⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Mel Gibson
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, Hugo Weaving, Rachel Griffiths, Vince Vaughn
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 139 mins

Mel Gibson’s had quite an unstable career in the film industry who has enjoyed a lot of success both behind and in front of the camera. He’s perhaps best remembered on-screen for the lead role in the first three ‘Mad Max’ films and in the ‘Lethal Weapon’ films and in terms of directing, he directed the 1995 epic ‘Braveheart’ which won 5 Academy Awards and then went on to direct the controversial ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘Apocalypto’. Unfortunately, it all ended there and after a string of infamous controversies in his personal life, he hasn’t quite been able to re-integrate back into film. It’s a real shame because the man has a lot of talent and passion for his craft but ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is his first time back in the director’s chair after the utterly bonkers ‘Apocalypto’ that I really enjoyed. Gibson is a great visual storyteller and his films tend to have a lot of depth to them and also he more than indulges in strong bloody violence which always push the age rating of his films up a notch. ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ tells the true story of Desmond Doss, an American Army Medic in World War II who refuses to carry a gun for which he gets outcast by his fellow soldiers. He manages to defy his superiors and ultimately serves at the Battle of Okinawa where he becomes the first man in American history to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. It’s an ambitious story to tell and one that Gibson seems to hold dear to him as he has talked very favourably about this war hero in all of the film’s promotional material and rightly so. Andrew Garfield, after an electrifying turn in Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence‘ plays Doss and he has received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor for his performance here. The cast also includes Teresa Palmer, Hugo Weaving but also a couple of surprises including Sam Worthington who, with the exception of ‘Everest‘ where he was reduced to a supporting role has never been that great an actor, Vince Vaughn who is most widely recognised for comedy and Luke Bracey who has also been in a fair amount of rubbish such as ‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ and the turgid remake of ‘Point Break’. However if anyone is going to get a good performance out of this cast, it’s Gibson and the film has received rave reviews and has even earned Gibson a Best Director nomination which given his personal circumstances is testament to the quality of the film. Many have described the film as the most ‘violent pacifist film’ you will ever see!

And what a film ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is! ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is one of the best war films I have ever seen and features some stunning performances with Gibson’s signature gory yet visceral battle sequences that really throw these men into hell-and-back. Gibson is able to really portray the hardship that these men endure time and time again and whilst I am ever respectful of those fight for their country, this film elevated my respect even more for them whilst watching this film. The film is extremely well-shot and features many memorable sequences – this film fully deserves the Awards attention it is getting! That said, the film is not without fault and an inconsistency in tone is this film’s biggest problem as the two distinct halves of the film don’t quite gel together. The first half in particular of the film which develops these characters and prepares Doss for the battle that lies ahead often head into conventional territory and it is quite bizarre as it almost feels like Gibson is knowingly do this but to what purpose, I’m not sure. However, when the film is able to go berserk, it does and it is immensely satisfying.

The performances in this film are round-the-board great and it is testament to Gibson that we can get good work from Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey and Vince Vaughn, who actually along with Andrew Garfield give the best performances. Seriously. Sam Worthington actually lends some gravitas and subtlety to the role of Doss’ Captain and the two have a lot of disagreements early on in the film and Luke Bracey’s character also goes through this path of enlightenment and is also quite subdued. However, the standout in the cast is Vince Vaughn who I never thought I would say this but gives a career-best performance. He is perfect as Sergeant Howell, initially Doss’ superior until he doesn’t know how to handle his conscientious objections. I really felt for Vaughn’s character and I thought he managed to perfectly blend a sinister, sympathetic and at times comedic performance. It’s a shame he hasn’t received an Oscar nomination for his work here. Of course,  Andrew Garfield is great here in the lead role but that was always to be expected and he manages to perfectly embody Doss’ modesty and inspiring nature.  I do believe that Garfield gives the better performance in ‘Silence’ as he plays a more complicated character there but at least he’s getting recognised for his work as he is still very strong in ‘Hacksaw Ridge’. Hugo Weaving is as expected, solid in this film too as Garfield’s militant father who is facing his own personal problems from World War I and has never recovered from the experience.

