Unsurprisingly, Warner Brothers pushed this film back by 18 months or so, and it’s only now crept straight to Netflix. And I can see why they changed the release date, because this is very similar to Disney’s film. Or at least, the first 15 minutes are. At that point, I was prepared to switch off, so pervasive was my sense of déjà vu. But I’m glad I didn’t, because Mowgli quickly becomes an intriguing, if flawed, feature.

The first thing those familiar with the recent Disney version will notice is that Serkis et al went for a different visual style. The CGI animals are less photo-real and more caricatured. It means that they’re more expressive, to be sure, but it didn’t quite work for me. They all have a tendency to look a bit…off. If anything, it’s definitely more artistic than Favreau’s film, but it may bother some people.

The acting is uniformly excellent – particularly Christian Bale as Bagheera – and it must be said that Serkis is a great director. There are a dozen outstanding scenes here, even if it doesn’t hang together in toto. I’m not sure if they stuck to the script or went through reshoots and/or a particularly aggressive edit, but the narrative lurches forward more than once.

Most significant is the tone. It seems Serkis was determined to deliver a film that was less black and white and all shades of grey. Nobody is out-and-out evil. The humans encroaching on the jungle aren’t malevolent, nor are the members of the pack who bully Mowgli. Aside from Shere Khan, they’re all doing what they think is for the greater good. And even big, bad Khan is portrayed as aged and lame, his breath coming in ragged gasps.

All this is mature and well-written, but the film simply left me feeling bereft. When the credits rolled, it was a case of “everything was shit, but now it’s slightly less shit. Maybe.” And I’m not sure that’s what audiences were expecting. (Word to the wise – it gets very dark at one point. Almost Artax-level dark. Show this your kids judiciously.)

This does have something to offer those who’ve already seen Favreau’s attempt. Mowgli is a strange film, with some stunning VFX and powerful scenes. The tone misses the mark, however, and the pacing is slipshod.

The post Mowgli appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Steven (Colin Farrell) and Anna Murphy (Nicole Kidman) lead a strangely clinical life. Though successful by any other metric, they speak as if detached from reality, and when they have sex it’s completely without intimacy. Steven’s a successful heart surgeon, but he’s been seeing a boy named Martin in secret.

From here, the Murphys’ lives spin slowly out of control. The cinematography perfectly sells such entropy. The film is filled with lots of super low or super high angles. The characters constantly find themselves in big, empty and soulless buildings. In fact, the preponderance of slow zooms and wide angle shots with nary an extra in sight reminds me of the thrillers of the 70s (Coma; The Conversation).

The soundtrack perfectly accentuates the off-kilter storytelling. Overseen by Johnnie Burn and Simon Carroll, it’s a mixture of classical and modern pieces, with an emphasis on discordant, drawn-out notes. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a good 70% of the film’s success hinges on their work here, because otherwise the film’s best scenes would come across as silly.

The DVD presentation is very good, and it comes with the standard electronic press kit-type interviews with the stars and director. It’s the latter that’s the most interesting. Him speaking on the genesis of the project is particularly pertinent for those of us who wonder how on earth someone comes up with such a strange narrative.

We’re in familiar territory for Lanthimos here, and perhaps that’s what holds The Killing of a Sacred Deer back. See, this would have worked quite well as a straight thriller: an agent of chaos (read: Martin) upsets a perfect family and their perfect life. But because Lanthimos is…well…Lanthimos, of course Steven and Anna are strange to begin with. This detracts from any plot developments. Had Anna and Steven’s life been more relatable, the film would have been more unsettling. Instead, I was holding the characters at arm’s length from the very beginning.

The first two acts are a masterclass in tone and rising tension. Once we get to the third act, however, there’s nothing left but for the film to putter across the finish line. If you’re a fan of Lanthimos’ previous work – or avant-garde thrillers generally – this will probably hit the spot. Others may find the destination less impressive than the journey…

The post The Killing of a Sacred Deer appeared first on hoopla.nu.

All things considered, I often enjoy Darren Aronofsky’s lesser-liked films. Noah had its moments, whilst The Fountain is one of my favourite movies of all time. So I was fully prepared to go against the grain with Mother!

