Brooklyn (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 111 minutes
Director: John Crowley
Writers: Colm Toibin (novel), Nick Hornby (screenplay)
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen, Domhnall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Fiona Glascott, Julie Walters, Eileen O'Higgins, Jessica Pare, Emily Bett Rickards, Eve Macklin, Nora-Jane Noone

Brooklyn is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Transmission Films and in the United States by Fox Searchlight.

With it's glorious sense of 1950's nostalgia, it is almost surprising how relatable the story and themes in John Crowley's Brooklyn are to the modern woman in it's heart-warming story of personal growth and love.

In the early 1950's, young Irish girl, Eilis (Saoirse Ronan) is sent to America to make a new life for herself in Brooklyn, New York. Plagued by an over-whelming sense of homesickness, the beginning of her journey is not a happy one. However, things soon turn around for Eilis when she finds a sense of purpose studying bookkeeping at night and meets Tony (Emory Cohen). She and Tony find love in one another and start to plan for a future together, until Eilis receives the terrible news that her beloved older sister, Rose (Fiona Glascott) has passed away suddenly. She returns to Ireland to console her mother and is faced with the dilemma of whether she should stay in her homeland with her mother or return to Brooklyn to her new life and Tony.

Brooklyn is a simple, but incredibly sweet and beautiful film. It's beauty lies in both the exquisite mode of storytelling by screenwriter, Nick Hornby and in the delightfully unique visuals of 1950's Brooklyn. The story of Eilis is uncomplicated and straightforward, but it's charming nature makes it mesmerising and enjoyable. While Brooklyn seems to primarily be encouraging one to follow their heart, it possesses a greater depth than it's face value. It shines a light on the idea of doing something because it is what you know what is right for you rather than what everybody else believes you should do. Following one's heart is easy when you have support from those around you, but it is much harder to do when what everyone else believes what thy think is right for you contradicts your beliefs. Eilis experiences an internal struggle on return to Ireland when she starts to once again feel as though she is part of the town, but she soon realises how trapped she feels by everyone else's assumptions about her future.

Despite it being set over half a century ago, the idea of a young girl leaving home and travelling overseas by herself is a rather modern one. While in this day and age a plane would transport one across the seas instead of an ocean liner, many young people (both men and women) embrace the idea of leaving home and living a year abroad. The emotions one goes through upon arrival in a brand new country are very similar to Eilis. It is not unusual to feel an initial overwhelming sense of homesickness before finding your feet and embracing a new life with new opportunities which would not be found in one's homeland. A solo trip abroad can also make one more independent and also more confidant within oneself, which seen here with Eilis in Brooklyn. This, along with it's theme of self-fulfilment, makes Brooklyn incredibly relatable despite the time in which the film was set.

Brooklyn is an incredibly attractive production with it's superb cinematography and phenomenal costume design. The location shots of both Ireland and New York are contradictory in nature, but they are both beautiful in different ways which allows one to understand Eilis' dilemma It is the exquisite costume design by Odile Dicks-Mireaux and complimenting hair and make-up that gives the film a true nostalgic and rather sweet and adorable edge. The costumes are absolutely beautiful, particularly the New York characters' wardrobes. Their clothes come to represent who each character is, where they come from and also change as the character develops.

Saoirse Ronan is the perfect fit for Eilis. Ronan herself was born in New York City to Irish parents who moved back to Ireland when she was very young. She brings a sincerity to the role that makes one feel immediately engaged and emotionally invested in her character. Ronan truly does carry the film as she is in almost every scene and is at all times engaging as the sole focus. She is fiercely real as the timid, homesick girl from Ireland and completely believable in her character growth and development. Emory Cohen is also a stand out. Like Ronan, he brings a real sincerity to his role as  Eilis' Italian boyfriend, Tony and the joy of his love for Eilis is both incredibly sweet and infectious.

Brooklyn is a truly exquisite piece of cinema. It is an absolute joy to behold with it's engaging tale of love and self-discovery and it's visual beauty.

9/10

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

 

Year: 2014
Running Time: 100 minutes
Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Stefan Zweig (based on the writings by), Hugo Guinness (story), Wes Anderson (story and screenplay)
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Jeff Goldblum, William H. Macy, Saoirse Ronan, Mathieu Amalric, Lea Seydoux, Harvey Keitel

The Grand Budapest Hotel will be released in Australia on the 10th April and is distributed by 20th Century Fox. Now showing in the United States and United Kingdom.

Wes Anderson's latest piece of cinema, The Grand Budapest Hotel is absolutely nothing short of grand itself. There is so much to marvel at during a viewing of this quirky but brilliant film. So much that you feel as though you need to watch it again just in case you missed something the first time around, and this is no bad thing. The whole film is a beautiful piece of art thanks to it's amazing visuals, extraordinary cinematography, interesting characters and wonderful screenplay.

While a young writer (Jude Law) is staying at the tired and rundown Grand Budapest Hotel, he meets the hotel's owner, Mr Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) and enquires how he came to own the hotel. Mustafa tells the young writer of how he was a lobby boy (played by Tony Revolori) at the hotel between the wars and developed a close friendship with the concierge, M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). The intriguing tale of how these two became so close is one of theft, murder and adventure.

