MIFF 2014: Patema Inverted

There seems to be an increase of animated films being shown at MIFF, and I am so happy! This was the only one I got to see, since none of the other times suited me, and they were selling out fast. Speaking of selling out, the session I went to of Patema Inverted was sold out. Which is awesome! Although it did mean I had to sit next to a whole bunch of people who didn't know how to turn their phone off.

Anyway, this is a fairly confusing film to try and summarise in a few sentences, but I will do my best. Patema is a teenager living in an underground world of caverns who, against the wishes of the Elder, goes out exploring in what is known as the danger zone. One day, she comes across a being who is standing on the ceiling and she gets knocked into a pit that takes her to the surface world. Here she meets a boy called Age, and discovers that while gravity works as normal for Age and his people, for her gravity is reversed and without being held down she could fly off into the sky. The leader of Age's world wants to get rid of every 'invert', as he sees them as sinners. So, the race is on to return Patema to her own people, while also preventing her from flying away.

Like I said, a bit confusing. But it is a good film that works through a difficult concept. The film doesn't go out of its way to explain everything that is happening, which can be both good and bad. I know there were times when I was scratching my head, wondering what the hell was going on. But by the end you have a pretty clear idea of what happened.

And can I just saw, the animation in this is breathtaking! I know everyone goes on about how How To Train Your Dragon and its sequel are able to animate flying so brilliantly, but while watching them I never got that gut feeling of being lifted into the air that I did during this film. And the method for flying is really interesting and different, and ties in well with the rest of the film. Patema and Age discover that by holding onto each other, they each become lighter since they are using each others gravity to move. I think.

The way the setting is designed is also really cool. There are some steampunk elements here and there, which makes me very happy. I guess the biggest problem I had with the film was the voice acting. I saw the original dub, and generally everyone was pretty good. But there were a few moments near the beginning where I swear the voice actor for Patema was trying to destroy my eardrums with her shrillness. She got better as the film went on, but it was very annoying to begin with.

So, this was a pretty excellent film, with brilliant animation and a complex but intriguing concept that the film explored really well. The film also talked about how religion can blind people from understanding others plights, which is a good message to give in this day and age. Apart from some problems I had with the voice acting, this is probably the best animated film I've seen all year. There are some scary moments, so really little kids might not like it. But for older kids, and people who like good sci-fi, check this out.

I'm writing this blog on the last day of the festival, so the chances of anyone seeing the last of these films is very slim. But I did set myself a challenge to write on every film that I watch, and I don't plan on ending it now. I have three more films to write about, and they should come out in the coming week. Hopefully. I might have an essay that requires me to concentrate on it rather than writing these silly little blog posts. But we'll see. Until next time, readers.

MIFF 2014: Obvious Child

Okay, to be perfectly honest, the main reason I wanted to see this film was because of the director. Or, to be more specific, the director's name. Her name is Gillian Ropespierre, and if that doesn't also make you want to immediately see this film then we can't be friends. After watching the trailer, I was intrigued into what sort of film this would turn into, since it's tackling a subject that is quite controversial in America, abortion. And it's a comedy. How could this work? Could this work? Well, I am pleased to say that it can.

Donna (Jenny Slate), a comedienne who also works in a bookshop, is dumped after one of her sets by her boyfriend, who also reveals that he has been cheating on her with one of her friends. After having a one night stand with Max (Jake Lacy), Donna discovers that she is pregnant and, realising that she isn't ready for motherhood, decides to have an abortion. Meanwhile, as she and Max grow closer, she tries to tell him of her decision, while also trying to get a grip on her quickly deteriorating life.

First up, this film tackles a subject that most rom-coms shy away from in both a funny and honest way. Most rom-coms that revolve around unexpected pregnancy don't even consider other options to having the baby, despite how immature the parents may be. And, most importantly, Obvious Child doesn't condemn Donna for deciding to get an abortion. And I applauded the film for taking a controversial subject and not making it a message film. It's not about being pro-choice or pro-life, it's just about one persons decision. It doesn't treat it like a be all and end all situation, it's just another event in her life that she learns and grows from.