‘Hacksaw Ridge’ has a clear juxtaposition between its two halves which is where the film runs into problems a bit and as mentioned, in particular with the first half it is riddled with cliche. However, I am a little conflicted as I think Gibson has consciously decided to go down this road in order for one to get on-board with this film and to sympathise with the characters as some sequences in particular are quite noticeably over-the-top. The film still tells a compelling story and I was extremely involved with it so it does work but I think if Gibson could have been a little more subtle in execution, it would have elevated the film and made it more original. When the characters do reach the titular ‘Hacksaw Ridge’, the film goes nuts and Gibson directs the battle sequences with flair and fully indulges in all the blood and guts. This film is not for the faint-hearted. I fully empathised and cared for all of the characters and Garfield’s performance is crucial in how much resonance the events have in the film. This is definitely one of the most realistic and visceral depictions of war I have ever seen. What also helps elevate the film into a higher tier is the fact that Gibson does not become overly patriotic. Too many war films do and Clint Eastwood, although a director who I admire, is a big victim of this but Gibson includes several sequences from the Japanese Army’s perspective and Doss’ character doesn’t just help out his own Army, he also rescues some injured Japanese soldiers which I think is key into how much of an impact this film has.

The score by Rupert Gregson-Williams is not particularly memorable but does generally fit into the film well, particularly in the film’s second half. It’s a bit of a shame that the score isn’t better as he has done some good work. The cinematography by Simon Duggan however is very powerful at times particularly in the execution of the battle sequences which he shoots very competently. He too however falls victim in the film’s first act where the film almost has a ‘Life TV’ sheen to it in terms of the lighting and shots he uses. It is a strange decision as I have previously mentioned but when Duggan is allowed to break free like the film does, he does it with gusto and he really manages to add to the showcasing of the horrors of this tragic war.

Overall, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a very powerful film that Gibson directs extremely competently. These are some of the best battle sequences committed to film and the performances by the entirety of the cast are all excellent with the standouts being those who you would not normally expect capable of this. The film fully deserves the Awards attention it is getting and I am glad that Gibson has finally managed to find himself again. This individual really is talented behind the camera and I hope he will continue to direct films that are original and full of depth. However, what hinders ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ from being perfect is its first act which is quite jarring in tone and I can’t quite work out what Gibson is trying to achieve in these sections. When the second act kicks in and elevates the film to new height, there’s no stopping Gibson and for my money, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen and is one of the best films of the year so far.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Garth Davis
Starring: Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, David Wenham, Nicole Kidman, Sunny Pawar
Certificate: PG
Run Time: 118 mins

If you have paid close attention to what films get nominated at the Academy Awards over the years, it is a well-known fact that Harvey and Bob Weinstein’s relationship with the Academy always allow a couple of the films that they have produced to get in there whether or not they are worthy of a nomination. Whatever your views on these Awards, these guys sure know how to play the system. And also, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the films will be of lower quality – they distribute Quentin Tarantino’s films and he’s one of my favourite film directors. ‘Lion’ is the film this year that no-one really expected to get as many nominations as it did. It is Australian director Garth Davis’ directorial debut and recounts the true story of Saroo Brierley and his plight to find his family after he gets lost as a child when he goes out to accompany his brother who is looking for work. The young Saroo ends up on a train that whisks him all the way to Calcutta which he cannot understand the Bengali language and ultimately finds himself being adopted by a couple in Tasmania where he then grow up. Sunny Pawar makes his acting debut as the young Saroo and Dev Patel plays him in the later section of the film as an adult, Patel earning an Oscar nomination for his performance. The cast is rounded out by Rooney Mara, David Wenham and Nicole Kidman, the latter also scoring an Oscar nomination for her turn here. I must admit I didn’t have high expectations for this film and I thought it had only got in because of Weinstein. It looked like a run-of-the mill biopic that was emotionally manipulative and there was a part of me that was quite ready to dish on it. However as one must do, I watched the film with an open mind.

To my surprise, I really liked ‘Lion’ and found it to be an emotionally rewarding and heartfelt experience and the material was respectfully judged by Garth Davis. It features some very real performances with the standout being Dev Patel and although it can’t quite shake off the biopic feel at times, its narrative manages to do a lot of the heavy lifting. It also features a very memorable score that is respectful and well-judged and the cinematography is equally effective in encapsulating the narrative of the film.

The performances that this film hinges on are all very strong with Dev Patel as the older Saroo being the standout.  Patel gives a perfectly judged performance and is a very versatile actor. He has to deal with the fragmented memory of his family that he cannot remember their location and he doesn’t know where he has come from. At one point, he is completely overwhelmed and this gives Patel a chance to really display his acting chops. Sunny Pawar, a newcomer, is also fantastic and in the early sections in the film that concentrate on his performance, he manages to convey his fright and despair in his situation and the audience get to experience his constant fear of the unknown. David Wenham and Nicole Kidman play the parents who adopt Saroo in Tasmania and both are brilliant – they are both compassionate and are really convincing in their roles. Although Rooney Mara’s role is small, she manages to make a good impression as the older Saroo’s girlfriend who is conflicted and doesn’t quite know how to help him with his journey.

