Movie Impressions: Black Mass

The True Story of an Unholy Alliance between the FBI and the Irish Mob in my opinion perfectly encapsulates what Black Mass intends to show to the audience. Johnny Depp is a man with a mission, setting out to prove to his fans that he can still act in very serious roles. And he is supported by a strong cast and style to bring this rather intriguing crime drama to life.

When FBI detective John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) returns to his native town of South Boston, arrives with a proposition to his old friend now Gang-leader, James 'Whitey' Bulger(Johnny Depp) to act as informant to take down the Anguilo Family in return for immunity. Bulger decides to use this to his advantage to increase his criminal agenda while the FBI can 'fight their wars' so to speak.

It is from this 'unholy alliance' emerges the underlying themes of the story such as the price of loyalty considering the 'history' between the two and those belonging to the Winter Hill gang as we see the story through flashback accounts of its various members. However, what disappoints me is that the movie really never shows us that much interaction between Connolly and Bulger considering how important this relationship is and how much Bulger influences Connolly throughout the movie. As a result it comes off a bit superficial, only believing in it because the characters say so.

Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out of the Furnace) presents this downward spiral of a story in great style that consistently performs through the cinematography, production design and a chilling soundtrack by Tom Holkenberg. The movie illustrates what real organised crime is like and not something stylised akin to The Godfather or other examples. It shows us how brutal and cold-minded both the world and its people have to be and it is not beautiful. Though, in the midst of stylistic execution, many have raised complaints about the plot moving too slow and not that engaging and I agree with that to a certain extent. Most have claimed that this is due to the lack of a protagonist which could serve as our eyes in the story and that pretty much everyone is a villain. Again, I do see that viewpoint, but personally I did not face this problem as in my mind it felt like a ballad of these men and how just everything collapses around them.

Though I will say, the movie could have tightened things up in its direction and/or in its editing because the story takes place throughout a number of years and falls prey to some meandering and feels dragging round about the 2 hour mark. Much of it comes from too many dialogue scenes that seem too filler than seeing things that have a direct impact on the status-quo of the story.

Now the most important question, Is this the triumphant return of Johnny Depp to more serious roles?

Short version, yes ! Depp portrays the crime lord in a genuinely intimidating fashion that feels natural, even too natural perhaps. Bulger is brutal and has a strict set of moral rules that permeate into his gang, and he will make you face the consequences if you violate them. With some good writing behind him, he also manages to find and show us a more human character beneath the psychopath that is at times much more caring and respecting of familial ties than a normal person, a recurring theme of the movie. There is always a very strong sentimental motivation behind his actions and that arguably becomes the cause of his downfall.

Most of the character drama I believe, comes from Whitey Bulger and his interactions with the Winter Hill gang and for me they make the more entertaining parts of the movie.The gang definitely grounded the movie for me and it feels like in the end, it was about Bulger's sacrifice for the gang and its growth. Special mentions go to Rory Chochrane and Jesse Plemons as Stephen Flemmi and Kevin Weeks respectively. Dakota Johnson plays Lindsey Cyr, James Bulger's wife and she delivered a very good performance and her chemistry with Depp is also commendable as also is the storyline behind them. Benedict Cumberbatch is also in here as Senator brother William Bulger and he gives a good performance as usual.  In the story it is implied that William, James and detective Connolly form like a triangle of partners-in-crime but the interaction between them is so rare that it doesn't connect as much emotionally. 

On the FBI's side, Joel Edgerton also turns out a entertaining performance and I feel that his character was the one with a definite character arc. This makes it more disappointing that we did not more intereaction between him and 'Whitey'. Kevin Bacon was also thoroughly enjoyable as Charles McGuire while Corey Stall delivers a more focused performance as the 'bulldog' persecutor Fred Wyshak

In conclusion, Black Mass is a rather chilling character drama and it is not your Johnny Depp comedy romp which has become the trend. Its dark, very dark and even though it's not the best screenplay ever made, it provides some juicy subject matter for fans of crime dramas such as myself. But only crime fans for the exact reason could look past the shortcomings, in which case for the non crime-fans, the sheer acting power of the cast and the atmosphere will keep you engaged from time to time and for the very least watch it for Johnny Depp as James 'Whitey' Bulger. You will not be disappointed.