But I think the crowning glory of Obvious Child is the way it takes quite a serious subject and making it funny! And this film is pretty hilarious! I think it was Kevin Smith who once said "The big bucks are in dick and fart jokes". If that is the case then this film should make millions. Most of the humour is dialogue and character based, but it's centered in a realistic setting, which basically means that the film doesn't go out of its way to create comedic set-points that would not happen in real life. That being said, most of the dialogue is full of bodily fluids, genitalia, and of course, dicks and farts. And it is gloriously funny!

 
Unlike other films that uses crude, gross-out humour to make shock jokes that aren't actually that funny when you get past the shock factor, Obvious Child uses this sort of humour for the characters to hide behind. Donna herself has problems talking face to face with people, and so uses her comedic routines to address the important issues in her life. And again, this masking humour is used in the conversations between Max and Donna, where they tease each other instead of talking about things that need to be talked about.

This way of using humour creates a vulnerability in Donna that is both relatable and honest. And this also comes through in Jenny Slate's acting. I haven't come across Slate before, apparently she was in Parks and Recreation, but I haven't watched that... yet. I hope she does some more films, and I also hope that Gillian Robespierre makes more films, since this is one of the funniest American comedies I have seen in a long while. It was also nice to Gabby Hoffmann in a role after years of not doing much. And here, playing Donna's feminist amd free-spirited roommate, Nellie, she really has come a long way from her roles in pre-teen melodramas.

I suppose I should also talk about the romance briefly, and it's not bad. The biggest complaint I have is that Max does come across like a saint at times, which is a problem a lot of rom-coms have. But I am glad that he and Donna don't do the whole 'love at first sight' thing. There is an attraction, there is sex, but the relationship part takes time to grow and develop throughout the film. And there is a chemistry between Slate and Lacy that makes their interactions seem natural.

So, if you're tired of the general paint-by-numbers rom-coms that are still being produced, then you should check this one out. The characters are awesome and realistic, the acting is great, it tackles a controversial subject while also making dick and fart jokes. What more could you want? Until next time, readers.

MIFF 2014: Life After Beth

Zombie comedies is my favourite sub-genre of horror films. So naturally, when I heard that one was on offer at MIFF, I got excited. And when I saw the title, I got more excited and also got some tickets. And last night, I got to see this little indie comedy.

The film revolves around Zach Orfman (Dane DeHaan), who is still mourning the loss of his girlfriend Beth Slocum (Aubrey Plaza), when she suddenly comes back to life with no memories of her death. Despite being initially freaked out, Zach and Beth resume their relationship. However, Zach soon realises that the newly alive Beth is not the same Beth that he used to know. And just maybe, the zombie apocalypse is also happening.

So, the thing with comedy is that it is subjective from one person to the next. What one person finds funny, someone else won't. Me, personally, I don't like films in general where characters shout over the top of each other in an attempt to be realistic (looking at you, David O. Russell). Life After Beth unfortunately does this. I just don't see why you would have everyone talking at once when you're comedy is based predominantly on dialogue. If you can't hear the dialogue, then you can't hear the jokes! This was the one big flaw of the film for me, but I do understand that it is also a personal pet peeve. If you like films like that, well done! You will probably enjoy this one.

Anyway, moving on after that rant, what are the good things in Life After Beth? Well, for starters the cast is amazing! Especially Dane DeHaan and Aubrey Plaza. I see both of them becoming big stars in the future. And if they don't, then the world is crazy! Other actors that should be mentioned include Matthew Gray Gubler as Zach's older, trigger-happy brother Kyle, John C. Reily as Beth's overprotective father who can't understand that his daughter is turning into a monster, and Anna Kendrick, who has a small role as a parody of those girls that One Direction sing about. The rest of the cast is made up (presumably) well-known American comedy actors that I haven't really heard of.