The story that Davis manages to adapt is very respectful and I must say at first when I had heard that this film deals with finding one’s parents through Google Earth had me quite trepidatious as that is inherently not particularly cinematic but Davis really manages to handle this well and the film doesn’t just become like a seemingly paid advert for Google. The film is split into two rather distinct halves both dealing with the two iterations of Saroo – the first half a tale of despair, isolation and fearing the unknown and the second act, redemption and the sheer will to be reunited. There’s a very poignant moment in the middle of the film where Wenham and Kidman’s characters adopt a second child who has difficulties adjusting to this life and the film almost feels as if we shouldn’t be welcome to witnessing these difficulties. Davis ultimately does a very economical job of retelling this story with it not feeling pretentious which it very easily could have been and not being too in-your-face and contrived.

The Oscar-nominated score, a collaboration between Dustin O’Halloran, an American pianist and composer and Hauschka, German, is very memorable and perfectly encapsulates the various feelings Saroo has in the film and his journey to be reunited with his family. I thought it was very well judged and even as a standalone piece of music, is gripping. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is also well judged and particularly in the first half, manages to encapsulate the haphazard chain of events that happen at random to Saroo, who is completely unsure of what will happen to him as he drifts further and further away from home.

Overall, ‘Lion’ really surprised me and I ended up really liking it. It was very touching at times and I felt that all of the performances were very grounded and real whilst maintaining the utmost respect. It’s a really interesting true story that has a modern spin to it by him using Google Earth to try and get closer to finding his home and the film deals with the idea of fragmented memory really well. It’s not perfect and it can’t quite stand itself apart from genre conventions but I really wasn’t expecting to like it as much as I did. In terms of the quality of the film, I would rate it as one of the stronger entries in this year’s crop of films that have been nominated for Best Picture. Go and see it!

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

When he is working with the correct material, director M. Night Shyamalan is pretty much untouchable. That was the case in the early part of his career with ‘The Sixth Sense’, ‘Signs’ and my personal favourite of his ‘Unbreakable’. However after this rise to fame, Shyamalan then ran into trouble and his next films were each worse than the last culminating in ‘The Last Airbender’ and ‘After Earth’. Shyamalan had pretty much committed career suicide and no-one really wanted him to work on a film due to this poor reputation. In 2015, Shyamalan teamed up with Blumhouse Productions, a micro-budget horror production behind hits such as ‘Insidious’, ‘Sinister’ and ‘The Purge’ to make a comedy-horror film that he personally financed called ‘The Visit‘. I found a lot to like in it and thought it was a step in the right direction for him but it didn’t manage to reach the heights of some of his earlier work. ‘Split’ is the next step in Shyamalan’s comeback and tells the story of a man suffering with dissociative identity disorder who has 23 personalities and is played by James McAvoy. This is easily the meatiest role McAvoy has ever been able to land and this has looked like a promising vehicle for him to star in. McAvoy’s character kidnaps three teenage girls, the leader of which is played by Anya Taylor-Joy, an actress who I really respect in her rise in the film industry and Betty Buckley stars as McAvoy’s psychiatrist who has devoted her life to helping people with this disorder. Again, this has been distributed by Blumhouse Productions and its budget is a low $9 million so slightly more for Shyamalan to work with compared to $5 million for ‘The Visit’. It all sounds promising on paper and the reviews have indicated this to be the case.

‘Split’ is frequently entertaining, very competently directed and features some powerhouse sequences. It is one of Shyamalan’s best works. I will not be going into spoilers but Shyamalan’s signature twist is one of his best and one of the best twists of the decade so far – it is so, so clever. Shyamalan’s twists of late haven’t been able to shock compared to some of his earlier work but this might potentially be his best one he’s ever done. However, when one focuses on how ‘Split’ functions purely as a film, it is not perfect. It is overlong and way too exposition heavy which derails the film a little. There is a near-perfect 100 minute film in here if a lot of this exposition was omitted and this would make the run time more economical.