Movie Impressions: Everest (2015)

When I went to see Everest, there was a good percentage of people eating popcorn, probably expecting to have a satisfying 3-D survival flick like most would provided if they were wary of the original story. Then the ending happened and I thought wow they were like 5 year old's who saw this with me. That definitely made me doubt the marketing a bit. Everest is a grim tale, that doesn't mean the movie isn't good, but it is a tragedy and some discretion is advised.

The movie chronicles the events that resulted into the Everest Disaster of 1996 when groups of mountain climbers led by Rob Hall and Scott Fischer among others to scale the eponymous mountain, were faced with adverse conditions once a deadly storm approaches. 

The story is impacting, without a doubt, and highlights just how dangerous this mountain really is and what sort of conditions climbers face. Yet at the same time with its dazzling cinematography, also shows its deadly beauty. With some good development and motivation, it also does a good job of making us care about the characters regardless of whether you have prior knowledge of the events or not. I can prove this because I never heard of this story before watching the movie and it left me awe-struck afterwards. The first hour or so serves as a good education into what preparations climbers go through and the journey that is climbing Mount Everest and you can definitely feel a high once they reach on the top even though you're not actually there. The real story however, starts in the second hour and it is one travesty after the other to the point it feels like Final Destination in real life, things get serious as each of the climbers are tested, exposed to the elements and many of them may not remain alive. 

Another thing that I feel makes this film different from other mountaineering films or even films focusing on Everest is that it serves as an interesting commentary on modern mountain climbing and its commercialisation, especially at Everest. Rob Hall with Adventure Consultants, actually pioneered the business of mountain climbing where they would guide clients into expeditions such as Everest for a sum of money. And now one can see its effects in the so-called traffic jams of Everest as around 29 expedition groups can be found on the path.

As I said before, the cinematography is stellar. And one should expect nothing less considering its setting, the picturesque Himalayas. Something I noticed in the camera work was that it was very spatial in nature, meaning that you see in all of it shots that there is always a degree of dimensionality going in there. For example all the mountain shots, or when they are on the Hillary Step or on the South Summit, the narrow paths become really claustrophobic with a sheer drop at the next step. It represents the physical scale of the environments very well. And the 3D just makes it that more scary right down to some vertigo inducing stuff.  It also helps that much of the shooting did take place on real mountains and a lot of it on Everest itself

The characters are driven by performances by an ensemble consisting of brilliant actors through and through. Star names including are Jason Clarke, Jake Gyllenhall, Josh Brolin, Keira Knightely, Emily Watson, Elizabeth Debicki, Sam Worthington, etc. Jason Clarke, portrays the role of Rob Hall, the leader of Adventure Consultants' group that day and he is a bit of a handholder during the climb, showing us that he really, really cares for the safety of his clients though still taking risks if he felt that it was worth it especially in Doug Hansen's case, as played by John Hawkes. Scott Fischer, Gyllenhall's character, is my favourite being an eccentric mountain climber leading his own group of clients and thus becomes one of Hall's healthy competition. I enjoyed the relationship between the two as in the question of safety they team-up to climb together and help each other. The sense of camaraderie in mountaineering is noticeable and definitely amps up the character interaction as it becomes men against nature. 

The female characters are also good as they provide moral support to the climbers in direcircumstances, or provide logistical support from base-camp. But not all female characters are just support. Yasuko Namba (Naoko Mori) was also a climber on Hall's team and her climbing Everest, effectively making her the second Japanese woman to reach all the Seven Summits. 

With the combination of superb performances and characters, solid direction, stellar spectacle and a deeply impacting and tragic story, Everest highlights the very real dangers that climbers face on Everest and how little mistakes or ignorance can mess things up. When you are exposed on the cruising altitude of a 747, it may not always be a happy ending.

The Jungle Book(2016) first trailer Impressions

I guess to any person who is wary of the movie news, probably knows the buzz this new live action adaptation of a Disney classic generated at D23 to which it received a standing applause. Well today the general viewer gets the chance to see for themselves, what appears to be Jon Favreau's triumphant return to large-scale productions. 