I do have to say that despite my rant earlier, this is a very funny film. Which is good, because there really is not a lot of plot, but because the action of the film is made up the characters reactions to situations I can overlook that. The fact that the zombie apocalypse is treated in such an upper-middle class manner makes the jokes more interesting and funny than if everyone's reaction was based in reality. And there are some really funny moments dealing with the zombies themselves and how they are deteriorating. The way zombies are treated themselves is pretty interesting, as they come back normal, but become more aggressive and violent the longer they stay.

All in all, the new way of dealing with zombies and the mix of very American, suburban humour makes Life After Beth a really good film. Aubrey Plaza is awesome, and any flaws in the plot is made up for with the acting. If you like zombie comedies, or genre films in general, or indie films, then I would recommend this one. Until next time, readers. 

MIFF 2014: When Animals Dream

It seems that the countries leading the world in terms of horror films are the Nordic ones. In particular, Norway and Sweden have produced some excellent horror and genre films within the last ten years, including Troll Hunter and Dead Snow. Now, Denmark has joined their ranks in producing an excellent werewolf thriller, that is both intelligent and chilling.

When Animals Dreams focuses around a young woman, Marie (Sonia Suhl), who lives in a small fishing community with her father, Thor (Lars Mikkelsen), and her wheelchair bound mother (Sonja Richter). When she gets a job at the fish processing factory to help her parents, Marie starts discovering strange changes in her body, starting with a rash on her breast. As the changed become more and more prominent, Marie starts exhibiting odd behaviour that startles others in her village. She also discovers these changes may or may not have something to do with how her mother ended up in a wheel chair. Eventually, the townspeople start hunting her down as a means to protect their community.

What good films do is present exposition in natural ways, that don't clunk up the narrative. They also let the audience use their brains to figure out what may be going on. This film does that, slowly unraveling the mystery of what is happening to Marie as she, and by extension the audience, come across each new piece of information. The word werewolf is never used, nor is it explicitly spelled out what actually happened to her mother, but through the information we are given, it's not hard to see what's going on.  It's very clever the way the film never gives full answers, just enough exposition to hint at what is going on. You rarely see films like that nowadays, let alone horror films.

Well, if that's what good films in general do, then good horror films take advantage of the supernatural creature/force/thingy and have them represent a certain aspect of society or whatever. And When Animals Dream does this as well. Now, as with any film, it could be interpreted in many ways, so this is just my interpretation. But for me, the werewolf and the changes going on in Marie represent female coming of age, and embracing your individuality and identity. This theory is strengthened by the fact that Marie, once she does start transforming, fully embraces the animal inside her. The townspeople's reaction, that of violence and condemnation, could represent the power of conformity and the suppression of female freedom. Again, just my interpretation. But it is nice to have a horror film where such interpretations can be made.

So, what is the most important part of a werewolf film? The special effects. And the effects that they use here are very subtle. We, unfortunately, never see a full transformation. But the snippets we do see are very well done, using both computer effects and make-up. The make-up here is used really well, as small changes are added to Marie's body and face, just to hint that something is happening. And her transformed look retains her human body, while her stance and face change drastically. It's a really effective, and different way to show a werewolf onscreen.

The cinematography is also really good, with some breathtaking views of Danish coastline. But it adds to isolation of the village, and the danger that Marie is in when she tries to leave. Through the isolation of the place, a tension runs throughout the film that builds until the climax. Its really effective, but it makes the film less outright scary and more subtly haunting. Which is good, because horror films that rely on jump-scares get really boring after a while.

So, if you're looking for a smarter horror film or just an excellent retelling of the werewolf story, then I would definitely recommend this. The gore is not overt, there are few bloody moments here and there, but for most of the time the film relies on atmosphere rather than gore or jump-scares. The story is excellently told, the acting is really good, and the cinematography is beautiful. Not you typical werewolf film, but much better for it because of that I think. Until next time, readers.

