Review: Sicario

From the creator of 2013's Prisoners, and getting ridiculously high critical acclaim, but Sicario is no Prisoners.

An FBI agent who stumbles upon the dealings of a drug cartel is roped into a special Government taskforce to aid in the neutralisation of the drug trade on the US and Mexican borders.

I don't get the massive critical success of Sicario. I really don't. While director Denis Villeneuve really has his stamp upon it stylistically; it has the same perpetually moody, grim and intense atmosphere, as a story and as a film it really doesn't do anything.
Emily Blunt leads the cast as Kate Macer, an FBI agent who we see in the film's opening stumble across a house where the walls are lined with corpses. This opening is, frankly, the best and most interesting part of this entire film. There's a real sense of dread, a sense of putridity and cruelty that is amplified by the film's score. The film grabs you instantly, but it slowly loosens its grip.

Kate Macer quickly becomes a non-character. She has vague motives at best to help this taskforce, and they (led by Josh Brolin) do not tell her anything; everything is deliberately kept secret from her. Why? That would be the film's anchor, the meat of the story is how this unit alienates and treats her like a ghost. It would be, had the film actually led to anything worthwhile.
On top of this, Emily Blunt can play a strong female protagonist, yet here her character is made to be virtually useless; she even nearly accidentally sleeps with a villain. The mystery of why she is even in this brutal, dangerous place becomes more of a nuisance than a compelling reason to watch.
The film's perspective moves gradually away from Macer completely, and towards Benicio Del Toro's character Alejandro, who is a quiet, seemingly unassuming man within the taskforce who when asked refuses to say who he works for. There's an uncomfortably long stint where we are following a woman we know nothing about, following a man she knows nothing about, for reasons we don't know. And like I said, the film ends with very little pay off for all this mystery.

The film's opening is fantastic. It really, really is. The score, Blunt and Del Toro are also all incredible with the roles they play in the film. The music is unsettling and make the omnipresence of threat from all directions palpable; the film's sense of dread is incredible and does test your wits and drains your resolve.

But it drags itself down with a over reliance on mystery and it loses the audience. Fans of Prisoners might be expecting a twist or two that never come, or audiences are put out by characters we don't especially care about.

I criminally underrated Prisoners, and I would rather watch that again than Sicario.

Review: A Most Wanted Man

A troubling, quiet but politically charged spy thriller starring the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his final leading role.

After the attack on New York's Trade Centre in 2001 the dock city of Hamburg in Germany was identified as a security risk; allowing those responsible for the attacks access to the western world and continues to do so for other Islamic extremists. Hoffman plays as the head of a small German spy network who feels personally responsible for the city's increased security.

But when one suspicious man appears from the docks his spy team leap into action, but while the man appears inoffensive, red flags are raised when he attempts to acquire a huge amount of money from a local bank. Things are made worse for Hoffman when the American CIA come to intervene.

Spy work is often over dramatised, indulgent on the action or romanticized, but A Most Wanted Man is none of those things. While Hoffman's target is of ambiguous intent or purpose throughout the film, we see the security organisations fighting over the moral actions they should take while monitoring his movements. The need to spy from a distance and learn more about terrorist cells, against the need to clamp down immediately on any suspects before they can cause devastation.

Things become even more complicated when a young social worker, a self-styled lawyer, takes the immigrant into her care in hope of giving him a new life in the country.

It is a fascinating film purely from the characters and the organisations they answer to, as well as a contemporary look at what our society acts upon and what governments consider just cause. This actually provides most of the conflict rather than simply making it a racial struggle like most other stories of this type would.

The characters are all given backstories and motivations for their actions without ham-fistedly ramming flashbacks or monologues into our faces. Hoffman is excellent throughout, and Willem Dafoe is always a good addition in my opinion.

Everything is very muted and quiet. This isn't an action movie, or a chase movie, it is slow and steady in pacing and this might lose some audiences expecting something else. Personally I found its character work and slow build very intriguing and the ending was excellent.

Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty is more of a requirement in film than it is in art, giving some sense of closure to millions affected, and treats the subject with respect.

The film follows the true events of one CIA woman's dogged determination to finally find and kill terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden.

Directed by Katheryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) the film is in good hands; it maintains a dedicated honesty from start to finish, it never blemished the story, its development or the characters and gives you a real sense that these events took place. It is almost more of a documentary than a drama in that respect.
Its pace is slow, and with a runtime of 210 minutes it may seem a little long in the middle, but it is good to be enacted in such a way. Everyone is waiting for the film's climax, but the slow burning build up only heightens your dedication to seeing it through to the end.

It is a necessary film. I mean that it feels like it takes you very personally on the characters' journeys to finding the terrorist, and this will give a tremendous amount of closure for the millions of people affected. The final night-time sequence is fascinating and starkly shot, giving the audience a full and involving representation of how the events truly unfolded. 
The way that our protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) struggles to find the evidence and the clues she needs to give rise to military action, threatening to see it all collapse and give in at any moment, nicely catches the audience up in the cause.

I have my issues with films based on real (and recent) events. Film's like The Impossible, United 93, World Trade Centre do not interest me as they appear too deliberate and almost showboating with horrific events that are too fresh in our minds. Zero Dark Thirty however feels distanced enough to be acceptable; yes, it opens with real audio from the 9/11 attack, and includes a sequence representing (and archive News footage of) the London bus bombing, but the purpose of the film is not showing these events, it is to show the end of these events.

Some might argue that it is boring, too long and that the characters are relatively neutral but... I find it hard to agree. The film is an efficient and arrow straight visualisation of real events, to say it is inherently "bad" would be a mistake!

It is implemented with cold precision, and it doesn't attempt to charm or alleviate you as it progresses. The film's sole purpose is to give closure, and by the time the film finishes I think many people will feel satisfied and a little startled because of it.

 

Review: Argo

In 1980 a top secret operation was carried out by the CIA to rescue civilians from a revolutionary movement in Iran. The story was declassified only recently, and Argo tells the principle story of how one man's unlikely plan was the only option.

The film's title Argo, is the title of a science fiction film script that was never put into production yet was the linchpin of the CIA operation. Tony Mendez (Ben Afleck) would go to Iran, find the six American Embassy workers in hiding, and give them safe passage out of the country under the guise of the film's production executives.

Putting aside the film's obvious credibility as an eye-opening true story, it is a solid piece of film making to boot! I can't say I've been bothered about Afleck's struggling career as director and actor (The Town was sorely lacking) but with Argo he appears to be maturing and gives this serious historical account an honest telling. It isn't Hollywood or glamorous; it is shot extremely well, using a lot of retro set design and costume design, as well as - presumably - television footage from the original News coverage.

Bonus points for Afleck's rather silent protagonist. If you don't like his acting, he has given himself the least to do. While Tony Mendez has family and he is risking his life, Afleck's mood throughout the film is delivered with stony stares and control (he has to though; the character is leading six paranoid strangers on a wild, dangerous mission). It is clear they did a precise job casting each of the characters involved, very good doppelgangers... except for Afleck. 

It is a grim affair to be sure, we see Iran in a state of conflicted identity and merciless prejudice, yet the film does have moments of relaxation, after all, they are pretending to shoot a fake science fiction movie! Enter John Goodman as John Chambers (real life film make-up artist legend, who had worked on Planet of the Apes and Star Trek, and before that making prosthetics for war veterans) who gives some great tasteful comedy relief.

It is an intense ride towards the end; the last twenty minutes are fraught with paranoia and fearful glances as the group try to escape. (The film made me think of a contemporary The Great Escape) It has great pacing, its two hour run time flies by.

It is an insightful and intense thriller, and isn't just Afleck's best effort but also an excellent film in general.