Things will get better but Safety Not Guaranteed

Firstly debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and picked up by Sony, Safety Not Guaranteed is a snappy picture that the Indie film scene can be proud of, with its brilliant framing and oddball characters makes it an indie classic. The indie genre has grown throughout the past decade into a powerhouse of the film industry and just shows how people with the strangest imagination can now become major players in Hollywood with the director, Colin Trevorrow being confirmed as the director for Jurassic World showing how he has come so far. The film is ultimately about loss, which is something we can all relate to. I mean everyone has lost something in their life haven’t they?

Safety Not Guaranteed is directed by Colin Trevorrow and written by Derek Connolly and focuses on Darius, played by Aubrey Plaza, and her journey to be able to get the right story for her internship at the local newspaper, but also trying overcome the death of her mother. Darius accompanied with Jeff (Jake Johnson) and Arnau (Karan Soli) attempt to interview a man who put in a classified advertisement for a companion on his quest to go back in time. So basically the most indie and quirky film that could be thought up. The story follows how Darius is in training with the wannabe time traveller, Kenneth, played by Mark Duplass, and how she is going in too deep with the assignment, the film then creates many tangents within the film, with Darius and Kenneth forming a relationship and Jeff trying to get Arnau ‘laid’. Mixing the two very different genres of action and romance together to create something in which could be enjoyed by the niche indie audiences and the mainstream.

The themes within Safety Not Guaranteed follow the sense of loss which is shown with each of the characters. For example, the loss of life between Darius and Kenneth losing someone close to them but also the loss of confidence suffered by Arnau who is shown to be the stereotypical nerdy intern who just cannot seem to talk to girls but with one pep talk with Jeff turns into a suave and fully confident sex connoisseur. The idea of loss could be seen as a major theme throughout the whole film as almost every character seems to suffer with it in a certain way and the simplistic generalisation that people should not be judged by their looks. To be honest, most people come across as weird within real life but may be some of the best people that you may speak to, and this is shown in this film with Kenneth talking about time travel but shown in a childlike state. Another major theme within the film could be said to be the repairing or overcoming past mistakes with the idea that Kenneth wants to go back in time to stop his girlfriend from dying but is revealed to not actually be dead; but also it could be shown that characters need to understand that moving on is an important part of life, and being young should be celebrated and not to live in regret.  

Where Safety Not Guaranteed champions is its relatable charm to the socially awkward of the world with the idea that they can be shown to be ‘normal’ people (but what is normal?) The idea that the themes may relate to many people in the world just show that the film industry big shots can be just like regular people, like the idea that Tom Cruise can be shown to be socially awkward and shy can give everyone a better sense of confidence. However, I do believe that the film tends to dwell on the idea that it is an indie film and tries too hard to be edgy, like the idea that time travel in real life is a possibility, it just seems to whimsical compared to its more realistic past chapters.

In conclusion, Safety Not Guaranteed could be seen as a triumph in film to the point where we the audience seems to feel a bit better about themselves with the feeling that time travel may actually happen with the film giving the ultimate theme message that everything is not that bad and being socially awkward can be overcome, or something like that anyway, I’m just getting past the idea that Kenneth actually put an advertisement in the newspaper for a companion for time travel. 

Confusing is an understatement: Trance review

You can always count on Danny Boyle bringing out a great film, with his 90s masterpiece Trainspotting and multi-Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire just showing that this guy oozes talent, he can jump from genre to genre from trying to shock everyone with Trainspotting to trying to confuse the hell out of the audience with the most non-linear narrative since Inception with his newest release Trance (2013) starring James McAvoy. Now, don’t get me wrong with Trance, I do believe that it is up there with many of Boyle’s very high quality of films and the cinematography is just immensely beautiful, but on the other hand, the narrative just way too overly confusing. It’s like he is trying to compete with the trend of films at the minute where it just disregards the conventions of narrative structure and just want to make the audience wonder what on Earth just happened during the 101 minutes the film goes on for.

