Live By Night - Movie Voodoo review by Chris Hembury

Live By Night ***Batman goes Gangster

Live By Night is a book adaption picked up original by Warner Brothers to be a Leonardo DiCaprio starring vehicle but he left the acting side staying on as a producer with Ben Affleck eventually coming abroad the project as a Writer, Director and Star. 

In Live By Night we follow Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) WW1 vet turned armed robber in 1920's Boston. The story hits the fast gear before you know it the action is let loose with car chases, shoot outs, sex and danger you feel like your enjoying a great season Finale of Boardwalk Empire. 

The film looks great and frankly with a budget of 65 million you would expect nothing less.

But Joe career as a petty thief is cut short and following a few years in the slammer Joe emerges intent on self interest and becoming a gangster.  

Effectively the first 40 minutes is basically a extended opening sequence as the real story of Live By Night is Joe's arrival in Tampa Florida on behalf of the Italian Mafia to front their business interests. 

Here begins the saga of Joe trying to stay just on the right side of being a evil Gangster as he has to do dark things but Joe reluctance to fully embrace the cold blooded nature of his profession may put him in danger. 

He chooses not to expand into Heroin despite his boss's urges, strikes a mixed race relationship which provokes the KKK and often chooses compromise to killing. Inevitably all his problems may have to be solved by the latter.  

Affleck already has a nice solid track record of Directing after Gone Baby Gone, The Town and most impressively Argo.

So the idea of writing, directing and starring may not be that daunting to him but with Live By Night he has work cut out for him as this is a big scale period epic with his character nearly in every scene over a 129 minute running time. 

The story is engaging but Affleck acts through the plot beats almost on autopilot as ultimately his character is some what forgettable. Affleck's portrayal of gangster Joe Coughlin is by means in the same character league as say Pacino's "Tony Mantana" from Scarface,  Joe Pesci's "Nicky Santoro" from Casino or hell Steve Busemi's "Nucky Thompson" from Boardwalk Empire they are all stand out memorable characters from the crime genre.  

This isn't the case for all the cast with stand out roles from Matthew Maher as the psychotic KKK member and Elle Fanning as the tragic chief's daughter. Both shine, one in menace and the other in tragedy. Sienna Miller & Chris Cooper also hand in competent supporting acting alongside Brendan Gleeson who's talent is at least utilised more here than his mere five minute appearance in Assassin's Creed earlier this year. Shocking waste of talent indeed.  

Where Live By Night some what disappoints is after the riveting paced first 40 minutes (which is pretty much 80% of the film's trailer) it does seem almost like the film drops down a gear and stays there for the majority.  The action is stylised and brutal fitting the genre but without the action evenly dispersed it does at some points feel to drag. 

However the audience is rewarded with a climatic shoot out which despite not being epic is certainly welcome. That pretty much sums up the film really. 

Live by Night is brought to life with a talented cast, production design and genre appreciating director but with a script that doesn't quite hit the nose in many respects
the film falls quite short of being elevated anywhere near the hall of greatness.  

By Chris Hembury 

Why Him? Movie Voodoo Reviewed by Chris Hembury

Why Him? ***

Bryan Cranston and James Franco star in Meet the Parents style comedy... with swearing... oh and a dead moose in a urine filled tank. 

That about sums up the measure of this comedy that has decided it's going to be a down and dirty and never strays. 

James Franco plays the Hippie like Billionaire "Laird" who is in love with tight laced print factory owner Ned's (Cranston) Daughter.  In order to meet Laird, Ned's whole family is travelling to Laird's mansion to spend the Christmas Holidays there and bond. 

Whilst Ned's wife and son are somewhat charmed by Laird's inner child charm Ned is instantly repulsed by this foul mouthed, loud mouthed, dirty mouthed eccentric but equally alarmed that his sweet daughter has fallen for him. 

One could even as.... Why Him? ;)

So the story kicks into gear with Laird trying to win Ned's affections by Christmas Day so he can can ask his daughter to marry him. Instead of being wooed Ned becomes more worried as Laird's attempts to impress back fire whilst Ned's instead attempts to prove that Laird is a fraud. And here we have Meet The Parents on acid including drug fuelled parties, dodgy tattoos, vaginal cleansing and testicle biting oh yes and that dead moose in the urine filled tank.  

There are two real assets to this comedy as you might have guessed one being Cranston who goes full circle from Breaking Bad and Trumbo returning to his more Malcolm in the Middle persona looking like his having great fun having a break from the Drama Baird's for a while. Whilst there are a number of actors who could have taken on Ned's straight laced role and done a equally good job - Laird really was made his own from Franco. From his first appearance Franco switches the energy to high, maintains and entertainingly engages every scene with that balls out humour and at times that is literally happens as well.  

