2013 - IN REVIEW: MOST UNDERRATED

PASSION

For much (all?) of his career, I feel that Brian De Palma and his movies have been underrated and underappreciated.  The man is a master storyteller and his use of camera techniques and moves are second to none.  He is a true visual artist and one with a style that is very easy to recognize; you always know when you are watching a Brian De Palma film.  Sure he has had a number of failures along the way, particularly recently with “Redacted” and “The Black Dahlia” being particularly underwhelming, and it is perhaps this recent form that saw his latest film “Passion” be almost completely overlooked by audiences.  This is a shame too because “Passion” is a great film and it shows De Palma at his most playful since 1992’s “Raising Cain”.

What De Palma has done with “Passion” should not go unheralded because he has taken a terrible French film (“Love Crime [Crime D’Amour]”) and remade it into something that is not only watchable but something that is stylishly cinematic while also making the film his own.  Surprisingly, the first half of “Passion” is very faithful to the original film, however it is when the second half begins that De Palma takes over and he flexes his cinematic muscles showing off all of the flare and bravura his is known for.  This truly is a film of two halves, particularly when it comes to visual style.  This story of office politics and jealousy that ends up leading to murder, is handled in quite a flat visual style for the first half of the film.  Daylight features prominently and most shots are taken front on without the use of any strange camera angles.  Also colour seems to be quite prominent in the opening half of “Passion”, but this is to be significantly drained in the second half when darkness and shadows start to take over as one of our characters begins to withdrew within their mind which may be about to break.  Suddenly the film explodes into cinematic trickery, with dutch angles and tricky camera moves becoming the norm, as De Palma seems to use every trick he has in his book and it is deliriously entertaining.  Even if you have seen the original film and therefore know the twist, it doesn’t matter because it is the way De Palma presents the reveal that makes it so entertaining.

Another thing that I love about “Passion” is that this is obviously Brian De Palma enjoying himself and having fun with his audience, because this is a film that does not take itself too seriously.  It is a fun and entertaining thriller, brilliantly put together, but that is it; it is not trying to be anything more than it is.  For those that think that Brian De Palma lost it many years ago, you only need to watch the final scene of “Passion” to know this is not true.  This scene is the best thing the director has done in I do not know how long.  It is a thrilling sequence that is at times ridiculous and entirely derivative of past De Palma scenes, but it is so exhilarating to watch and sends the movie off on an absolute high.  If nothing else, “Passion” is worth seeing for this scene alone.  Finally, I must get on my soapbox and say that Australian distributors need to get on board with De Palma’s films because this is the fourth consecutive film from the director to go straight to DVD.  Luckily I was able to see “Passion” on the big screen (where it should be seen) at MIFF this year, but it is a disgrace to think that one of our greatest living directors is having a hard time getting his films cinematically released.

2013 - IN REVIEW: MOST OVERRATED

GRAVITY

I may cop a bit of heat over this decision but I truly believe that Alfonso Cauron’s “Gravity” is 2013’s most overrated film.  “Gravity” is not a film that I hated, in fact quite the opposite, I enjoyed it a lot but it is not the bE all and end all that so many people think it is.  Granted, the technical achievements behind the film just to get this story on screen are amazing and the level of cinematic bravura shown from a behind the camera perspective should not be overlooked; they are truly stellar and in this regard “Gravity” is a very special film.  It really does give you some sense of what it must be like floating in nothingness in the middle of space.  However as good as the filmmaking behind “Gravity” is, the film as a whole has its fair share of problems.

