Movie Review: Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Joe Wright.

Written by: Anthony McCarten.

Starring: Gary Oldman (Winston Churchill), Lily James (Elizabeth Layton), Ben Mendelsohn (King George VI), Kristin Scott Thomas (Clementine Churchill), Stephen Dillane (Viscount Halifax), Samuel West (Sir Anthony Eden), Ronald Pickup (Neville Chamberlain), Richard Lumsden (General Ismay).

 

Gary Oldman has been one of the best actors in the world for decades now – and an actor who is never afraid of going wildly over-the-top in any role from Sid & Nancy to The Professional to Hannibal to The Contender to Dracula and on and on. Sure, Oldman can do subtle if he wants to – he finally received his first Oscar nomination for his intricate work in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and he was the quietest member of the ensemble in Nolan’s Batman films as Commissioner Gordon – but it’s always a pleasure to see Oldman in full bluster. In Darkest Hour, Oldman starts his performance in a bathrobe, shouting, and only gets bigger from there. He’s cranked up to 11 from the hop – and the amazing thing is, it works. He is playing Winston Churchill after all – a man in love with his own voice, and absolutely never shut up. The film is tightly focused on the early days as Prime Minister – the first month or so – when he takes over for Neville Chamberlain, and is immediately a war time Prime Minister. Europe is on the brink of collapse, and his own troops are likely to trapped at Dunkirk (yes, the film works very well as a companion to Nolan’s film – telling you everything it didn’t) and being pressured at all times to negotiate a peace treaty with Hitler – something he adamantly does not want to do. The movie hinges on Churchill’s big speeches – speeches where he will do anything to inspire the British public – including tell bald faced lies if need be. The film is about the power of that language.

 

The film was directed by Joe Wright – perhaps picking a safer choice after his Pan bombed in 2015 – and he knows what to do with this film. Written by Anthony McCarten, the movie in many ways feels like it was adapted from a play (it wasn’t) – as the whole thing takes place in smoky chamber rooms or underground bunkers – a few scenes in Parliament, or the palace. The cinematography by the great Bruno Delbonnel is wonderful – full of desaturated colors, and darkness – and wonderful tracking shots through those bunkers. The score, by Dario Marianelli is even better – and keeps the movie moving along, even during moments where the film sags. None of this is as ambitious as Wright’s last costume drama – Anna Karenina – or as perfect as Wright’s Atonement (which also featured Dunkirk) – but its prestige, British costume drama done correctly.

 

The movie goes along at a remarkable clip up until its final act. It’s here – when Churchill for a time actually does consider negotiating with Hitler – when the movie sags more than a bit. With Churchill cowed for a few scenes, and quiet and sputtering, the movie loses its way for a while. This reaches its nadir in a sequence that plays as pure fantasy, as Churchill gets onto the “tube” and talks with regular Londoners about the war (for all of one stop – but hey, it’s a long one). The scene is supposed to be the inspirational heart of the film – but it plays as completely phony. The movie recovers with the finale – in which Churchill delivers his infamous speech to the House of Commons (also heard in Dunkirk, in less bombastic fashion).

 

The supporting cast for the film is mostly excellent. Sensing that Oldman is going to do more than enough acting for all of them, they for the most part play their roles quietly. In some cases – like the normally charming Lily James, who plays a typist supposed to be an audience surrogate, she threatens to recede entirely into the background and be forgotten. In others, like Ben Mendolsohn as King George, he is able to nicely underplay the role of the stuttering King, with more nuance that Colin Firth (for the record, I still quite like Firth’s work in The King’s Speech). Kristen Scott Thomas is a delight in a few scenes as Churchill’s wife. Most of Churchill’s “enemies” in the house kind of blend together – we remember Chamberlain because of his mustache, and Stephen Dillane’s Halifax because he’s the biggest stick in the mud in recent memory.