The story sees Jennifer Lawrence playing a nameless wife to Javier Bardem’s “Him.” The two of them live in his family home, which was recently rebuilt after burning to the ground. Bardem’s character, a famous poet, is suffering from writer’s block. It takes the visit of a stranger to kick both the plot and his creativity into gear. And that’s where things get a little weird.

I think part of the frustration with Mother! has to do with audience expectations. As a friend of mine said, “I went in expecting Rosemary’s Baby. If I’d expected Mulholland Drive instead, maybe I would have enjoyed it more.” Mother! was indeed advertised as a kind of modern-day Rosemary’s Baby, and that’s how the first act feels – as if everyone’s in on something that’s being kept a secret from Lawrence’s character.

And she is reliably excellent in the role, even if her character’s experience quickly starts to wear thin. A lot of crap is heaped on her, and whilst she tries to stick up for herself, her constantly put-upon role grates after a while. Mother! sees Aronofsky in full allegory mode, and whilst there are no doubt lots of theories as to what’s actually going on, at the end of the day I. Just. Don’t. Care.

We don’t even get a reliably awesome soundtrack courtesy of frequent Aronofsky collaborator, Clint Mansell, for this film is almost completely without music. The cinematography is nice, though it absolutely refuses to pull back from extreme close-ups, and the use of visual effects is impressive, as is usually the case with the director’s works.

As the film finished and the credits rolled, I heard two things in the cinema. From one corner, a snigger. From another corner, a stage whisper of, “That was stupid.” Those two responses really sum up the film. Perhaps, in a decade’s time, this will get a stunning reappraisal, but right now I find that hard to believe.

The post Mother! appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Based on the writing of Giambattista Basile, the film comprises three fairy tales about royalty, obsession and tragedy. The Queen of Darkwood (Selma Hayek) is determined to have a child, no matter what the cost, and so the King (John C. Reilly) goes out to slay a sea monster. The King of Highmountain (Toby Jones) is so desperate to cling to his now adult daughter (Bebe Cave) that he puts his subjects to an impossible task – a task that one of them will accomplish. Finally, the lustful King of Stronghold (Vincent Cassel) becomes entranced by a mystery woman with a beautiful voice.

The film is episodic in nature, moving back and forth between the three tales, and at 134 minutes, it’s not in any hurry. Thankfully, the film is a feast for the eyes. Most of it was filmed in real locations around Italy – castles, a stone labyrinth, a ravine, forests – and with digital set extensions, it’s truly impossible to tell what’s real and what isn’t. Being a $14 million film, of course the VFX aren’t flawless, but it does a lot more – proportionally – than Hollywood does with its $150 million-plus blockbusters.

Thing is, like a lot of fables, Tale of Tales keeps the viewer at arm’s length. It’s hard to feel for the characters, and you’re painfully aware of the moral nature of the narrative. In an interview on the disc, Cassel says he asked Garrone what the moral of the story was, and the director’s reply was, “It’s all amoral.” That doesn’t ring true, because the three stories here all have a sting in the tail – it’s pretty clear to me that these are cautionary tales…

The performances are strong, but it’s Cave that really impresses as Violet, the daughter of the King of Highmountain. Her performance is so assured that, with her on screen, the usually problematic artifice slips away. It feels like she could have played the role of Yara in ‘Game of Thrones’, actually. I hope she goes onto bigger and better things.

Unfortunately I only had the DVD to review, so I can’t speak to the quality of the HD picture. Given the spectacularly visual nature of the film, I would imagine the Blu-ray would be preferred. That being said, the DVD isn’t too shoddy, and the short interview pieces with the stars are enlightening.

Tale of Tales might be too absorbed with the visuals to truly let the viewer in, but it’s a perfect film for those who think they’ve seen it all. A bold, creative yet flawed vision.

The post Tale of Tales appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Any animation that attracts the likes of Elijah Wood, Christopher Lloyd, John Cleese and Tim Curry has to be good, amirite? Thing is, this show is so much more than celebrity cameos. It has the weirdness and charm of Adventure Time, but is also admirably restrained.