Firstly the script, which was written by the director and his son Jonas Cauron, is clunky as hell.  Some of the dialogue is excruciatingly bad and overly manipulative.  A scene in particular that I hated was when Sandra Bullock’s character is talking about her deceased daughter.  It is a scene that adds nothing to the situation and feels like an attempt by the writers to create sympathy for the character that just isn’t needed.  Speaking of Bullock, although she is getting enormous praise for her portrayal of Ryan Stone (a rookie astronaut whose expertise is as a medical engineer), I just did not buy her for a second in the role.  I did not find her believable at all and the scene when she barks like a dog towards the end was just embarrassing.  I’m sure this was meant to be a sad and poignant moment for Stone, but I cringed in embarrassment for Bullock in trying to make this moment seem real.  Even George Clooney, an actor I normally love, I felt was totally wrong in the role of veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski.  Again, I just did not find him believable and the scene at the beginning when he is going around Stone in his jet pack, neglectfully wasting its fuel defies belief of a man who is meant to be a professional.  The final insult to the Clooney character comes in a ridiculous scene that appears towards the end that I will not ruin, but will say, I hated immensely.  It is the worst scene of the film and should have been excised because it is truly laugh worthy and takes you out of the film.  It is my belief that for “Gravity” to have truly worked it needed to star no-name actors, people the audience had never seen before, but with the film costing as much as it did to make, I understand why this would have been impossible to do so. 

Again, let me state that I think “Gravity” is a good film, and a brilliant technical achievement, but it is a film with some serious flaws.  What I did love about “Gravity” was Emmanuel Lubezki’s stunning cinematography, Cauron’s flawless direction (shame about his writing), the brilliant special effects and I love that they dared to show the reality of space that is a place without sound, which made the silent explosions even more special.  Despite how great all of that is, “Gravity” is still the film of 2013 that I think is most overrated.

2013 - IN REVIEW: BIGGEST SURPRISE

RUSH

I have no interest at all in Formula 1 Racing; in fact the thought of watching grown men in cars driving round and round on a circuit for hours on end bores the hell out of me.  I am also not a fan of Ron Howard as a director.  Do not get me wrong, the man has made some great films in his career, but he is so inconsistent that I find myself not bothering checking out his films most of the time.  The fact that “Rush” was a combination of these two things, being it is a film about two rival racers set in the world of Formula 1 and was directed by Ron Howard, it is safe to assume I had no interest in the film at all.  The bland posters for the film never caught my eye and I literally never saw a trailer for “Rush” either.  It wasn’t until the film started getting stellar reviews that I decided to check the film out and I am so glad that I did, because “Rush” is an amazing movie; I was riveted to the screen for its entire running time.  While I was initially thrown a little by the accents of the two leads, Daniel Bruhl and Chris Hemsworth who play real life rivals Niki Lauda and James Hunt respectively, what followed were two stunning performances by these actors.  Both Hemsworth and Bruhl accurately represented these two men perfectly and their rivalry that dominated the sport in the mid 1970’s.  In fact, period detail of the entire film seems to be spot on; from the fashions to the lifestyles of these men, right up to the cars themselves, it is obvious that “Rush” had been very well researched. 

What I really liked about this movie was the fact that both Lauda and Hunt were completely different men, in life and in their approach to their sport.  Hunt was a playboy who lived life in a wild manner, and who had a natural talent behind the wheel.  He had a passion for the sport, to the point that it was something he had to do to survive; he wanted to prove to the world (and himself) that he could do it – he could be the best.  Lauda, on the other hand, was the consummate professional, looking after his body and mind so that he could always race at his best.  He also brought mathematics into his racing, working on probabilities (particularly when it came to risk management) and designing his car to the nth degree for maximum efficiency.  While Lauda was just as skilled a driver as Hunt, it would be fair to say his passion wasn’t as great as Hunt’s and this is brought to light when he mentions to a girl he is dating that if he could make as much money doing something else, he would do it.  In regards to the races themselves, they have all been magnificently staged and photographed by Howard and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (I have just noticed that Mantle also shot my biggest surprise of 2012; “Dredd 3D”)  and are very suspenseful.  Thankfully they have been handled realistically and not in the usual over the top manner you may expect from a film coming out of Hollywood.  While there is much more to say about this fine film, I will say no more except that I recommend it wholeheartedly.  Even if you are not a fan of the sport, like myself, “Rush” has been put together so well that I am sure everyone will get something out of it.  The following days after I saw it, I spent telling everyone I knew to go see the film; this for a movie I initially had no interest at all in seeing.