This is absolutely Wes Anderson's most visually beautiful film to date. There is not enough that can be said about the incredible production design employed in The Grand Budapest Hotel. Each shot is a unique piece of artwork carefully designed to create both awe and intrigue in the viewer.  From the very first scene in the cemetery, you are completely enthralled by how interesting the location is and the interest stirred in this opening continues throughout the film. The models of the hotel itself and of the structures among the mountains are just exquisite and somewhat playful at the same time. What does strike you watching the film is how neat and clean cut it is. Everything in the background of each shot is perfectly symmetrical from the pigeonholes at the hotel's front desk, to the prison beds to the formation of the soldiers on the train. While many of the shots employed are not uncommon in Anderson's body of work, this is the best use of his signature techniques thus far.

Before The Grand Budapest Hotel was released, there were several instructions sent out to the cinemas who would be showing this film. These instructions included using widescreen in panoramic shots and shortening the screen in others, a great technique as it draws the audience into the picture more. The musical score is also extraordinarily intriguing, particularly in the parts of high tension when the music would have you believe you are watching a horror or thriller film from the 1930's. The Grand Budapest Hotel is also extremely atmospheric and nostalgic of it's time and place in an unique fashion. You can smell the scent of the hotel in both it's glory days and it's harsh times, as well as feel the cold and harshness of the conditions in the European state of unrest.

The screenplay, based on the writings of  Stefan Zweig, is also very good. Through the film you know where it is heading, but you don't know how it is getting there and the way it gets there is not as interesting as the visuals, but still extremely entertaining. People familiar with other Wes Anderson films such as The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited will know that Anderson's brand of humour is not the stereotypical Hollywood humour, and that this unconventional, quirky sense of humour may strike some members of the audience as weird and dull. However, the ones who do appreciate this quirkiness will be pleased. There are not many moments where you feel like rolling on the floor laughing, but are many amusing pieces of dialogue and comedic timing by the performers.

The Grand Budapest Hotel has an impressive stellar cast, many who have worked with Anderson before and again perform well under his guidance. Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as M. Gustave. He has a tremendous amount of character and although some of his practises are questionable to say the least, he is very likable. His entertaining dialogue is delivered exquisitely with perfect timing and emotion where called for.

An unrecognisable Tilda Swinton's role is somewhat brief, but her time on screen as Gustave's much older lover is definitely memorable.It is a pleasure to see F. Murray Abraham on screen, as his charisma gives off an air of respect and importance, although in the most subtle way. Adrien Brody and William H. Macy are the villains of the story and are really a lot of fun, particularly Macy.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is an absolute cinematic treat. There is real fun to be had with this film and if you love Wes Anderson's unique film making style, this is nothing short of a masterpiece.

8.5/10

The Host (2013)

Year: 2013

Director: Andrew Niccol

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Diane Kruger, William Hurt, Max Irons

Before I begin my review…

I feel like I have come full circle with The Host cycle.

The book will always be plagued by the fact that Stephenie Meyer, creator of the Twilight phenomenon penned it. I was completely sceptical of it and I know many other people who assumed before knowing anything about it that it was just another Twilight.

So I read the book and was pleasantly surprised to find out that there were no sparkling vampires or chiselled werewolves to speak of. For my tastes, I enjoyed The Host far better than I did the Twilight books. I read 63 books last year including The Host (yes, I am a massive book worm as well as being a cinephile!) and it was one of my favourites for the year.

So naturally I was very excited about the upcoming film. Until the first few minutes of it when I discovered that I should have realised that it could never work as a film the same way it did as a book.

That voice inside her head.

As soon as I heard Melanie voice for the first time inside Wanda’s head, it was moment where I felt like smacking my forehead with an open palm. I was so excited about a book I really enjoyed being made into a film that I forgot in my excitement this crucial piece of information that could break it.

Some good books should be left just as that. Good books. We don’t need to make a movie out of it. Just because it is a good book doesn’t scream that the film will work.

Why don’t film producers work more on mediocre books so it’s image can be improved by creating a better film?

I think I just spoilt the ending of my review….

Review

It is said often enough that the book is normally better than the film and the usual reason for that is that some books just don’t transfer to the screen well.

The Host is unfortunately one of those films. Various aspects of Stephenie Meyer’s novel have had some bad treatment and have not been used in a way that makes them effective on the screen and instead makes them quite ridiculous. The story itself isn’t bad and is really quite creative, it’s just a shame that director, Andrew Niccol and Meyer in the producer role made some bad production decisions.

An alien race has taken over the human race in order to eliminate all hatred and violence and bring Earth to peace. They have done this by inserting Souls into human bodies and thus eliminating the human soul. Wanda, or Wanderer as she is known as at the beginning of the film (Saoirse Ronan) has entered the body of Melanie Stryder, who refuses to completely fade from her physical form. Wanda constantly hears Melanie’s voice I her head trying to get her to go to and protect her loved ones from being taken over by this alien race. Seeker (Diane Kruger) is suspicious of Wanda and keeps a close eye on her before Melanie convinces Wanda to seek out her Uncle Jeb (William Hurt), brother Jamie (Chandler Canterbury) and her love, Jared (Max Irons). While Melanie is committed to Jared, Wanda is drawn to Ian (Jake Abel), forming a bizarre love triangle which involves three bodies, but four souls.