Shyamalan manages to get some great performances out of the actors in this film and the standouts are both James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy. McAvoy gets a lot to work with here and gives a career-best performance and without spoilers, really goes to extreme lengths at times with his performance. Anya Taylor-Joy more than manages to hold up to McAvoy and Shyamalan gives her character a great character arc to work with that is suitably developed throughout the film. The other two girls who are kidnapped played by Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula are largely throwaway in terms of their characters function to the narrative but both do the best with they have to work with. Betty Buckley’s character is problematic. Whilst she gives a good performance, her character is purely in the film for exposition purposes which as mentioned, brings the quality of the film down.

The story that Shyamalan has crafted fires on all cylinders and the film’s twist gives a completely different spin on what you have just witnessed and thus, the film is ripe for repeat viewings. The film is not too dissimilar from other thriller films of late that have dealt with a kidnapping for example the near-perfect ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ and the flawed but suitably nasty ‘Don’t Breathe’ and ‘Split’ manages to hold up. Both McAvoy and Taylor-Joy’s character receive strong character arcs and we really end up caring for these characters, even McAvoy whose character can be particularly nasty at times.

The score by West Dylan Thordson is brilliant – a departure from Shyamalan’s normal collaborations with James Newton Howard, Thordon’s score features some memorable riffs and manages to compliment the dark, brooding mood of the film. The cinematography by Mike Gioulakis is equally brilliant and he was responsible for shooting one of my favourite films of 2015, ‘It Follows’ and he does just as good a job here and really manages to encapsulate the claustrophobia and discerning mood the film creates.

Overall, ‘Split’ is a great step in the right direction for Shyamalan and if he had managed to trim out the exposition by Betty Buckley’s character which is excessive in nature which would have shortened the film’s run time, the film would pretty much be perfect. However despite this mis-step, ‘Split’ is largely successful and features great performances, a twisty and intriguing narrative topped off with a twist of epic proportions. It ranks as one of his best works and if you are a fan of the films that Shyamalan first started out making in his character, I would deeply urge you to go and see this film at the earliest opportunity.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Pablo Larraín
Starring: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup, John Hurt
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 99 mins

‘Jackie’ is a biopic about the wife of the ill-fated President John F. Kennedy, played by Natalie Portman, and the aftermath of his assassination seen through her eyes. It is set as an interview where an unnamed reporter (many have speculated the film to be a retelling of the 1980 Life interviewby a Theodore White) interviews Jackie who recounts her tragedy. It is directed by Chilean director Pablo Larraín and this film is his English-language debut after directing many well-received Chilean films the most recent of which being ‘The Club’ and ‘Neruda’, both films being selected as Chile’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award but ultimately not nominated. Larraín clearly has talent but this film does seem like a bit of a strange choice as it doesn’t really suit his style. However, the film has received very strong reviews and Natalie Portman has received acclaim for her performance, garnering a Best Actress nomination.

‘Jackie’ is hypnotic in its execution at times but frustratingly also quite alienating and hard to connect with. The film is strongly and precisely directed by Larraín who has, for the most part, crafted a fascinating character story on the First Lady. Having Larraín directing this film ensures that this is not your standard biopic and instead what we get is more of an arthouse, deeper almost philosophical insight into this tragic event, told through Portman’s eyes. On that note, the performance by Natalie Portman is fantastic and totally deserving of the praise. The film is also meticulously shot by cinematographer Stéphane Fontaine and the film has a rather fragmented sheen to it to reflect this dysfunctional and troubling time in American history. But the overall film can be quite tonally cold at times and hard to access – it’s a film that definitely requires a second viewing to make a final judgement.

The success of this film hinges on its strong performances and pretty much across the board, the performances are very strong but this really is Portman’s film to command. I think part of the reason why I found this film hard to connect with at times and a little jarring was because of her performance and for most of the film, Portman is performing Jackie’s performance and very rarely do we get to see this character take a breather and connect with her a little. That said, I think what Portman goes for here is extremely original and again, with a second viewing, I’ll be able to appreciate her performance even more. Her character is effectively a ghost once her husband dies, she dies with him and is just pushed away out of importance and she watches these events unfold from a distance and sticks to her morals in remembering her husband appropriately. There are also some great supporting turns by Peter Sarsgaard as the President’s brother, Greta Gerwig and Billy Crudup as the reporter but the actor who made the best impression was the late John Hurt who gives one of his best performances as a Priest and the final lines in the film with his character are particularly poignant given his death, testament to the fact that we truly have lost a great man and a commanding screen presence.