The first thing I noticed that how it presents its world, the Forest in a very haunting way, which is very good. And it does so in a way that is also captivating with its large luscious trees and environments, which is brilliant. Obviously if you directly compare it to the animated classic, it does have a more muted colour palette, or so it seems from the trailer. However, in this case it sort of works in the haunting aspect of the movie. So I won't judge too soon.  

My opinion on Disney live-action adaptations has been rather mixed so far. Though what definitely gets my hopes up for Jungle Book is that it isn't trying to be the animated version or anywhere near it, stylistically speaking and actually embraces the live-action medium. Shere Khan actually looks a real Bengal Tiger and the added realism actually makes him more scary. Bagheera and Baloo also looks like a real Panther and a Bear respectively. Even though there are realistic looking animals, they match their designs well enough to elude to the classic characterisations to not make them totally unfamiliar. The animals will also be voiced by some serious talent such as Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Bill Murray, Lupita Nyong'o, and Christopher Walken. Though the only animal we hear in this trailer is Scarlett Johansson as the hypnotic Kaa. It took me a bit getting used to, since for me, the original lisping voice is Kaa. However, I do see where Favreau is coming from in this decision. with her more seductive voice, which I guess works in a more serious tone. I mean let's get serious, the original played Kaa more as a comic relief than a genuine threat. 

During the trailer we get little glimpses of Neel Sethi as Mowgli. I can't say whether the casting is good or not since we barely see him, none of them with dialogue. But from the looks of things, I guess he does fit the role. The trailer also showcases the recreations of classic parts of the story as well such as the incursion with King Louie as well as what seems to me is the climax. We also get a very brief glimpse of the elephants but none of the wolves surprisingly.Though they must be holding their cards for next trailers. It's atmospheric approach is something I am eager to see how it can breathe a new life into the story visually, each scene looks like it has been carefully captured and shows a hint of grandiose and wonder which should be in The Jungle Book. I have never read the original story by Rudyard Kipling, however it intrigues me to see that how this latest interpretation will be influenced by the original book and the animation. 

I have talked for a good while about this movie going towards a more haunting/atmospheric approach and pretty much the last third or so of the trailer features a montage signifying that very thing, that the threat of the Forest is real than ever before. But just as the title card rolls we see Mowgli riding on the belly of Baloo in a river, whistling 'Bare Necessities'. That, I'm sure will be a sigh of joy for the fans of the animation and it reassures us that it hasn't forgotten its playful roots. 

From seeing this trailer, I can definitely see why it achieved its 'anticipated' status. It is a gorgeous looking film brimming with lush environments and an inviting sense of adventure. The Jungle Book is slated for an April 2016 release. And just the next year in 2017, Warner Bros. will also put out their version called Jungle Book:Origins directed by Andy Serkis, so it will be very interesting to see how they will vary in interpretation. 

.

  

HItman and Transporter: Double Feature Impressions (sponsored by Audi...I wish)

When I watched the trailers for Hitman:Agent 47 and Transporter Refueled, they looked very alike tonally and a large majority was pretty much convinced that both would be train-wrecks. In many cases that is true. But after watching both movies, I realise that the similarities do go a bit deeper, such as both are trying to kick off a dormant pre-existing action IPs, both leading men are cherry-picked from hit TV shows, and both are big Audi commercials. So instead of trying to write two reviews, what I will do here is see and sort-of compare both, and find out which one has the edge over the other. But it goes without saying that its better if you catch these on TV if you really feel game enough.

Hitman:Agent 47 revolves around the iconic genetically-enhanced assassin, Agent 47  who is tasked to stop Syndicate International from restarting the program from which he was built as well, to stop any more Agents to form and to do that he must need to find the daughter of the lead scientist who started the program in the first place. While on the other hand Transporter follows illegal goods/getaway driver, Frank Martin, who when his father gets kidnapped, must help a group of Russian prostitutes in France to get enough money to get out of the business.