MIFF 2014: I Hired a Contract Killer

One of the guidelines I set for myself when choosing films to see was to have at least one film from one of the retrospectives in the program. The film I ended up seeing, I Hired a Contract Killer, was a part of the retrospective focusing on Jean-Pierre Léaud, a respected French actor who I have never heard of. I chose this film over the other ones being offered for a number of reasons. It was on at a good time, in a good cinema, and the premise looked brilliant. 

So, the basic plot is that lonely Frenchman Henri (Léaud) finds himself out of a job and with nothing to live for. After failing to kill himself numerous times, Henri finally decides to hire a hitman (Kenneth Colley) to actually do the job for him. However, before he can be killed, Henri meets Margaret (Margi Clarke) and the two fall in love. But the hitman is still after Henri, and he won't stop until the job is done. 

This is a strange little film, that could be considered either a dark comedy or a romantic comedy, with the film mixing dark subject matter and sweet romance throughout. The acting is odd, especially Margi Clarke as Margaret. The way she speaks some of her lines is quite weird, but it works for her character and makes her memorable. There is little dialogue, most of the information being conveyed through visuals and gestures.Which is how films should be! I'm not going to lie, I really like this film and how all the elements of plot, acting, comedy, and romance make it both un-Hollywood and unpretentious. And that was before I found out who the director was. 

The film is directed by Aki Olavi Kaurismäki, a Finnish director probably most famous for Leningrad Cowboys Go America, one of the best road-trip movies ever made, and one of my favourite films. I Hired a Contract Killer is very similar to Leningrad Cowboys (which is where the band comes from), in that the situations are a little outrageous, the acting is a little off, and the plot is a little convoluted, but all that mess creates a very fulfilling and funny film, that despite being dark has a sweet centre. I found myself liking all of the characters in this film, including the hitman who gets quite an interesting (if slightly cliched) backstory that makes him more sympathetic. But what stood out for me was the romance between Henri and Margaret. It was a different way of doing the whole 'love at first sight' thing that worked in the context of the film, and contrasted with the industrial and depressing setting.

If you are a fan of odd movies, interesting premises, or dark humour, then I would recommend this film. I put this film with the likes of Harold and Maude, or Keeping Mum, so if you like films like them then you'll probably like this. I'm just glad there are still some film-makers out there who managed to escape the Hollywood system to create interesting and different movies, that still manage to be both funny and romantic. It's a refreshing thing to watch after the crude comedies of Judd Apatow or the boringly offensive movies of Adam Sandler. So, I guess I'll be looking for more
Jean-Pierre Léaud and Aki Kaurismäki movies now. I hope some of you do the same. Until next time, readers.

MIFF 2014: Joe

It seems a shame that Nicolas Cage has become such a punchline in recent years, especially since he is a very good actor when given the right sort of material. Joe is one of the first films in years that lets Cage show how good an actor he can actually be. This is the sort of film that people who don't believe he can act need to see. But is the film as a whole, taking out the Nicolas Cage factor, actually an good? I think it is, but I do think there are also a few flaws here and there.

The film focuses on Joe (Cage) an ex-con who runs a deforestation business. It's through this business that he meets Gary (Tye Sheridan), a 15 year old boy who starts working for him. The film focuses on these two characters, their interactions with the other members of the backwater society they find themselves, and how they both survive such an uncaring part of the world. The two end up becoming friends, with Gary seeing Joe as the father he always wanted. Gary's actual father, Wade (Gary Poulter), is meanwhile creating a downward spiral that threatens to drag the rest of his family down with him.

So, thing about the character of Joe, is that he is essentially a thug with a heart of gold. There are some things that he does in the film that are really questionable, but Cage manages to make the audience stay on his side through it all (although that could have something to do with how the rest of the characters are written, but we'll get to that later). Tye Sheridan also does a good job as a kid who comes from a broken home, yet manages to retain his youthful optimism about most things despite how hard his life is. The film spends a lot time showing how beneficial the relationship between these two is to both characters, and they are the strongest parts of the film. Another nice thing that I liked was the destruction/rebirth symbolism through the jobs that Gary gets. It's some much needed hopefulness to the end of what would otherwise be a very depressing film.

