1960s

Steve Jobs Review

/ studentfilmreview / 1 Comment

Back in 2013, there was a Steve Jobs biopic with Ashton Kutcher playing the titular man. Even with having one of the most influential men of the late 20th century as its subject matter, the film bombed both critically and commercially, despite a good performance by Kutcher. Can director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin come together to give Steve Jobs the film he deserves?

Steve Jobs stars Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogan and Jeff Daniels and is directed by Danny Boyle. The film follows Steve Jobs (Fassbender) behind the scenes of his three most famous PC demonstrations, the Mascintosh, The NeXT and the iMac, as well as the backroom deals that lead to him leaving the company.

While I would have thought the three-act structure, each featuring similar set-ups would have grown tired quickly (how many variations can you think of what amounts to a tech demo?), I was thoroughly surprised how each one managed to feel completely different. Aaron Sorkin (of The Social Network and Moneyball fame) brings a totally unique way of viewing Jobs’ life, through these three distilled fragments instead of a traditional narrative, and it completely fits the film. While some of the character interactions in the films feel a bit contrived, with the main players in Apple Inc. reappearing at each tech demo, the film manages to keep it together, even joking at how contrived one scene near the end is.

Sorkin’s script is a shining point in the film, with his signature quick-fire dialogue making certain scenes a joy to watch. I wouldn’t have thought that a film about creating computers would have been interesting to listen to, and even thought the film is full of ports, routers, modems and other jargon, it’s still incredibly compelling. The back and forth between Jobs and his aide Joanna Hoffman, as well as the verbal sparring between Jobs and the mother of his child allow the actors to show off their range, but the scenes that I had the most enjoyment were the exchanges between Jobs and Andy Hertzfeld, an original Mac Team engineer, as they try and fix the Macintosh before the reveal. Throughout these scenes, Jobs demeans and undermines Hertzfeld, who just has to grit his teeth and go along with it if he wants to keep his job.

The acting by all is remarkable. Michael Fassbender is on a roll in 2015, with another excellent performance under his belt. He portrayal of Jobs is very different from the charismatic public speaker that was usually seen. Here, we get an almost psychopathic artist, who knowingly screwed over several of his co-workers, showing us a much darker side to the CEO. Kate Winslet as Job’s confidante Joanna Hoffman is good, and she is almost unrecognisable underneath her dark hair and thick glasses. Seth Rogan, known for his comedic roles breaks typecasting as Steve Wozniak, Apple’s original co-founder, coming off as a shy and quite nerdy character. There is even a surprising turnaround performance by Rogan in the third act where Wozniak explodes at Jobs.

My only real problem with Steve Jobs is that for all the build up and rehearsals of the unveiling of the new computers that had been designed, we never see the reveals. While these were obviously not integral to the story, it would have been a nice addition given how much the film hyped up these scenes. My eyelids did drop at one point during the third act but my interest in the story kept me awake to see it till the end.

In conclusion, Steve Jobs has everything, a great cast list, a seasoned director and a script written by one of the greatest living screenwriters today. Criminally, the film has been pulled from several showings to due to its poor response in America, but if you are able to get to a showing, I would highly recommend that you see Steve Jobs.

Score: 8/10 A gripping film, where we see the madness behind the man.

Legend Review

/ studentfilmreview / 2 Comments

The Kray twins have always been a source of media attention. Several books, television shows and even musicals have documented the infamous duos lives when they single-handedly ruled the backstreets of London. The first film about the Krays was all the way back in 1990 and starred Spandau Ballet brothers Gary and Martin Kemp. 25 years later, a new biopic about the twins arrives, this time called Legend.

Legend stars Tom Hardy (twice!), Emily Browning, David Thewlis and Christopher Eccleston and is directed by Brian Helgeland. The film follows both Ronnie and Reggie Kray (both played by Hardy), their rise through the criminal underworld and their eventual demise.

The standout of the film is the dual performance by Tom Hardy. The man is an acting powerhouse, and he manages to give both twins character. Their looks seem to be the only thing that is remotely similar as each twin has a different speech pattern, mannerisms and ways of holding themselves when speaking or being spoke to. It’s amazing to watch and it really does feel like it’s just two different actors rather than one man. Praise must also be given to Emily Browning as Reggie’s wife Frances. Browning’s whole performance is of a fragile and nervous woman who is constantly at her breaking point, trying to cope with her lying and violent husband. While this might have got stale very quickly, I thought it added more weight to her constant empty threats of leaving Reggie, as you could tell she would never go through with it for fear of being alone or what he would do. Browning also narrates the film, but I wasn’t convinced by it. Browning doesn’t sound interested or invested in the story (although she’s not as bad as Harrison Ford in Blade Runner) and it feels more like narration for the sake of it.

The film focuses on Frances and Reggie’s romance and marriage, which seems an odd choice for a film about brutal and notorious gangsters. While we do get the odd scene of violence (including my favourite, a fight in a pub that stars knuckle dusters and hammers) the film just keeps switching back to Reggie and Frances’ relationship troubles. It starts to feel less about the Krays and more to do with what a dysfunctional and abusive relationship looks like between a violent gangster and a quiet and shy drug addict.