It is safe to say that neither movie doesn't really focus that much on their respective stories and are mostly there to tie-in the action. However, at least to Transporter's benefit, the trailer doesn't spoil every plot-twist in the movie. Hitman clocks around 96 mins and the story as you can see from the aforementioned description, it is unapologetically convoluted. The plot just sort of happens without the movie giving any sort of clear background or motivation and plainly assumes that everyone is well-versed with the Hitman mythos. And who names their company 'Syndicate', that would be a PR nightmare and what does Syndicate even want with the Agent program, we are not told. In this regard, Transporter, with its more straightforward story is easier to follow, a better pace and with a really well delivered father-son relationship with Frank's father played by Ray Stevenson, is a bit more tolerable in the sense that you have the freedom to ignore the plot and have some plain fun.

However, both movies stab themselves when it comes to being faithful to their source materials. One of them is already starting on the back-foot due to the bad legacy of video-game movies and the flop Hitman movie that came prior to Agent 47. So you would think that the producers for Hitman (who also did the earlier Hitman movie) would put more effort into the movie to be more in-tune with the stealth and tense style of the games. Though in true Hollywood fashion, thy went as far they could from it and make it into a more generic action experience with explosions pretty much devoid of any tension. The closest. It just doesn't feel Hitman, or at least of what I've seen of the games. And add on that a very bad sequel bait/cliffhanger ending sticking out like a sore thumb

Now you may say that Transporter doesn't have near as much legacy as Hitman, but it does not justify completely ignoring the essence of the property. what Luc Besson got right with the first one was that it embraced the over-the-top action with really well choreographed car chases and a decent story about illicit smuggling. Refueled does that for a bit with the prostitutes/human trafficking (no wonder producers of Taken were in this) but loses focus afterwards. And long-gone have the tense and creative car-chases that actually demonstrated driving skill in favour for slow motion and crashes. Though  I wouldn't say they didn't even try. I guess it was the director trying to set a more gritty atmosphere (with generic action music) while doing over-the-top stuff when originally it embraced the over-the-top stuff with a more exaggerated style and tone that made it consistent.

The underlying problem also trickles down to the lead characters as well. As much as Ed Skrein may be a better actor than Jason Statham, but Statham is Frank Martin and no one can take that away from him. One of my main complaints regarding the character ever since I think the second one has been that he has become more of an action hero when originally he was more of a driver character. Even though he is ex-special forces, his main asset had always been his driving ability and his discretion regarding the 'package'. I don't mind the close-combat bits, what I mind is Frank just beating up people for the sake of action, which has got worse in this latest instalment. The mannerisms feel too different from what Frank as a character is. In fact, Ray Stevenson who plays Frank Sr. a better character with more charisma, could have a made a great old Frank Martin, but I assume they wanted someone younger because franchise potential.

As for Rupert Friend as Agent 47,  he definitely doesn't look exactly like the game though I could definitely see little signs of the cold and calculated killer especially in the beginning when he was giving at least 0.1 attention to stealth. I was quite surprised how much I bought Friend as 47 but as the film went somehow the character started to feel a tad one-note. I think that can be attributed to the overall tone of the film seemingly conflicting the inherently darker character, so he becomes rather odd-fitting and underused. That should not be happening when the character in question happens to be your protagonist. As I was saying before, even the previous Hitman starring Timothy Olyphant at least captured some of that grit that I believe was present in the games. I guess what has happened that the film-makers haven't really grasped the essence of the source material and dived head-first to make an action movie first rather than a Hitman movie.

 Both movies are paper-thin for sure. Though what really surprises me is that these two films, both of which coming from very different source materials can result into very similar end-products. These movies seemingly lack in both story and creative action set-pieces and frankly I feel a bit guilty to be just thrashing them like this when they was actual money and human effort behind this. But it is my responsibility to give you an honest opinion. Coming back to the objective at hand, which one of these would I recommend. I would say neither because these also don't necessarily qualify as 'so bad they're good movies'. Though for closure, I will say watch Transporter Refueled its a better told story, has decent locations (via the French Riviera), good character interactions and you can have some mindless fun without pulling you hair out at every turn. I just hope that these producers have learnt their lesson.

Meet the real stars of Hitman and Transporter.....

ps. Why would a stealthy Hitman go for a Blood-Red Audi?