The story of Trance follows Simon Newton (McAvoy) who is a gambler who is in deep trouble with the wrong type of people and has to repay his debt. To be able to do this, he sets up a heist to steal a priceless painting with the help of Franck, played by the undervalued Vincent Cassel, however, during the heist, Franck knocks out Simon with a simple swoop of his shotgun. This then creates a new chain of events, as Simon has now lost his memory, and more importantly, the part of his memory where he hid the painting for Franck and his gang of criminals. To be able to get the painting back, Franck suggests using hypnosis (yep, that’s right hypnosis) to be able to get Simon’s memory back about the painting and are connected to hypnotist Elizabeth Lamb played by Rosario Dawson. The narrative then follows the numerous hypnotic sessions between Elizabeth and Simon where she puts Simon under a trance (did you see what Boyle did there) to be able to find out where Simon has left the painting. Now this is where the narrative gets a little confusing, it is revealed that through the sessions that Simon and Elizabeth have already met and the things that they have done together after the sessions may have already happened, this then leads up to one of the most confusing twists in recent cinema history which involves a red car, a painting and erm….a shaven vagina.

All though I have said that the narrative would be impossible to follow if you just missed even a minute of it, overall the film is very strong and I did really enjoyed it, however, the narrative is just so rich and strong, it is impossible to talk about it without giving a lot of the plot points away, but I will try to not give a lot away. The narrative of the film seems to follow McAvoy’s character Simon and throughout most of the film, the audience believes that the film is for Simon, but that is thrown out of the window once you are faced with the twist near the end of the film. The film then sort of shifts towards Franck and Elizabeth as characters and Simon is shown to be the antagonist of the film, this completely disorientates the audience so much that we all just seem to go with what Boyle has put up on screen.

Within the film, I do believe that the visuals are very strong and do match up with the narrative, the way the visuals within the trance sessions just give it a very mythical and hypnotic look. This then gives the audience the sense that the visuals are trying to match up with the narrative but also trying to make it seem realistic, this may seem impossible within a trance sequence because essentially when you are in a trance, it is just a dream so this could create any sort of visual. I think when of the best visual effects within the film is when Simon is shown to go on a unstoppable killing spree and kills Franck and his criminal gang, but it is revealed that this is a trance session as Franck speaking with half of his head blown off.

Like I said earlier in this review, I do believe that Danny Boyle is trying to top the trend of non-linear and confusing films, it also seems that by trying to do this, it shows in the narrative that maybe Boyle tried a little too hard to try and make the film as non-linear as possible. The twists that I do understand within the film, I believe were portrayed on screen extremely well and it did play well within the narrative, but I also think that the twists that took me a while to understand may have been just too confusing. However, this may just be a reason to say that the film was just too confusing for me.

In conclusion, I believe that Trance is a very good film, it may not be Oscar winning quality but I did really enjoy it overall, and with the performance of James McAvoy as practically a very disturbed individual was inspired. The plot is highly entertaining, even if it may not be very easy to follow, it feels like such a weight off your shoulders once you figure out what has actually happened through the 101 minute film. So overall, I did enjoy the film but if you aren’t into films where you may actually have to think, I wouldn’t choose this film as a starting point as it will mess with your mind.

And, if you are interested, here is an article I did for my university's website http://www.demon-media.co.uk/film-and-tv/head-scratching-cinema/

I just hope that the true story is more interesting....

Gangster Squad (2013) is based on the true story of how the LAPD create a group of cops, which includes Sgt John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) and Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), try and take down Micky Cohen's (Sean Penn) mafia group within the city. On this basis, this film would probably be right up my street with the idea that its based on a true story and that it includes a stellar cast, with rising stars like Emma Stone. However, I felt that throughout the film that, even though its based on a true story, it doesn't seem believable at all, would the LAPD really allow a cop to just set up a group to try and take down Micky Cohen who was the biggest mafia boss at the time. Also, I didn't particularly enjoy this film because it just seemed to pedantically go on and on with the hope that the visuals and the all star cast would be able to carry the film. To be honest, in a cinema of attractions point of view, the film would be really entertaining, with the stylisation of what it would have been like in the 40s and the inclusion of unnecessary gore, really in the first scene, a guy gets ripped apart by too cars in a homage to the old hung drawn and quartered way of punishment. But I did not realise that the script and whole story would of been so stale, I think its one of those films where there is a great cast but a bad script, like I think Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are great actors and Crazy, Stupid Love is a terrific film but Gangster Squad will be a film that will not live long in their memory.