And that brings me to my first criticism of the film. This is a very bleak and dark story, with some of the most hideous characters I've ever seen on film. There are two main antagonists, Wade and Willie-Russel (Ronnie Gene Blevins), who are so disgusting and despicable that they seem to almost be more like caricatures than characters. Almost. There are some moments in the film that make them more than one dimensional villains. But it is still unpleasant to watch what they do in the film. And they are given very little motivation or back-story. A lot of secondary characters lack that, actually. They just appear, we may learn one or two facts, and then that's it from them for the rest of the film. It's a bit annoying, but it sort of works with the rambling nature of the narrative. But part of still wants to know why Willie-Russel would wear a bunny mask when he rapes someone.

There are a few other nitpicks I had with the film. Most of the scenes are shot with intense close-up shaky cam, that makes me sick. If can stomach that sort of film-making, then well done. And the southern accents can sometimes get so thick that it's extremely hard to understand what the characters are saying at times. But those are minor things. I did like this film, and as I found myself thinking about it again for this review, I found myself liking it more. There is an air of menace that hangs over the film, that adds tension but also makes it hard to watch at times. But if you like good drama films or character studies, then I would definitely recommend this. If you are a Nicolas Cage fan, you may be disappointed he doesn't have many insane moments, though there is a highly amusing scene when he is drunk.

In the end, this is a film that should prove to many that Cage does have it in him to give an excellent performance in a film that doesn't have to be manic, or overly intense. It may be a dark film, but it is a good one. Until next time, readers.
 

MIFF 2014: The Young and Prodigious TS Spivet

I'm not going to lie, this is the film I was most looking forward to out of the entire MIFF program. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is one of my favourite directors, and the only director whose entire filmography I've seen. Including Alien Resurrection. This film marks his English language debut, and his first film shot in 3D. With all this in mind, when I went to see the film yesterday my expectations were pretty high. And not only were they met, they were exceeded!

First of all, this is the only time I have ever been impressed by 3D. The cinematography is truly breathtaking, and the use of 3D only enhances the visuals rather than hindering, like it does in so many other films. One of the main problems I have with the medium is that the overall film ends up too dark to completely enjoy, but here, the colour balance was good, and I could actually see what was going on. If only every film that used 3D didn't waste it as a cheap gimmick to be applied during post-production as a way to make extra money.

Also excellent is the acting. After stagnating for a few years, Helena Bonham Carter is excellent as TS's mother, Dr Clair. The character could have been played as feather-brained, but instead Carter plays her with a grounded personality, providing an interesting spin on the absent-minded professor parent-type character. But the real stand-out here is Kyle Catlett as the eponymous TS, a boy genius who tries to deal with a family who doesn't understand him in the wake of a terrible tragedy that affects them all. While there are moments when his youth comes across as almost grotesquely cutesy, but Catlett's personality manages to create a character rather than just a caricature.

I suppose I should now move onto the plot, which when described is fairly straight forward, but when you're watching it you come to realise that the film is not really about the plot at all. Anyway, the basic story is 10 year old TS Spivet invents a perpetual motion machine which wins a prestigious scientific award. After some thinking, TS decides to hitch a freight train to Washington DC from his Montana ranch to accept the award in person. When he arrives there, he realises that winning the award is not the answer to his problems that he thought it would be. That's what the basic plot is, but like I said, the film is more of a study of how this rather odd family comes to terms with a recent tragedy, and move forward from it.