Over the Garden Wall concerns brothers Wirt (Wood) and Gregory (Collin Dean) and their journey home through a strange land. It mightn’t sound like much, but the show hits the ground running. Like the aforementioned Adventure Time, there’s no context as to what’s going on – the brothers are simply travelling. We meet a creepy woodsman (Lloyd), a talking bluebird called Beatrice (Melanie Lynskey – the other actress from Heavenly Creatures), anthropomorphic pumpkins, a ferry full of frogs and a young woman’s creepy guardian who goes by the name Auntie Whispers (Curry).

The show is pitch perfect in its delivery. As much as I love Adventure Time, it occasionally veers into weird-for-weird’s-sake territory, or feels like it’s deliberately punking its fans. This show, however, always feels sincere, no matter how absurd proceedings become. It’s just the right amount of whimsy, balanced out with the occasional beautiful and poetic moment. This is the kind of series that adults will enjoy too, and not because they’ve simply put in some naughty jokes that will fly over younger viewers’ heads; because it’s a really beautiful story well-told. Think of it as a kind of North American gothic fairy-tale meets European folklore, much like the work of Washington Irving.

The animation is absolutely beautiful. I’d recommend forking out the extra dosh for the Blu-ray (alas, my review copy was just a DVD) because it features a really neat aesthetic that makes me thankful TV hasn’t abandoned 2D animation, even if feature film producers have. It also contains a bevy of special features that aren’t on the DVD.

Over the Garden Wall is described as a mini-series – comprising only ten 10-minute episodes – and the narrative is serialised and completely self-contained. I can’t imagine there would ever be a second season. Though this means we only have a measly 110 minutes to enjoy, I think it’s better to leave the audience wanting more rather than let the show overstay its welcome.

This is easily amongst the best that Cartoon Network has to offer, and must for animation fans. Once you’ve watched it, check out this spoilerific video, which further goes to show the hidden complexity behind the ostensibly simple plot.

The post Over the Garden Wall appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Like Primer, Leviathan does a good job of talking around the issue at hand for the first 20 minutes, so it takes quite some time to figure out what everyone’s so worried about. The film is sort of a cross between The Castle and House of Sand and Fog: at the centre of the narrative is a property dispute, and the two parties are locked in a vicious struggle over a desolate piece of real estate. Like House of Sand and Fog, proceedings become thoroughly depressing, but unlike that 2003 film, the screenplay doesn’t make any of the characters likeable. Aleksey Serebryakov plays the everyman, Kolya, as a bitter drunk who isn’t above giving his son a slap over the head if he misbehaves, whilst Roman Madyanov plays the corrupt mayor/adversary with unabashed glee. Even Kolya’s lawyer, Dmitriy (Vladimir Vdovichenkov), is terribly flawed.

It’s not that these performances aren’t good – they’re great – it’s just that the script is so damn determined to have everything go to shit. There was a moment, about three quarters of the way through, when I realised that things couldn’t get any better, and that Leviathan was a tragedy of sorts. It’s a fable, of that much I’m certain, but whether it’s about the failure of institutions, à la ‘The Wire’, or about man’s inhumanity to man, or simply an indictment of religion, I’m not sure. The one thing I am certain of is that Leviathan turns the Depression Dial up to 11 (most only go to 10, see?) The characters spend a lot of time drinking vodka by the bottle and weeping.

The cinematography is beautiful, and the landscape is stunning. The film opens with a harsh yet awe-inspiring landscape, accompanied by a piece of music that isn’t miles away from Philip Glass’ work on Powaqqatsi or Candyman. Alas, that’s all the soundtrack we get until the end credits, as the narrative doesn’t want any music to distract from its formula: bleak x despair x 1000 = movie.

The post Leviathan appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Dean (Josh McConville) wants everything to be perfect between him and his long-term girlfriend, Lana (Hannah Marshall), so much so that he’s willing to live the day over and over again in an effort to get it right. In a brilliant case of time travel loopiness, Dean and Lana find themselves in the unique (if only unique had a plural) situation of intersecting with the same moment in time over and over, with hilarious results.

I can’t heap enough praise upon the time travel element of the script. Though I don’t consider myself an expert on theoretical temporal science, the paradoxical timeline presented in The Infinite Man feels pretty much perfect. As with Predestination, each piece of the puzzle seems to fit, and it’s incredible to see just how clever the writing is in this regard.