 

Overall, Darkest Hour does precisely the job it wants to do. Yes, it is straight down the middle – a middlebrow, prestige drama, the kind favored by the Masterpiece Theater crowd (and Oscar voters). But that doesn’t mean the film is bad. Wright knows how to do this type of drama well – and he uses Oldman’s blustery performance to perfection. Sometimes, Oldman has looked silly going so wildly over-the-top in films that don’t know how to use him properly. This one does – and surrounds a great performance with a good movie.

Movie Review: Anna Karenina

Anna Karenina
Directed by: Joe Wright.
Written by: Tom Stoppard based on the book by Leo Tolstoy.
Starring: Keira Knightley (Anna Karenina), Jude Law (Alexei Karenin), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Count Vronsky), Kelly Macdonald (Dolly), Matthew Macfadyen (Oblonsky), Domhnall Gleeson (Konstantin Levin),  Ruth Wilson (Princess Betsy), Alicia Vikander (Kitty), Olivia Williams (Countess Vronskaya), Michelle Dockery (Princess Myagkaya), Emily Watson (Countess Lydia), Holliday Grainger (The Baroness), Shirley Henderson (Meme Kartasov), Bill Skarsgård (Captain Machouten), Cara Delevingne (Princess Sorokina).

They say that necessity is the mother of invention, and that is the case with Joe Wright’s adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s classic novel Anna Karenina. Without a huge budget to do this period piece with the same style that most movies of its ilk are done, Wright has to find a way to tell this epic story more economically. This is apparently the reason why much of the movie is set on a stage – as if what we are watching is a play adaptation of the novel. Wright’s theatricality goes beyond simple set design though – much of the action and acting has that same theatrical bent to it as well. The movie moves with the same rhythm of a stage musical at times. While some will undoubtedly hate what Wright does in this film, after I got used to it, I kind of loved it. It’s completely different than any other period piece in recent memory. The movie has a different problem though holding it back from greatness – the great romance at the center of the movie that drives all the action, rings hollow. I just never believed that this Anna would love this Vronsky so much that she gives up everything in her life for him.

Keira Knightley plays Anna – who is married to the boring Alexi Karenin (Jude Law) is what is merely a marriage of convenience. When the movie opens, she is travelling to Moscow to try and talk her sister-in-law Dolly (Kelly McDonald) from divorcing her brother Oblonsky (Matthew Mcfadyen) over an affair he had with the governess. Dolly’s sister Kitty (Alicia Vikander) has two suitors – the humble, but wealthy, farmer Konstantin (Domhnall Gleeson), and the dashing, military man from a respectable family Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Kitty rejects Konstantin’s proposal, even though it’s clear to everyone he is madly in love with her, and holds onto hope that the sexier Vronsky will propose instead – which he very well might have, except that he locks eyes with Anna, and is immediately smitten. He’ll follow her back to St. Petersburg, where she’ll try to resist his charms, but will eventually fail. When she becomes pregnant, the secret that was only whispered about becomes impossible to hide.

The movie, like the novel, uses the three central couples to highlight the hypocrisy in Russian society in those days. What Oblonsky does, and continues to do even after he is caught, is viewed as socially acceptable behavior – he certainly pays no price for his indiscretions. What Anna, who actually falls in love, and not just lust like her brother, makes herself a social pariah – and loses everything because of her love. And when they finally do get together, Konstantin and Kitty share a more pure kind of love – it may not have the highs and lows of Anna’s great love, but they really do love each other.

The problem with the movie is that I just never believed that Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Vronsky was such an irresistible sexual force that Anna could simply not resist him. As played by Taylor-Johnson, he seems more like a shallow, superficial playboy – a spoiled, bratty teenager and not a great lover. Had that been the intent, of Tolstoy or Wright, it may have worked, but I don’t think that’s what they’re going for. After all, even with all the social pressure on him, he doesn’t abandon Anna – he loves her as deeply as she loves him. Knightley fares better as Anna than Taylor-Johnson, but because I never believed him, I found it hard to completely buy her as well. Knightley is almost distractedly beautiful in this movie – cloaked in some of the best, most gorgeous costumes of the year, and clearly made up to be at the height of her beauty, and she`s good as Anna – but not quite great.