I was very excited to see that Mica Levi would be scoring this film after being totally enamoured with her work on Jonathan Glazer’s 2014 film ‘Under The Skin’ and this is her first score since then and whilst it is once again very original, I did find it very jarring in terms of how it complimented the film and further added to the sense of alienation from both an audience and character perspective.  Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography is superb here though and his imagery here is very intelligently crafted and gives a sense of the stressful time the First Lady faced. When the eruptions of violence do arrive, Fontaine’s cinematography is suitably frenetic to reflect this mood – this is someone who will go far.

In summary, I did find ‘Jackie’ to be quite a powerful and original experience but it is something that requires repeat viewings to fully discover what this film holds as it is quite hard to get into. However when the film opens up, I was totally enamoured with it and due to this, I think it is a film that will only get better the more you watch it. Pablo Larraín and Natalie Portman make for a great combination and as mentioned, I did originally struggle to see how his style would translate here but it does and this definitely has opened the path for him to greatness in Hollywood. Whilst this film will most likely be remembered for Portman, definitely take note of John Hurt’s performance as he too is excellent and testament to why he was so well loved within the film industry. For now, I found a lot to like in the film and this film should hopefully grow with further viewings.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Elle Fanning, Brendan Gleeson, Chris Messina, Sienna Miller, Zoe Saldana, Chris Cooper
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 128 mins

‘Live By Night’ is the latest directorial effort by actor-director Ben Affleck, who has proved quite the talent behind-the-screen as well with hits such as ‘Gone Baby Gone’, ‘The Town’ and ‘Argo’, the latter of which earned three Academy Awards including one for Best Picture. Since ‘Argo’, Affleck’s career has waned with the exception of his turn in David Fincher’s ‘Gone Girl’ in 2014. ‘Runner Runner’ recieved poor reviews, ‘The Accountant’ was mixed at best and what should have been the icing in the cake unfortunately backfired in ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ where he played Batman. Maybe his year this year hasn’t been the best but there has always been this to look forward to. ‘Live By Night’ is an adaptation from the novel of the same name penned by Dennis Lehane of which Affleck’s directorial debut ‘Gone Baby Gone’ was also based on material by the same author. It details the rise and fall of Prohibition-era gangster, Joe Coughlin, the son of a Police Captain, who as revenge for the apparent death of his girlfriend from the notorious gangster Albert White joins the rival Italian Mafia group led by a sinister figure called Pescatore. Pescatore sends him down to Ybor City in Florida from Boston to run his empire which has come under attack from White. This premise sounds as if it’s a classic gangster flick and one that should be directed with real flare by this director. Unfortunately, the film has recieved poor reviews which has led to a massive financial loss for Warner Bros who entrusted him on this project and this has culminated recently in Ben Affleck stepping down as the director for the upcoming solo DC outing, ‘The Batman’. Despite this, I was still looking forward to seeing this film due to the impressive cast that has been assembled which comprises of Affleck, Elle Fanning, Brendan Gleeson, Zoe Saldana and Chris Cooper to name a few prominent actors and I struggle to see how Affleck can make a bad film out of this material.

‘Live By Night’ is an entertaining film that features some good performances and an engaging narrative but it is ultimately rather hollow as it races through a lot of material in what is already quite a lengthy 128 minute runtime. It’s quite rare for a film to be too short but this is and I think an extra half-an-hour or so could have fleshed these characters out more and establish a more concise narrative. It is competently directed by Affleck and is well shot by Robert Richardson who chews the scenery here and I was never bored by it. It doesn’t deserve the damning reviews it has recieved so far but it’s not quite excellent either.

The film features some strong performances even though it is mainly only Affleck’s character that is developed. Affleck plays this part with ease and despite him being behind the camera in several different roles plays Couglin very coolly and empathetically. The other standouts are Chris Messina who plays his partner, Dion, who joins him from Boston down in Ybor and Chris Cooper, a Sheriff that Couglin befriends. Although not listed in the main cast list, Matthew Maher has a small role as a member of the Klu Klux Klan who causes multiple problems for Affleck’s gangster and Brendan Gleeson also has a small role in the beginning of the film as Coughlin’s father who is always extremely versatile. The female characters played by Zoe Saldana and Sienna Miller in the film are painfully average except for Elle Fanning who plays a small but pivotal role in this narrative which is one of the best performances by this young actress so far. You will have noticed this repetition of the word ‘small’ as this is very much Affleck’s characters film and no-one else is given a lot to do.