The film is littered with the usual Jeunet-isms that may annoy if you aren't familiar with his style or are just not of fan of it. There is a voice-over narration that talks about seemingly inconsequential everyday occurrences, there are little animations or cut-aways to show these occurrences, a lot of time is spent describing little details, there is a vintage feel to the sets and costumes, Dominique Pinon turns up somewhere... the list goes on! I love his style, because it's different and unique to Jeunet. But I have found a lot of reviews describing this as 'overly twee'. And to a certain extent, I agree. But then you have to remember that this film is told from the perspective of a ten year old boy. The film explains how he notices the small details in his life and how he is fascinated by them, so naturally they should appear regularly in the film. If you keep that in mind, then this film becomes an interesting examination of how, while maybe not all children, at least this child reacts to the world around him.

It's not perfect (no film ever is!). One of the problems I had was that the plot sometimes got a little confusing, since a lot of cuts are used between the characters and their situations. But it's hard to know whether it's in TS's head, or if it's actually happening, or if it's a flashback. It's also resolved fairly easily and without any of the complications you expect to arise. But because the actions remain true to the characters (and because I'm a sucker for a good old fashioned happy ending), I can forgive the rushed feeling of the end.

If it wasn't already clear, I really, really like this film! I haven't managed to find out if it's getting a larger release in Australia, but I'm hoping it comes out to a wide release (it won't, I'm just setting myself up for disappointment). I hope Jeunet continues to make films as interesting as this, and his previous ones. If you're a fan, you shouldn't be disappointed. If you aren't a fan, then we can't be friends. If you have no idea who I've been rattling on about, then try and see this film. It's a good introduction to Jeunet's world, while also being good family entertainment. Enough gushing now. Until next time, readers.

MIFF 2014: Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films

Well, it's that time of year again! The Melbourne International Film Festival has returned again! This year I will be seeing 10 films! I am so excited! I think I've used enough exclamation marks though. Hopefully, I will stick to my plan of writing about each of the films I see. But if I don't, nothing will happen. I'll feel bad for a week, or something. Anyway, my MIFF adventure started last night at Melbourne Central Hoyts, with the newest (and apparently last) documentary from director Mark Hartley, Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films, who also directed Not Quite Hollywood, and last years Patrick.

Electric Boogaloo, as you could probably tell from the title, recounts the history of B-movie production studio Cannon Films, focusing on the two men who ran it during the 80s, Israeli cousins Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus. I've only recently been introduced to Cannon Films, having seen the 1983 Hercules that they made, but I have heard of some of their more legendary flops, like Breakin' and its sequel, American Ninja, Superman IV, and Masters of the Universe. This film goes through the making of these films, and more, and really highlights the craziness of the Golan and Globus, and how they ran the business. The film also explains how the company split them up and failed, for despite their great love of movies, neither man really knew how to make films that would be successful in America.

Like Not Quite Hollywood, the film uses talking heads to get across most of the story of Cannon. And it's incredible how many people they got to talk for the film. B-movie legends like Sybil Danning, Richard Chamberlain, Alex Winter, Dolph Lundgren, and Bo Derek are interviewed, but there are also a lot of behind the scenes people featured as well. Ranging from directors, writers, editors, and cinematographers to CEOs and chairmen of both Cannon and other film studios.

Clips are used from the films that being spoken about to great advantage. More than once I found myself thinking "Hey, that one looks fun! Stupid, but fun. I should check that out sometime." Archival footage of Golan and Globus is also used effectively to show the personalities of the two men, since neither agreed to appear in the film. The one complaint of the film I have is that because of the focus on the two men rather than the company as a whole, it didn't go into great detail about what happened to the company after the two split. I was a little confused as to whether Cannon continued without the both of them, but that's a minor complaint that a quick Google search can fix easily.

 All in all, this is a fitting tribute to a studio that may have had great dreams, but just lacked the talent and patience to really make them a reality. The spirit of Golan and Globus really came through the numerous interviews, and you got the idea that they knew how to sell movies to anyone. Making them was a different matter.

This was an excellent start to MIFF, and I am intensely looking forward to the next nine films I have in front of me. Until next time, readers.