The performances of McConville and Marshall are great too. It’s really McConville’s film – not to disparage Marshall; I’ll get to her later – but Alex Dimitriades also puts in a great comic performance as the third wheel/perpetual spanner in the works. The trio of characters work wonderfully on screen together, and the performers bounce off each other effortlessly.

Then we get to the major letdown with The Infinite Man: this really is a story about a guy trying to get the girl, no matter what. And that’s it. Lana is the object of his desire just because, which is disappointing. It doesn’t seem to matter what she wants – in fact, we’re never really given much of an insight into her character, much less a reason as to why she’s put up with the crazily controlling and highly strung Dean. She’s like the princess in another castle, and when you think about it that way the film becomes more than a little creepy.

I get that the movie isn’t meant to be taken literally – realism isn’t high on The Infinite Man’s agenda – and that it should be seen as a kind of parable. And this would be fine, if the moral was clear. But it’s not. The film veers tantalisingly close to taking a moral stand before a last second fumble that, once seen, is hard to unsee.

The technical aspects of The Infinite Man are fantastic. The sci-fi gimmick utilised brilliantly, the performances are great whilst the cinematography and editing are close to perfection. It’s just a pity that the overall narrative feels like it can’t do justice to Lana’s character. It may be Dean’s story, but it’s hard to root for him when the film doesn’t allow us to see her as a three dimensional being.

The post The Infinite Man appeared first on hoopla.nu.

For the first half hour, the answer is yes, unfortunately. Bucket loads of cash have been thrown at the screen, and the actors never look comfortable on what I can only imagine was a mostly digital set. To make matters worse, the first section of the film covers decades of Maleficent’s life in what feels like an endless montage. Starting a film in this manner is always a difficult task, as the audience is being held at arm’s reach with very little time to get to know the characters. For that first half hour, it feels like we never get a scene of more than a minute’s length.

Then, with the arrival of baby Aurora, the film suddenly gets better. A lot better. This is because we have actual scenes, rather than cherry-picked moments from someone’s life. The actors are given room to breathe and we can start to feel for Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent.

Broadly speaking, this revisionist version of a story we all know well is brilliantly handled. The shades of grey are quite surprising for a Disney family film, and whilst we aren’t watching ‘Game of Thrones’, there’s definitely some good and some bad in Maleficent. Linda Woolverton’s screenplay is wonderfully subversive in the tradition of Gregory Maguire’s ‘Wicked’, and it will definitely make you think twice about the motivations of the king next time you watch Sleeping Beauty, even if that film had no hints of any ulterior motives. By the time we get to the climax, Maleficent really knocks it out of the park. It’s just such a pity that the first act is so dire. I suppose it’s better than being the other way around, but still, it’s hard to grade a film like this.

Elle Fanning is fantastic, and by far the most adept at acting alongside digital creations. Jolie is good yet really flails about during that first half hour, where it’s hard for her to make an impact during a 30 second scene where she only gets one line. The moments with Aurora and Maleficent together on screen are easily the best, and this is where the film feels the most successful.

The trio of fairies, played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple, don’t work well at all. It doesn’t help that, when fairy-sized, the visual effects department plopped their real heads on CGI bodies, culminating in some awful body horror-type uncanny valley effect. Sharlto Copley proves he really is a master of disguise as Stefan, but he doesn’t leave that much of an impression.

For fans of Sleeping Beauty, this is a must. I don’t think it would have quite the impact, however, if you haven’t seen the more traditional take on the story. An uneven film, with an almost unforgivably awkward opening act, it manages to redeem itself rather spectacularly.

The post Maleficent appeared first on hoopla.nu.

We’re first introduced to Eric (Guy Pearce) when his car is stolen. Everyone’s eking out a miserable existence ‘ten years after the collapse’, and Eric’s desperate to retrieve what must be a crucial lifeline in the desolate outback. He soon crosses paths with enigmatic simpleton, Rey (Robert Pattinson), and the two of them take to the road to track down Eric’s car.

Michôd isn’t too concerned about audience needs or expectations with The Rover. The film steadfastly refuses to settle into a rhythm, which drove me nuts. Every time it felt like the narrative was building towards something fantastic, it stopped in its tracks. In fact, you could switch around half a dozen of the scenes and it would make very little difference to the narrative.