The story on which this based on by Dennis Lehane’s novel is generally very interesting and I was never bored by one second of the film. However as mentioned, there really isn’t a lot for most of the characters to do simply because Affleck races through this material and the film doesn’t get a lot of opportunities to pause for a minute and just breathe. The opening in Boston is efficient and quite economically handled but it is when Affleck’s character reaches Ybor City that problems start to arise. No sooner since he has arrived, the film suddenly winds up at how his power is short-lived and most of the new characters that are introduced are done so in short, serviceable yet contrived sequences that never really earn our empathy towards them.  If Affleck would have chosen to have concentrated the film on a certain time period or had extended the film, I think it would’ve been a better result that wouldn’t have been critically mauled. I don’t think this is the fault of Affleck’s direction though. Affleck directs this film with flair and confidence and it is generally a violent and entertaining flick.

Harry Gregson-Williams’ score is just ok – he is capable of so much more than this and the score isn’t particularly memorable but at the very least, it is serviceable. The cinematography by Robert Richardson however is great and you can tell he’s had fun making this. There are some stunning action sequences that he shoots really assuredly particularly a car chase early on in the film that is especially thrilling and he manages to elevate the entirety of the film.

‘Live By Night’ may not be the Academy Award contender one had hoped for but it certainly isn’t a travesty either. It’s always entertaining, I was never bored by it in the slightest and parts of it are gripping. There are some strong performances and great cinematography too. But the film never amounts to much more than that and especially coming off three hits in his directorial career, the fact that this film isn’t perhaps as good is why the reaction to this film has been how it is. It is quite disheartening to see how much money this film has lost in its box office and some have speculated that the failure of this film scared Affleck into leaving the director’s chair  on ‘The Batman’. Whatever reason behind that when you simply judge ‘Live By Night’ as a film, it is perfectly adequate and a pleasing way to spend just over two hours.

(Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson, Ciaran Hinds, Tadanobu Asano, Issey Ogata, Shinya Tsukamoto, Yōsuke Kubozuka
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 161 mins

‘Silence’ has been Martin Scorsese’s passion project for 25 years and is an adaption of Shūsaku Endō’s 1966 novel of the same name. It details the story of two 17th Century Portuguese Jesuit priests who travel to Japan to preach Christianity and also to find their missing mentor, Father Ferreira, who they fear may have renounced his faith after being tortured. It stars Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver as the two priests, two both very prominent actors who have been elevating up the ranks over the years and the cast is rounded out by Liam Neeson, who plays the small role of Ferreira. A lot of people have been quick to point out that ‘Silence’ marks a departure from a lot of Scorsese’s other work but I would disagree. Take a look at ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ or ‘Kundun’ for example, two other religious epics that he has made and this falls into that category. In fact, in many ways, ‘Silence’ completes a trilogy of religious epics. The film had been expected to go on to be nominated for many Awards but other than a Best Cinematography award for DOP Rodrigo Prieto, the film has been completely shut out despite garnering very strong reviews from both critics and audiences alike. So has ‘Silence’ been worth the wait and is it the careful, meticulously crafted work that we have been led to believe?

‘Silence’ is a beautifully crafted film that features some knock-out performances and is frequently emotionally wrenching. Scorsese directs this film with precision and develops these characters extremely well hence the rather intimidating 161 minute run time. The cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is stunning and the film poses lots of philosophical questions and is a brutal test that questions a lot of characters’ religious beliefs. That said, ‘Silence’ is not quite a perfect film. I have problems with the score (more soundscape) and I also think the film does lose its footing in its ending which tonally shifts a little and it threatens to undo the superb work the rest of the film has tried to craft. It might be that it just requires a rewatch but I did come out feeling underwhelmed as a film that had taken this long to set up its narrative doesn’t exactly reward the viewer’s patience. But despite this, it is a work of art.

