomas Brodie Sangster. A pity as the cool sci-fi ideas are tops and the film encompasses some really dark and tense sequences. Plus it’s got a giant frickin maze. It’s an utter sausage fest for some reason too.
If you only have time to watch one What We Do in the Shadows
Avoid at all costs God’s Pocket
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: Worth Watching September 2013 and Worth Watching September 2011.
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
SUFF 2014: Wetlands
Wetlands (2013) is a film that has garnered a fair bit of notoriety over the past twelve months or so. Mainly for the fact that it is prepared to show female sexuality in a way usually reserved for male – with humour, experimentation and gross out moments. The film has also provoked some feminist commentary and criticisms for the manner in which the male director has adapted the female written source novel.
The film starts as a kinetically plotted dark comedy following Carla Juri’s Helen throughout a range of teenage escapades. It works really well as a dark comedy as well I think and is also pretty original in its execution throughout this early period. A combination of bodily fluid obsessed gross out humour and insightful teenage awakening, mashed with flashbacks that initially feel too long and too serious, but over time are integrated relatively well into the film (note – I actually missed the big climactic payoff to all of the flashbacks toward the end, because someone had fainted in the screening). Following a shaving accident, Helen finds herself in hospital for a pretty extended period of time. There is more heart and more drawing out of the film’s themes here. Though her hospital stay does also contribute to the film going on too long and as a result losing some of the kinetic energy that was so apparent early on. And unfortunately for all the boldness through much of the film, I found the ending of Wetlands almost absurdly conventional in a way which deeply detracted from my overall satisfaction with the film.
Whether or not the depictions of sexuality in the film should confront or not, the bottom line is that they do. I found it a really interesting look at a sexual awakening. A storyline usually often told totally glibly, or if more uproariously, focused on the male experience. But this is a more frank look at a female sexual awakening. I think it is good that it is presented as straightforwardly and bluntly as it is. There was plenty of nervous laughter from the audience hiding the fact, but it is good that audiences have to re-examine their engrained opinions or expectations about these things and how they are showed on screen. Thematically, I think that the best realised and focal points of the film actually have little to do with sex or sexual liberation. Helen’s obsession with the ageing process and the progression of life carrying you away is the real core of much of the film. Bound up with this is the complexity of the central character, a child of divorce. And the fact that Helen is a child of divorce is not just plonked there and expected to provide ‘depth’. It actually affects and impacts on the entire film and every character in it. Helen is a wonderful central character and if you strip away much of what is ‘sensational’ about the film, it is this character that makes it really worthwhile and worth checking out.
Verdict: Wetlands is at times uncomfortable viewing. But it is also in many ways refreshing viewing as well, not shying from many things that so many films unnecessarily are too afraid to show. Despite the woeful ending, there is a bunch of complexity and sensitivity to go along with the more salacious aspects. Stubby of Reschs
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: SUFF 2014: Suburban Gothic and SUFF 2014: Why Don’t You Play in Hell
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
Trailer for your Weekend: Horrible Bosses 2
Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) fits into that realm of film where even though I liked (well didn’t hate) the first film, I’m still not particularly fussed about their being a sequel. The first one felt like it had done just enough to be ok, assuming you were in the mood for it. But this trailer suggests they have gone for a The Hangover II (2011) style sequel where they change the bare minimum from the first film. Just enough to actually differentiate from the first film, but no more. Hey last time we did murder, this time it’s kidnapping! Not too much enthusiasm for this one over here.
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: Trailer for your Weekend: Hot Tub Time Machine 2 and Worth Watching October 2011 (includes a review of Horrible Bosses).
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
SUFF 2014: Why Don’t You Play in Hell
Nothing can prepare you for the awesomeness that is Why Don’t You Play in Hell (2013). But hopefully this review can give you enough of a taste to realise how much you need to see this film.
The person who can break down what Why Don’t You Play in Hell is about in a couple of sentences is a far greater writer than I. Probably a far greater writer than just about anyone really. So in the absence of the ability to do the plot justice I’ll just say the following: it is kind of a gangster film; it is definitely a film about film; it is kind of a film about growing up; it is a film about the creative process; it is violent, at times cartoonishly so, at times more realistically and lastly it is utterly absurd. The film reminds me of one of those really absurd Japanese films that you are enraptured with initially, but then the shoddiness of it all overwhelms things. Dead Sushi (2012) springs to mind as a spot on example of that and this is that style of film done so, so right. But the reasons Why Don’t You Play in Hell is an exceptional film and quite how it manages to wrestle with this absurdism that should cause it to fail, but instead allows it to excel is beyond me. Though I do think that part of it is because it is one of the most creative films about film and the filmmaking process I have seen. And as a film buff, I loved that stuff so much. Also, the fact that the tone is not silly and absurd the whole way through I think makes those really over the top parts a little easier to enjoy, because they are snappier and there is some down time in between.
I feel pretty comfortable in saying that any real movie buff will love this film, because whilst it is many other things, it is as a film about film that succeeds best. More than simply being about the movies, this is also a homage or lament to film on actual film and an examination of what changing cinema technology means. Through a ‘kids making films’ subplot that smacks nicely of J.J. Abrams Super 8 (2011), the film also examines the struggle of an artistic life and the ultimate triumph of artistic success. There is a real kineticism to the energy of the film from the very get-go, especially in terms of plot and shooting style. There are quieter moments at times, but really the film does not let up. Same goes for the absurdism I have already mentioned. It is there right from the start, with absolute rivers of blood near the start and the strangest standing ovation you’ve ever seen right at the end. The acting is all really good and if nothing else, this is worth watching for the most brilliant Bruce Lee impersonator you are ever likely to see.
Verdict: Hopefully I have managed to convey a little of what makes Why Don’t You Play in Hell such a special cinema experience. Rare is a film that, like this one, is simultaneously a throwback but also something that feels utterly modern. It is one of my favourite films about film I have ever seen and also I think one of my favourite films of 2014 so far. As with Housebound (2014) see it, and see it with an audience to help you get swept up in the giddiness of it all. Longneck of Melbourne Bitter
Related beermovie.net articles for you to check out: SUFF 2014: Suburban Gothic and SUFF 2014: The Animal Condition.
Like what you read? Then please like Beermovie.net on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie
Beermovie.net 