The performance in the film that is great though is Jude Law`s as Alexi Karenin, Anna`s boring husband. This is a subtle performance – one where Law never raises his voice, never lets his emotions get the best of him. Yet, he can still be cruel and heartless, and at the same time, sympathetic. After all, he really doesn`t do anything wrong – except be boring. He even forgives Anna when she thinks she is dying and wants to die with honor – only to be thrown over a second time when she recovers.

 
The film is a still a triumph for director Wright though – at least at a visual level. The film is mesmerizing, and its style helps to overcome some of the problems with the substance of the movie. Some will find the whole style distracting – and the film`s storytelling confusing at first, but once I got into it, I loved what Wright does here. If he had found a better Vronsky, he may have even made a truly great film.

Movie Review: Hanna

Hanna *** ½
Directed by: Joe Wright.
Written by: Seth Lochhead and David Farr.

Starring: Saoirse Ronan (Hanna), Eric Bana (Erik), Cate Blanchett (Marissa), Jessica Barden (Sophie), Aldo Maland (Miles), Olivia Williams (Rachel), Jason Flemyng (Sebastian), Tom Hollander (Isaacs), Sebastian Hülk (Titch), Joel Basman (Razor).

If you stop and think about it, Hanna is an utterly ridiculous movie. Thankfully, the filmmakers never really give you a chance to stop and think about it. This is a movie that moves at a fast, exciting pace throughout – and yet, unlike most action movies, actually does find time for character development behind all the flash. Everyone in the film is a little more developed than they really have any right to be.

The movie opens in the arctic, where Hanna (Saorise Ronan) has been raised by her father Erik (Eric Bana) to be a survivalist, and essentially, a killing machine. She speaks nearly every language there is, and can take down an elk with a bow and arrow from 100 yards. Although she has spent her life this way, she knows that there is something missing – something not quite right about the arrangement. Erik tells her that when she is ready, she can leave – but that until she kills a woman named Marissa (Cate Blanchett) then she will never be free. Hanna decides the time is now – so Erik digs out one of those fancy tracking devices with a flashing light on top and tells her to flip the switch. Once she does, Marissa will know where they are. The two then split up, and agree to meet in Berlin. The game is on.

What follows is a cross continent chase, where basically Marissa tries to track and kill Hanna – and Hanna meets up with a more “normal” family and sees what life is like for most of us. There is a lot of nonsense about genetic engineering, but the filmmakers do not take it very seriously. They need it to give the story a reason for existing, but they tick it off and move on.

What impressed me about the film is the direction of Joe Wright. Up until now, he has been known for his costume dramas – Pride and Prejudice and Atonement – and his failed musical drama The Soloist. Wright is excellent at his period pieces, as his version of Pride and Prejudice may just be my favorite Jane Austen adaptation ever, and Atonement, which brought Ronan to the Oscars as one of the youngest nominees ever, had a tragic weight that is tough to get right. Here, he is one of the exact opposite end of the cinematic spectrum, and once again, he delivers the goods in a difficult genre. I think that Wright, as much as he liked making those other films, may have felt a little trapped in the period setting – so in Hanna, he lets it all hang out and goes for it with gusto. The film has as much style as a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder movie, but in this case, the style actually works and is not just a bunch of prepubescent stylings of making things look really cool. Aided a great deal by a terrific, pulsating techno score by The Chemical Brothers, he makes Hanna a stylish, violent action movie.

Wright is also aided a great deal by the performances. I don’t think there is another young actress who could have played the calm, cool psychopath at the heart of the movie like Ronan does. She has piercing blue eyes, and yet there is something missing in them in this film – certain humanity. She is playing at being normal, when underneath lurks the heart of a killer. In some ways, you could compare her character to the one Chloe Grace Mortez did such a great job at playing in last year’s Kick Ass – the difference being, here it isn’t played for laughs. It’s deadly serious. Add this to her resume that includes her Oscar nominated work in Atonement, her brilliant work in the flawed The Lovely Bones, and her great work in yet another flawed film, The Way Back, and I think it’s safe to say that Ronan has built up the best resume of any actress under 20. Eric Bana, that talented Australian actor who for some reason has never really become a movie star, plays his secretive role brilliantly well. He tries to protect Hanna, while preparing her at the same time. His role is not very vocal, but he does a lot with a little. Tom Hollander is having a blast as an evil man Marissa hires to track down Hanna. Best of all is Cate Blanchett, doing an over the top American accent, and chewing the scenery wonderfully well as the evil Marissa. It’s the best role of its kind since Meryl Streep in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate.