‘Silence’ hinges on some truly standout performances not only by its lead actors but also its supporting ones too. Andrew Garfield delivers a career-best performance, demonstrating a great maturity as the Priest, Sebastião Rodrigues, and it is refreshing to see him choose some interesting roles post-‘Spider-Man’. Garfield has been nominated for an Oscar for his lead performance in another Awards film this year, Mel Gibson’s ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ which will be hard to top from this film. Rodrigues’ faith is tested time and time again and Scorsese portrays the extent to which he feels he is of benefit in his mission to spread Catholicism with a sequence mid-way through the film where he looks at his reflection in a puddle of water and sees a Christ-like figure. Adam Driver, who is also a notable rising star over the years is also very good here but he can’t quite match Garfield and is oddly sidelined as the film progresses. Garfield and Driver’s chemistry is very strong but as their characters begin to break away, this does very much become Garfield’s film. Liam Neeson’s role is small but pivotal to this narrative. Besides Garfield, the other standout performance in this film are by the Japanese cast. Tadanobu Asano chews the scenery as the nameless Interpreter and Issey Ogata as the Machiavellian-like Inquisitor who is responsible for the persecution of the Christians. Ogata is fabulous in this role and is very menacing and sinister and is easily able to match Garfield’s performance through repeated conversations over religion and religious torture.

Scorsese manages to craft a very grim picture of Japan, a world at first that these two priests don’t really know and an extended sequence in a secret Christian village manages to perfectly encapsulate the scarcity of this religion and the horrors of being discovered and subsequently tortured. The majority of the second half of the film deals with Garfield’s suffering for his religion and the attempts by the Japanese for him to apostatise. Scorsese chooses to explicitly portray the prolonged, violent torture methods that were used and this really does test our empathy with a lot of the characters that are so well developed. Unlike a lot of his other works, violence and gore is used sparingly to create a sense of shock and isn’t just used for the sake of it. One can tell that this is a deeply personal work and he clearly has a lot of respect for this material and in terms of direction, ‘Silence’ is one of his most maturely directed films yet.

Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography, of whom it looks as if Scorsese is forming a partnership after he shot his last film, ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ too is jaw-dropping and thoroughly deserving of the Oscar nomination it received. Although the film is shot in Taiwan, Taiwan stands in superbly for Japan and we get a real sense of what it is like to live in this world that is completely different to the Priest’s normality in Portugal. The torture sequences have a certain grandeur about them and unlike a lot of Scorsese’s works where the camera work is quite kinetic, Prieto certainly knows when to hold or explore a shot that is a little longer than is comfortable. He truly does a superb job.

I do have some reservations on the ending. After 140-minutes or so of the film, the film suddenly switches focus to another character that we have not been introduced to yet and I think this is to the film’s detriment as we have been following Garfield the whole way through and have endured in his suffering and his principles only for this to suddenly be taken away and told through a third person narrative. This is especially after Scorsese’s fantastic development of these characters through some prolonged sequences where one really gets a sense of this barren world and the ideals within and this is quite a jarring way to end the film. Perhaps the film just needs a rewatch to see how this all fits in but first impressions, the film left me rather cold in its ending and rather short-changed.

I also have some reservations on the score. The score is by Kim Allen Kluge and Kathryn Kluge of whom this is their first foray into film scoring but there are only slight murmurs of music throughout the film at times and the film uses more of a soundscape as opposed to a soundtrack. Perhaps I’m being a little short-sighted but why bother crediting them with this accolade if there is virtually none of it?!

Overall, ‘Silence’ is a fantastic film that explores religion in a very perceptive and personal manner and one can clearly note the effort that Scorsese has put into this project. This is complimented by some superb performances and character development. Faith, of all proportions is tested repeatedly in these characters throughout this film and it really is refreshing to notice these different perspectives from different characters who have led their own unique lives. This is clearly one of Scorsese’s most personal works and it has been worth the wait. This is a film that definitely requires multiple rewatches to work out its ending which I currently do have my reservations about but ‘Silence’ demonstrates that Scorsese is still a masterclass of his own in his direction and it is a real shame that this film hasn’t received the appropriate amount of Awards attention. As a film however, this is one of the best films of the year so far and if you stick with it, it is highly rewarding for the most part.

 (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Justin Kurzel
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling, Michael K. Williams, Ariane Labed, Denis Ménochet
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 115 mins