Deadpool may have more to answer for than we think. Ever since the R rated film super hero film went out instead of a safe PG13 and made a ton at the box office. A message was sent out that teen/adults had a fill of every film being cut into a PG13 including the likes of Die Hard box office success was more important than film quality. So 20th century fox's success with Deadpool they've become a bit braver. 

Why Him? Sets the tone form the first scene with crude, lewd, swear filled humour and never strays from that identifying it's target audience as the teen to young adults who are going to love this ride however like Ned it's the parents who might be allot harder to impress.  

By Chris Hembury

  

LA LA Land Movie Voodoo Review By Chris Hembury

LA LA LAND ***

I adored Whiplash and eagerly anticipated the Director's Damien Chazelle follow up and so it has arrived in the form of (take a breath) a Romantic Comedy Musical Drama - LA LA Land. 

We see the budding romance between struggling musician Ryan Gosling and struggling actress Emma Stone and believe me they make a big song and dance about it ;)

The musical side of this genre is full of passion and life paying tribute to the nostalgic Hollywood glory days of the genre whilst moving it forward into the present day. 

The film starts with a average day in LA... a traffic tram! But soon within minutes becomes the crowd pleasing, tone setting opening number of musical glee. 

Self aware and contemporary the camera glides through the scene in seemingly well choreographed Steadicam shot.

Here we meet Emma Stone's struggling actress, to Ryan Gosling's struggling Musician both living in LA but both not living the dream - as one would have hoped. Eventually after the standard Rom/Com beats are walked through - Love is to blossom - but ironically only when it does there seems to be somewhat weakness in the story.

Spoiler Alert

The tension in the story erupts from the unemployed Gosling taking advice from Stone and getting a "real" job. Here his first "real" job happens to be a lead member of a overnight successful band and he travels the country making tons of money using his natural musical talents - sure beats working 50hrs a week at McDonald's.

On the flip side of this seemingly awful "Hell", Stone quits her day job of serving coffee on the Warner Brothers lot to become a full time unemployed play wright - clearly not taking her own advice. 


And when that "horrible" bread winning boyfriend then takes time out of his hectic schedule to travel back across the country just to surprise his Girlfriend and cook her dinner, how fitting they have their first big row.

He is pulled to task on not playing the type of music he loves, instead he advised he should quit and to continue on his ambition of starting his own jazz club with no money and no savings.  At this point it looks like Stone's Character is truly living in "LA LA Land" indeed. 

Later the tables are turned and she becomes a successful actor with Gosling supporting her totally making the sacrificing pledge that they should split so she could concentrate totally on her opportunity. A supportive partner indeed with Stone replying she will always love him. Cut to five years later when she's a Hollywood superstar, married someone to else and had their baby - Romeo and Juliet indeed this is not. 

The ending seems rushed and somewhat deluded in order to comply with a clever idea of a third dream but in orchestrating in this manner to me doesn't ring true to character of Stone or what we've just spent two hours setting up.

But hey this is a musical! Sure it's running time is a little to generous for a somewhat uncomplicated story but this film is made form start to finish with bucket loads of passion from every department. 

The Director takes this genre and wears his heart in his sleeve sucking in some beautiful natural lighting, sunsets and set pieces celebrating L.A natural charm. 

Talking of charm the lead actors have plenty - oozing it from the screen and thoroughly enjoying any opportunity to sing and dance the genre to pride. 

This film is escapism and as long as you take yourself to "La La Land" in the first place, you will surely have a nice enjoyable time in this nostalgic wink to classic Hollywood and contemporary L.A. 

By Chris Hembury
  

Sully ****

In 2009 Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger became an overnight hero when his engines failed he landed a commercial airliner in the Hudson river saving every passenger on board. When Sullenberger wrote his book the film was almost certainly coming and come it has. 

Clint Eastwood is no stranger to directing real life stories after J.Edgar, Invictus, American Sniper it would appear Sully is good hands. 

The problem with taking on such a story is that the premise outcome is already public knowledge and still very fresh in our minds, but Eastwood focuses on the more unknown aspect of the tale. We see the investigation into Sully that focuses on the point of view that he didn't take the right course of action and did instead make a reckless choice that in danger every passenger on board. We see the private struggle between coping with instant celebrity, be celebrated a hero whilst struggling with self doubt and accusations. 