Hanna is a superbly entertaining movie from start to finish. No, you cannot take it all that seriously, but who the hell would want to? It is an action movie where the camera is actually used properly – no shaky camera effects here that make it impossible for the audience to orient itself to the action. And although you can probably predict the final line of the movie, it is a killer.

Movie Review: The Solosit

The Soloist **
Directed by: Joe Wright.
Written By: Susannah Grant based on the book by Steve Lopez.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr. (Steve Lopez), Jamie Foxx (Nathaniel Ayers), Catherine Keener (Mary), Lisa Gay Hamilton (Jennifer), Tom Hollander (Graham Claydon), Stephen Root (Curt).

I have grown tired of movies about people with a disability or mental illness triumphing over adversity. All the movies are pretty much exactly the same. A character appears to be lost, but with the help of a supportive friend, they are able to turn their lives around. They overcome hardships and difficulties, but in the end, they are okay. We’ve seen it before too many times by now. The Soloist is the latest movie to take on this storyline, and despite the presence of Robert Downey Jr., who is brilliant as always, the movie never rises above its own limitations.

Downey plays Steve Lopez, a reporter for the LA Times who writes a human interest column. The paper, like many across the country, is having trouble because young people don’t read the paper anymore – they go online to get their news. But Lopez continues to plug away at his column week after week. One day, while on another assignment, he meets Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx) on the street admiring a statute of Beethoven. He finds out that this guy, who obviously has some sort of mental illness, went to Julliard years ago. Now he’s living on the streets, and playing a violin that only has two strings. Lopez writes a column about him, and assumes that that will be the end of it. He’s wrong.

Something about Ayers touches people who read the paper. People send their old instruments to Lopez to give to Ayers. In return, Lopez reaches out to a group home in a bad area of LA in the hopes that they can help Ayers in off the street, and perhaps get him to take medication. Ayers is resistant to everything that Lopez tries, but gradually, by baby steps, he starts to come along. In Lopez he has found a friend. Lopez is somewhat horrified by this. He has always been a selfish prick, and he doesn’t want to be responsible. But he cannot say no.

Downey, it must be said, is wonderful in the movie, and he keeps the movie from being boring. He doesn’t much resemble the real Lopez in terms of his personality, but the Lopez we see on screen is much more interesting. My guess is that after Downey was cast, they did some rewrites to make Lopez more Downey-like. The result is an interesting character and performance by Downey, but he’s stuck in a plot that just isn’t up to his level. The same could be said for Jamie Foxx is also quite good in the movie. Despite the fact that characters like this always win, or at least get nominated for Oscars, I have never been as impressed as some with the performances. They are, by necessity, one note. Foxx does precisely what he is supposed to do in the film. It’s not his fault that the character just isn’t that interesting. The rest of the cast is wasted, particularly Catherine Keener. She seems like a woman who is completely together, but then there is one scene where she gets drunk at a benefit and says things she shouldn’t. Nothing in the movie leading up this point makes us think that she’s an alcoholic or is troubled – and then the scene is never mentioned again. It’s a very odd scene. Tom Hollander also has a small role as a religious cellist who tries to give Ayers lessons – but the character is never developed enough to make sense.

The director of the movie is Joe Wright, whose previous two films, Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, were both great. He seems at home with the British countryside in period pieces. But in modern day Los Angeles, he is lost. He never captures the right look or feel for the movie, which seems to be based more on other movies, then the city itself.

The film ends up being a jumbled mess that never truly involves us, or makes us feel for the characters. The film just sits there on the screen, and while we are never really bored by it, we never truly care either. This should have been a good little “inspirational” drama, but it isn’t. It’s just there.