Being set in the 1960s, the soundtrack is excellent. Recognisible and catchy songs such as Green Onions by Booker T and the Mg’s or I’m Into Something Good by Herman’s Hermits make Legend a pleasure to listen to. I can’t think of a gangster film that has reveled so much in it’s iconic music, but Legend has a string of songs that slip in and out of the film perfectly. The points in the film when the Krays are driving a flashy car, wearing suits fit for a king and listening to a crooner on the radio, those are the parts that stick with me from the film.

Legend has its flaws. As a biopic the film has to hit certain historical points, but the film doesn’t feel coherent at all. Several of the scenes could have been jumbled up and put at opposite ends of the film and it probably would have looked the same plot-wise. It’s less of a story and more a collection of events, each one disconnected from the last. This fluctuation in narrative ties in with another problem I had with the film, which was the ending. I won’t spoil the ending of the film (even though the true story is readily available to anyone with access to a library or the internet) but the film feels like it drags on for the last ten minutes so that it can tell us the final part of the Krays story instead of stopping at a more natural conclusion for the love-focused narrative of the film.

The film also tries to make jokes about Ronnie Kray’s sexuality, which felt a bit off-kilter to me. Early on in the film Ronnie bluntly states that he is gay (which is historically inaccurate but that’s besides the point I’m making). The film continues with these outbursts of his sexuality, and the jokes it tries to make about it feel a bit forced and more of a mockery of Ronnie’s sexuality rather than Ronnie himself.

In summary, Legend looks and sounds great, but the lack of cohesion in it’s narrative and story telling leaves it being nothing but superficial. If you like music from the 1960s or you’re a fan of Tom Hardy then it’s a definite watch.

Score: 7/10 A lot of style making up for very little substance.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E Review

/ studentfilmreview / 3 Comments

I love James Bond. I know it might sound a bit weird to open a non-James Bond film like that but hear me out. While I am a fan of Daniel Craig’s interpretation and modern portrayal of Ian Fleming’s famous character, I still harken for the days of Connery and Lazenby, with the Cold War being the backdrop for their spying escapades. Does The Man From U.N.C.L.E. give fans like me a new spy-related alternative?

The Man From U.N.C.L.E stars Henry Cavill, Arnie Harmer, Alicia Vikander, Hugh Grant and Jared Harris with Guy Ritchie both directing and writing. Based off the hugely successful TV show of the same name, the plot follows CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Cavill) teaming up with KGB agent Illya Kuriakin (Harmer) to thwart a rogue faction from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Firstly the film looks gorgeous. Guy Ritchie knows how to operate a camera better than most directors working today, and the camerawork has a very old-skool vibe about it, strengthening the idea that this is a throwback to the early Bond adventures. After the dark streets of East Berlin, the films swiftly moves to Rome, with the sets having a glow around them, making it look and feel like a film that would have starred Audrey Hepburn if it had been made half a century ago. The movement of the camera is also worthy of praise for the making the film look as good as it is. The camera moves around effortlessly, soaking in the beautiful surroundings throughout the film and then the Ken Adam inspired sets near the middle of the film. The camera moves at just enough of a slow pace to let us appreciate the craft with which the film was made.

To focus on the actors, nearly everyone here is on top performance. Our two main leads, Cavill and Harmer are polar opposites of each other, with Cavill being the ever lovable rogue and Harmer the quiet and psychotic Russian who looks like he’s going to blow up at any point. The two actors bounce perfectly off each other, with some of the funniest parts of dialogue coming from their two different approaches to spying for their respective countries. The majority of the jokes coming from this dissonance between the two, including a hilarious sequence near the middle of the film that I won’t spoil here. Hugh Grant is his usual quintessential British self, with only Alicia Vikander turning in a sometimes wooden and emotionless performance.

Despite the aforementioned hilarious sequences, the gags aren’t always up to scratch. The jokes don’t always fall the right way leading to these awkward pauses during the film where they thought the audience was going to laugh. They happen periodically throughout the film, including a segment where Kuriakin is trying to show off his cover story to Vikander’s character, Gaby. It just feels a bit forced when the films is trying to push the jokes in where they have no weight to them, feeling like fluff to pass the time.

The fight scenes in the film are similar to the jokes in that there can be a huge divide in quality. While some fight scenes, including an early one between our two leads can have a nice Paul Greengrass-handheld camera look to them as well as getting to see some of Kuriakin’s Spock-like super attacks, most of the other fight scenes just devolve into quick cut close-ups of hands and bodies flying around, ending with most of the bad guys on the floor.

The main problem that I found with the film however is the bad guys. While we get an expository sequence at the beginning detailing who these people are and their actions, they never really have a powerful presence on screen or off it either. They just seem to be shells for our heroes to focus on. Their comeuppance at the end of the film feels very anti-climatic and it feels as if the writers realised they had a few too many loose ends at the end of the film and needed to quickly tie them all up before the credits.

In conclusion, The Man From U.N.C.L.E is a beautiful old world style spy film, filled with all the fun of an early James Bond film. And with an end credit sequence that hints at a promising new film franchise, it could be that Bond won’t be the only spy that the cinema adores.

Score: 8/10 A fun romp into the golden age of spies.