The pacing of the film is  a difficult one to get right. After all Clint's one big playing card is the actual landing itself that's the high point after that interest can sway. Eastwood knows this keeping this Ace up his sleeve for half the film then showing it a few times from different perspectives and at different points of the film with every time it being totally engaging.

It's hard to imagine anyone other that Hanks in the role of Sully. He captivates his Jimmy Stewart everyday guy to great effect whilst also capturing the characterisation of Sully. Hanks is lifetime competent actor to Sully's lifetime competent pilot and the two combinations truly complement each other.

As good as the performance is it can't be truly great as there isn't enough juicy dialogue for Hanks to have or to be able to more diagrammatically delivery as it would deject from the true life aspect of the tale which they seem to rigorously honour. For instance at the most exciting moment of the film during the landing scenes the filmmakers stick to the exact transcript of the real pilots which is extremely limited given the 280 seconds entirety of the event.

Most Hollywood films would have ignored that and sexed it up with Sully dodging buildings, ringing his Wife before impact, give a monologue over the meaning of life and then spend 20 minutes landing. No, not here what happened is what's on the screen and that integrity is what is refreshing earnest to see.    

In fact Hanks did say that the real Sully was often on set and set and lent glorious attention to detail about every aspect of the film for authenticity to real life even down to the pens in the rooms. With this said during one scene at the Marriott a pen and paper sits in the background by the lamp and I had a feeling that was the same one from 2009.

Creative licence has obviously been taken for the scenes that make up the movie's main theme which is the investigation over whether Sully was a hero or a dangerous fraud.  I'm not sure how much that was amped to give the movie some welly. After all if you're going to have a villain you might have as well make it the National Transportation Safety Board! 

The NTSB were naturally not impressed with their Pantomime villainy portrayal with a real life Investigator going as far to say it was "mean spirited dishonesty". This might explain with a film with so much authenticity they decided to change the names of the investigation team.

Other scenes that include back flashes to Sully's very early days of flying do show the scale of the man's career but don't feel tremendously needed and perhaps were stocking fillers to the script.

However this is a true life story which has a glorious feel good aspect to it showing us that once in while human beings are capable of conducting some glorious feats. A man who is by no means perfect after forty years experience engaged on a course of action over a mere 280 seconds that defined odds, saved lives and showed in modern times of daily depressing news that Miracles can still happen. 

And this one happened on the Hudson. 

By Chris Hembury

*Rubbish ** Ok *** Good **** Very Good ***** Unmissable

Silence ***

The story set in the 1700's shows how Christianity who outlawed in Japan and very violent consequences bestowed anyone believing, preaching or supporting Christianity.  

Martin Scorsese directs this tale of two young priests who gone on a quest to find out what happened to their Christian mentor Liam Neeson who's apparently denounced God and gone missing in Japan. 

The story sounds intriguing and quickly gets into gear. The young priests head into dangerous Japan but the minute they arrive the story slows down to an incredible slow pace to the extent you feel you are now watching a very interesting documentary rather than a Hollywood cinematic outing. 

This is no accident as Scorsese purposely reigns in all his direction and refuses to use any of the modern temptations of film making today. Instead he uses extreme simplicity itself to direct this story, almost always using basic coverage in his direction conveying the message loud and clear that the story is the star here.   

All the cast give it their all both in performance and preparation. Especially Garfield who is nearly in every single scene of this film  and when the script at times fails to offer him the best dialogue he reverts to acting his with eyes instead of his mouth. All the Japanese cast including Yosuke Kubozuka, Shin'ya Tsukamoto are tremendous supporting and scene stealing cast members. 

There is a real feeling here that the cast are aware they are joining the ranks of something very special, the physical transformation in appearance is dedication alone with all involved shifting tremendous weight for authenticity. 

The story moves at it's own pace which is a very slow one and at times it will test the dedication of the audience. By it's own integrity it's destined not to be commercial Hollywood box office hit. It's far too heavy for the average cinema goer but terms of telling a story that is deserving of being told it has succeeded. 

It remains to be seen whether Scorsese's 25 year passion project will have the success of awards or commercial recuperation but the Director has succeeded in making his most personal film to date of a story that is built on passion and dedication by all involved including pay cuts.

Silence is a rarity in Hollywood. 

by Chris Hembury 

*Rubbish ** Ok *** Good **** Very Good ***** Unmissable

Passengers ** Cast Away in space

 

      In the future some of Earth's population have decided to relocate to another planet, so just hop into a tube then hibernate for about a 100 years and your there!
     Unless anything goes for some Hollywood heartthrobs passengers like Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence who wake up 90 years too early and no way to get back to sleep.... 