I did enjoy the tone, and this time around at least felt for the characters (something I couldn’t do in Animal Kingdom.) Pattinson finally gives a performance worthy of his box office draw, whilst Pearce is excellent as always. The two of them make for an interesting odd couple, with echoes of George and Lennie from ‘Of Mice and Men’.

The film is episodic in nature, which is another thing that works against the pacing. I did enjoy the fact that it didn’t elucidate upon the nature of the apocalypse, and Antony Partos’ score is wonderfully eerie.

The Rover is so damn sparse that there isn’t really much to recommend. The film’s also predictable, perhaps as a consequence of there not being much going on; I spent the time wondering where the story was headed, rather getting lost within it. Sluggish at regular intervals, this is really only one for the most patient of viewers.

The film will definitely find an audience, but the fact that the trailer woefully misrepresents the film – as happened with The Road too actually – is bound to leave some people angry. The Rover seems to succeed at doing everything it sets out to achieve, but at the end of the day, I could only recommend this to the most ardent of apocalypse movie fans. As for me, I’m hoping the soon-to-be-released These Final Hours is more my cup of tea.

The post The Rover appeared first on hoopla.nu.

Noah and his family eke out a simple existence on the desolate proto-Earth, scrounging for food and endeavouring to avoid the marauding Mad Max-like hoards, the descendants of Cain. One night, Noah gets some maddeningly obscure head-movies supposedly delivered to him by God. Like a doomsayer’s weather report, they seem to suggest that the Sky Bully is planning on reformatting Earth’s hard drive, which means that it’s up to everyone’s favourite vegetarian superhero, Noah, to save all the world’s animals.

How does he do this? Well, he builds a big shipping container, that’s how. The plan is to become the world’s first high seas smuggler, cramming as many species as he can into the floating box, ‘The Wire’ season 2-stylee. Only he and his family get to go because, well, apparently they are the only Nice Guys left on Earth. How does he know this? Well, he doesn’t. But there you go. I’m sure he had his reasons. After all, all those other people were eating meat and stuff. God is pretty vindictive in his absence here, though anyone familiar with Aronofsky’s work knows that the writer/director isn’t about to include a big spectral bearded chap explaining to Noah the difference between Sumerian cubits and Egyptian royal cubits.

Whilst this is Aronofsky’s first truly big budget movie, the auteur is still very much present in the finished product. After flirting with the mainstream in the past – he very nearly directed Batman: Year One (which later became Batman Begins) and The Wolverine (which later became, um, The Wolverine) – Aronofsky apparently had a cool $120 million to play around with here. And it’s great to see that Big Budget Aronofsky isn’t too different from Low Budget Indie Aronofsky.

The film is aided by Clint Mansell’s fantastic soundtrack, which has more than a passing resemblance to his work on The Fountain. In fact, Noah is tonally quite similar my favourite Aronofsky film, but with bonus tsunamis and stone giants. It’s kind of The Fountain meets The Lord of the Rings meets The Road, and I had a lot of fun. As a disaster movie, it’s definitely more enjoyable than anything Emmerich has put out, and there are some great performances to be found.

Crowe puts in a decent performance as the last antediluvian, whilst Jennifer Connolly is similarly strong as his wife. Emma Watson continues to prove that she was arguably the most talented of the Harry Potter young ‘uns, whilst Anthony Hopkins is his usual effortlessly charismatic self.

Aronofsky throws as much symbolism as he can at the screen to see what sticks, which isn’t surprising given the source material. Some of it works, some of it doesn’t.  That said, there are some startling images, particularly in the first half hour. In fact, the only complaint I had with the film was that the final act was rather dull; all the good stuff is in the first half.

It’ll no doubt infuriate atheists and god-fearing folk in equal measure, but for my money, Noah was a pretty decent use of 2.5 hours. There are enough weird elements to keep this from being a ‘safe’ (read: boring) Biblical epic, and Aronofsky remains a brilliant actor’s director. Plus, it’s hard to go past the image of bearded men yelling at the sky in anger whilst a flood rages around them.

The post Noah appeared first on hoopla.nu.