‘Assassin’s Creed’ is a live-action adaptation of the hit video game of the same name and the latest bid to undo the past failures of video games not translating well into respectable films. Although this is the view shared by much of the film industry, I did quite like Duncan Jones’ 2015 adaptation of ‘Warcraft‘ and Mike Newell’s ‘Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time’ is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. The film is directed by Justin Kurzel who I am a fan of who was behind 2015’s ‘Macbeth‘ and also directed ‘Snowtown’. Whilst I had my reservations on the screenplay for ‘Macbeth’, Kurzel has a flair for directing action so this should be right up his alley especially armed with a healthy $125 million budget. The film details the journey of Callum Lynch who is rescued from execution by a mysterious company called Abstergo who then learns he is a descendant of Aguilar during the Spanish Inquisition. Lynch must use the Animus, a program that allows him to relive Aguilar’s genetic memories in order to learn the location of the coveted Apple of Eden which Abstergo are desperate to source. Kurzel reunites with ‘Macbeth’ stars Michael Fassbender as Callum and Marion Cotillard and has also assembled an impressive cast comprising of Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson and Charlotte Rampling which fixes an issue that ‘Warcraft’ had in the sense that the cast it had were nothing particularly special. Kurzel also reunites with his brother, Jed Kurzel who composes the score and cinematographer Adam Arkapaw. Unfortunately, the film has been plagued by terrible reviews with many citing it as a hollow exercise that muddles itself in its incoherent narrative which is a shame considering the talent.

Contrary to the overwhelmingly negative reviews, I found ‘Assassin’s Creed’ to be extremely entertaining with top-notch action sequences. It is a little silly in places, lacks some character development and muddles up its rather anti-climactic ending but there is a lot of promise here and Kurzel has made for a sterling choice in terms of directorial duties. The action sequences, particularly in the Spanish sequences are masterfully crafted and in conjunction with Adam Arkapaw’s stunning cinematography make for a spectacle to behold on-screen. The modern day action sequences are not as good but I don’t agree with all the negative reviews criticising them as they are fundamental to the narrative of the film. Other than the ending, the narrative was never incoherent and Kurzel manages to create suspense throughout this unravelling narrative.

The performances are fairly strong with Michael Fassbender being able to convincingly play both Callum and his descendant, Aguilar with flair. Marion Cotillard also fares well and Jeremy Irons is suitably hammy as the villain. Unfortunately Charlotte Rampling and Brendan Gleeson aren’t given much to do but when they are on-screen, they are able to capture the screen and the film also features some strong performances by Michael K. Williams and Ariane Labed. Character development does tend to take a backseat in this film which Duncan Jones attempted to inject with some success in ‘Warcraft’ but this film is more about the set pieces and the pulse-racing action brought to the screen.

Unlike a lot of viewers who have complained that the film’s narrative is incoherent, I didn’t find this to be the case. I was always aware of what was happening in the film and although I am not a player of the game that this film is an adaption of, I was never lost by it. As mentioned, the Spanish sequences really are a work of art and the action scenes are some of the most heart-racing I have seen in a while – they are simply jaw-dropping and extremely well orchestrated. Whilst I felt that Kurzel’s decision to keep the Shakespearean language in ‘Macbeth’ was a poor decision as it detracted from the filmic elements, Kurzel’s decision to keep the Spanish sequences in Spanish is a great decision and is really helps in the in-keeping of the raw, kinetic energy that these scenes provide. Unfortunately, Kurzel half-bakes the ending which falls a little flat and loses a lot of the exhiliration and thrill that were demonstrated in the earlier sequences of the film but there’s more than enough of a good film to compensate for this.

It wouldn’t be a Justin Kurzel film without a complimentary score by Jed Kurzel and cinematogaphy by Adam Arkapaw and once again, these two men are sheer geniuses. Jed Kurzel’s score is fantastic – it is crazy at times and really fits in well with the film and there are many memorable riffs that he manages to create. He is currently tapped to score the upcoming sequel, Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien: Covenant’ and I really do think he is a wonderful choice. He hasn’t disappointed yet at all and he manages to differentiate each and every score that he does and really has his own unique sound, something which a lot of composers lack in this day and age. Similarly, Adam Arkapaw also does not put a single foot wrong with this film – the action sequences are visceral in the way that they are shot and there are many sweeping point-of-view shots of the carnage and destruction that is inflicted in Inquisition-era Spain. He really does do a remarkable job.

‘Assassin’s Creed’ is a competently crafted film with some enthralling action sequences and is always entertaining for the most part until its ending which has a whole host of problems. It features some fine performances and creatively has a strong vision behind it. Justin Kurzel has clearly learned and developed himself as a director with this and it’s a real shame that this film has been largely rejected in the way that it has. I genuinely don’t understand all the hate this film has recieved and it’s a real shame to even see this consigned to ‘Worst of the Year’ lists. Compared to ‘Warcraft’, I did find this film to be a lot more entertaining and awe-inspiring but Jones’ film has a lot more character development to it but I overall would rather watch this. Ignore the reviews, go and see this and you will be enthralled at times. Take it for what it is.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)