          The concept itself is intriguing, the special effects make the central location believable and the cast work hard to carry off the script, with extra pressure on them as they are basically the only ones on screen apart from a scene stealing Micheal Sheen as a Android Barman and a brief very welcomed appearance from Laurence Fishburne who both keep morale up for the passengers and audience. 

      However the story and the tone are muddled, it feels like we go through the five stages of grief (twice), the romance is so blindingly expected like putting two hamsters in a cage (hell if Pratt was replaced by John Candy after a few decades he'd look good to Jennifer), the big reason behind the awakening is well not really that big and we take a rather creepy tone at one point making Star Lord into Star Creep.

       The shame of passengers is it contains an abundance of missed opportunities, a creepy twist would have been much better delivered it we saw it as a back flash rather than watch every single plot point unfold at a snails pace .  An Divine reason behind the inciting event would have given depth and more purpose to our journey.

         Passengers is by no means a action film like perhaps it's marketed or even a mystery thriller like it's been hinted at. It's more fitting to a Psychological Drama set in space... now try and sell that to your 12A audience. 

        Passengers has a good concept and in the hands of a creative genius like Kubrick this could have perhaps been quite special but here it never pushes to evolve, to dare to be bigger or take risks and with a scope as big as the universe that's a real shame. 

Dying of the Light (2014) 

94 min - Drama 89% | Thriller 11%

2/5 
And here's why....

Background... 

         When the first publicity you hear about a film is the fact that accomplished director Paul Schrader (Wrote Taxi Driver and Raging Bull),  Academy award winning Actor Cage and Producer  Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) all denounce the film by wearing matching shirts quoting their contracts that say they are unable to publicly denounce the film it doesn't inspire confidence in the final product .



           
                     A more exciting poster for the film. 

      This is because the director and co were booted out the edit suite and the backers edited the movie to there liking. I suppose one way or another you really do get what you pay for. This might explain the slightly mis matched film in front of you. In future maybe just have a better contract before you take the King's shilling.....

 And so the story goes...


       Evan Lake (Cage, sporting his probably natural grey hair) is a seasoned CIA agent looking at a terminal illness that will rot his brain is suddenly given the chance to take down the terrorist that tortured him decades earlier. After he sales pitches his mission to his boss who points out to Cage that the now elderly terrorist his after hasn't been active in 20 years, is now terminally ill, facing a painful death that will kill him soon anyway so what's the point? Fuck it Cage loses his shit, then his job, then goes rogue with a young weird voiced colleague (Anton Yelchin) who's willing to risk it all (His Job! His freedom!) if its gives him some field work!


Cage still trying to understand the scripts narrative. 

In a nutshell....



         After a slow endeavor, then a semi meaningful confrontation, comes a random violent and crazy rushed conclusion with all diplomacy out the window with Cage even declaring " Salam alaikum asshole!" in his deadly showdown with a heavily crippled elderly terminally ill terrorist!      
The random action packed four minute sequence of the film, eight minutes from the end.

Afterthought.....


             I had read that perhaps the initial intention of the story was showing the effects of burnt out agents, or post traumatic stress who knows, no answers here. 
        
        The film doesn't back up the plot really despite how hard it tries in its last shot of quickest plot tidy edit I've seen in some time. 
      
       More disturbingly perhaps the title was given the most literal meaning it could of done in the last three minutes so any metaphoric idealism over the title's true meaning can be brain energy better saved for Sudoku or Candy Crush on the ipad, these editors want to give you exactly whats on the tin. 


Cage waiting for another re edit.

              There was brief bit of acting delight from Cage where he denounces his boss's  and CIA's actions in modern American history after his lifetime's dedication to the service, that to me was the height of the acting and script writing in this film, unfortunately it was near the start.

The 200th re edit was getting to Cage

Summary... 
               What had potential is now a strange unbalanced film that will never quite show us what the filmmakers were planning. Would love to read the original script to see exactly what the true intention was. 
     
One thing is for sure I bet the director's commentary will be fucking hilarious.

Take it for it is.... it's ok....
2/5 

Did you know?...
    Harrison Ford and Channing Tatum were originally set to star with Nicolas Winding Refn to direct.

         Ford walked out due to the Script's ending apparently (not the first time either, did the same on The Sum Of All Fears) and Refn left to direct Drive (In retrospect a rather good call) but stayed on as a Executive Producer.