The film does however, have some quite good performances from some of its principle cast, like Josh Brolin who has sort of revived his career in recent years into some kind of leading man from the shadows and obviously Gosling puts in a great performance but I'm not too sure what his accent is meant to be. I felt that the whole film is a way to see if they could pass off the film just on the back of its stars, like a lot of films nowadays. To be honest, the film did sort of bore me after a while and I stopped paying attention for maybe a minute but this didn't seem too much of a problem, as the plot was so basic and predictable, I probably didn't have to watch the film and I could guess what would happen.

On the other hand, there were parts in this film that I did actually enjoy, obviously being a fan Tarantino films, I would be fine with the violence within the film, like the punishment scenes performed by Cohen's goons and the cinematography of the film was so magical it just showed how far we have came in the world of film by showing that we can make a mediocre film look like a masterpiece in visuals. Also with audiences who don't mind recycled 40s gangster characters like the psychopathic mob boss and the disillusioned police officer who has a pregnant wife to worry about, then Gangster Squad will give the cinema time of your life. But if you are a person who actually likes it when directors and writers actually try to create a non cliché film out of a true story, well I have to say that Gangster Squad will disappoint you deeply, I had an open mind when watching this film and hoping that its going to be a good film with the great premise and the basis of the story, however, it just misses it for me. I will say this though, I really hope that the true story would be more interesting than this film.

They don’t make comedies like this anymore.

 

Over the past few years and maybe even decades, the comedy genre has seemed to be in a rut in which it just can’t seem to get out of. I mean, there have been a few great comedy films that have now grown into cult status, for example, Napoleon Dynamite and Anchorman just to name two, but in my own opinion, I don’t believe that any have them have even gone into the level of comedy genius compared to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The film just oozes the appeal of a comedy great, from Graham Chapman’s portrayal of King Arthur of Britons to the dread Knights of Ni, it just seems as if, this film could be seen as the perfect comedy film.

The basic plot of the film is King Arthur, who is portrayed by Graham Chapman, trying to gather his knights of the roundtable in order to complete God’s quest of finding the Holy Grail, but it doesn’t seem to go as easy as that with many trials and tribulations for each of Arthur’s Knights of the Roundtable which includes Sir Lancelot (John Cleese) and Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Lancelot (Eric Idle). In my opinion, The Holy Grail should be considered as one of the greatest comedies to come out of Britain, with satirical look of what it may have been like in early centuries England. I think what was good about this film is that the comedy is not shown to be intelligent but is just a surreal comedy which doesn’t actually make sense but the audience doesn’t really understand, this is shown with one of my personal favourite parts of the film with each character not having a horse but a servant who clicks two coconuts together to signify the sounds of horse shows. I believe I rate Monty Python and the Holy Grail so highly is the simplicity of the whole production and its eclectic and parodist nature, for example, with the idea of having a whole part of the story continue with just a song and dance, showing a parody of many musical films of having the whole plot device of singing to carry the narrative.

Even though I am a self-confused Python fan, I do have a few negative points about the film as a whole, with the nature of the film shown to be quite lacklustre with the idea that it is not the usual Python comedy from the original Flying Circus series. Also, the idea of having a periodic story telling through a book does go with the whole ethos of the story, however, I believe this was just to show off the witticisms of each of the pythons. But this use of juxtaposing each characters journey with zany one liners and the whole beginning credits with what looks like Swedish instantly catapults the film into cult classic status, with the idea of the different story lines may have influenced some of the more intelligent films of today like Memento with its impossible storyline.

I suppose, the film just shows the importance of the whole Python era in the 60s and 70s and how influential they have been, even the very mention of the ‘rabbit scene’ from this film will get any regular comedy and Python fan into hysterical laughter just thinking about it, but alas, the film industry is not as it once was by recycling the norm within Hollywood like Adam Sandler and friends making even more hand banging-ly bad Grown Up films where the characters are actually laughing at their own jokes. On the other hand, with Holy Grail, it creates, what Baudrillard would call, ‘hyperreailty’ where it doesn’t actually follow the real story of King Arthur as they decide not to go to Camelot because ‘it is a silly place’. It just shows the comedic genius of each of the Pythons as they can create their own branch of comedy films and can keep even more generations laughing 40 years on. For me to be able to rate this film in just five stars would be an understatement to the Python’s genius, but it’s at least five out of five. You don’t have to take my advice but just go by what the creators said themselves, ‘You can do worse than see it’.