Movie Impressions: The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Fun fact: Did you know Henry Cavill was one of the actors short-listed to play James Bond. However, what comes as a surprise is that his character, Napoleon Solo, a suave american spy in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was created in part by Ian Fleming, the creator of James bond himself. Joining him is also his KGB partner Ilya Kuryakin, played by Armie Hammer and their love-hate relationship mixed with political tension and Guy Ritchie's direction makes this spy flick a very enjoyable experience indeed.

U.N.C.L.E. introduces our protagonists in a true Guy Ritchie fashion with a nice kinetic car chase innight-time East Berlin in 1963 Cold War and establishes their relationship in great exposition/flashback scenes that are inter-cut in the chase scene. They are trying to fight over a car mechanic named Gaby(Alicia Vikander due to her 'familial ties' which is of interest to each of their countries. Though when the KGB and CIA reluctantly join together,, Solo and Kuryakin must put aside their differences and work with Gaby to infiltrate the rich Vinciguerra family to retrieve designs for a nuclear bomb.

I won't lie, at this point I am pretty tired of plots regarding nuclear bombs. and this story doesn't change my stand as of now. But you don't come to see a Guy Ritchie movie for a very deep and introspective story. The movie will take you to a trip through Europe, exotic villain islands and a shady shipping yard. However, the story definitely starts strong with a great set-up, and is maintained with good fast action as you should expect from a Guy Ritchie movie.

Guy Ritchie's direction is bold in the sense that there is always a big stamp of his style in each film, especially in this. And the story greatly benefits from his fast-paced and stylistic camera-work with unusual angles here and there. It is quite apparent as the film progresses that it is paying some kind of homage to the spy thrillers of the 1960's and it makes sense since the source material is a show from the 1960's (cough* Mission Impossible). Throughout the movie, you will see sprinkles of humour, and they are good jokes to be found here even though some feel a bit forced sometimes, nonetheless it got a few chuckles out of me. The action is stylised and fast sometimes in excess other times balanced, all times enjoyable.

This is definitely a very character-driven experience and at the heart of it all lies the relationship between Cavill's Napoleon Solo and Hammer's Kuryakin as their allegiances to their respective countries makes them sworn enemies, and now have to work as partners. They're constantly trying ot outsmart and outfight each other but overtime learn to respect each other as agents and as distinct personalities almost jeopardizing their duty to their nation. The plot also juggles between the two well each of them as they play both supporting and hero roles relative to each other whenever the plot requires, with nice character moments for each. It also keeps the tension of KGB vs CIA right till the end which I loved and praise this movie for.They try to make a love interest out of Gaby for Kuryakin but it doesn't match their bromance, which is certainly a big reason you should watch this movie. Not many spy movies really have 2 protagaonists take centre stage in this way. 

Special mention should also go to Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra who pretty much is the main antagonist of the film. Firstly, she looks absolutely stunning and works so great as a villain as (quoting from the movie) a lethal combination of beauty, brains and ambition. Examples like Victoria show us that the spy genre can certainly benefit from more female villains who do take charge of the operations, are merciless and not just be sidelined as femme fatales. I was pretty disappointed that she didn't get enough moments in the movie. 

Towards the end we are introduced to Agent Waverly (Hugh Grant) who is what you can say your typical British head-spy if you will. However, if you remember I had said that the source material was based on a 1960's T.V show. And naturally being 2015, everyone wants to make a franchise out of everything, we get a sequel bait (sort of) with agent Waverly building a 'team'. The thing is that the film introduces us to him way too late so we do not know enough of this guy considering the role he is supposed to play in the future. I would've liked him to be introduced in the beginning or at least somewhere early in the middle so we have a good idea of the                                                                                                   character for later appearances. 

Benefiting from great action, direction,  performances all round and a killer soundtrack, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is certainly a movie that can be enjoyed as a decent spy-action film and can be taken with a pinch of nostalgia towards a more simpler time of suave spies and defusing nuclear bombs in a secret island hideout. However, if Warner Bros. does plan on making a sequel, in my opinion the story has to get more sophisticated. 

and of course the one screenshot you will find in almost every review....

oh, .the bromance....