The Host has all the potential in the world with an intriguing and unique story, but it lets itself down in so many areas. The worst part of the film is the way in which Melanie’s voice inside Wanda’s head is created. It’s understandable that the film makers wanted to show how loud and clear her voice is inside Wanda’s head, but it sounds like nothing more than a dubbed over voice. Of course that is what it is, but that loses all the magic as it brings it seems so constructed. Melanie’s dialogue just sounds ridiculous at times and her constant “No! Please!” just becomes irritating and almost laughable.

There are other ways which this inner voice could have been achieved and heard by the audience, such as a quieter voice or perhaps even with some background noise, so that the audience could focus on the tension forming in Wanda’s mind and the expression on her face displaying this inner turmoil.

The film doesn’t really find momentum until about halfway through it (which is coincidently when Melanie pipes down), but even then doesn’t gain enough to create suspense and tension. The story is very interesting and the concept is intriguing, but the script doesn’t support the plot in the way which it should and doesn’t do it any justice.

The cinematography isn’t bad and some images are quite beautiful. However, the editing is pretty amateur, especially when it is chopping and changing between Wanda’s dream and the image of her in bed.

Honestly, the character of Wanda is not a very interesting or likable character. Obviously Wanda is supposed to be a very placid creature and is not supposed to experience emotion, but you feel no real attachment to the lead character and that is never a good thing. You are indifferent about who ends up with who and what happens to Wanda. This is not Saoirse Ronan’s fault, she was just not given much to work with. It’s a very lack lustre role.

Diane Kruger is not half bad as The Seeker. Even though his role wasn’t really a fantastic one and his performance wasn’t extremely powerful, you can see a glimmer of hope in Jake Abel that he does have big things in store for him. He shows emotion where need be, but again, his role calls for it to be pulled back. The Host doesn’t show what he really is capable of.

So many films have potential to be greater than they are and The Host isn’t one of them. People who haven’t read the book may flock to see it once they hear that just because it is based on a book by Stephenie Meyer, it doesn’t mean it is about vampires, yet that doesn’t mean you will like it any better.

4.5/10

You may have also seen Saoirse Ronan in....
The Lovely Bones
Hanna

Hanna

Hanna

Year: 2011

Director: Joe Wright

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana

In My Own Words

                Hands up those in Australia who remember Full Frontal? If you do, you know exactly what I will be talking about in this In My Own Words.

                I am, of course, going to be talking about the Eric Bana which we Australians knew back in the 1990’s. The Eric Bana who was on our television screens each Thursday night at 8:30pm. No, Full Frontal wasn’t an incredibly dramatic and intense drama series, it was Australia’s answer to Saturday Night Live with its collection of send up skits. Unfortunately, the series which I so loved came to an end in 1996, but the memories of Eric Bana as the comedian lives on.

                If someone had told me then that Bana was going to be one of the leading drama and action stars in Hollywood not even 10 years after the show finished, I would have been extremely confused of how anyone could take him seriously. He has definitely proved himself as a fantastic actor and I am very proud of how far our fellow Aussie has come. Yet, sometimes when I watch him in a movie, I am still expecting him to open his mouth and crack a joke or start up on of his famous impersonations as the Aussie bogan, Peter (pronounced “Poiter”), Australian television personality Ray Martin or his very funny portrayal of Tom Cruise. So Bana has gone from imitating the Hollywood heavy weights for a living, to being one of them. Ironic the way the world works out, isn’t it?

                These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

                What comes to mind when you think about a film about a child assassin? Violence, confrontation, uneasiness? Most likely words of this nature and nobody could blame you for thinking this. How about if the movie starts when the “child” in question is in the latter half of her teenage years which doesn’t really make the film about a child assassin, but about a young lady who has been trained as an assassin? Therefore, Hanna is a misunderstood film and rather than creating the controversy which one thinks it would, it is quite amazing really.

                Saoirse Ronan is Hanna, the sixteen year old who has been raised in the Finnish wild by her father, Erik (Eric Bana). As an ex- CIA agent, Erik has trained his daughter as soldier trained to kill. Hanna is sent into the world for the first time to travel across Europe and meet her father in Berlin. As soon as her presence is known in the outside world, she has agents on her tail wanting her dead and she comes face to face with the agent who killed her mother, Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna learns what it is like to be a typical sixteen year old in the outside world and also learns who she really is.

                The story of Hanna may seem disturbing to some people, but it hardly seems disturbing on screen. Sure there is violence, which is to be expected in a film about an assassin, yet the story is really played out as a piece of art. The storyline and script itself is good, but the techniques used to bring the story to the screen are far more impressive than the writing.

The cinematography is just beautiful. There are some amazing panoramic landscape shots and the editing during Hanna’s escape from the agents is brilliant. Director Joe Wright chooses some great locations for the film. The filming locations are very interesting and in the final scenes with playground equipment and the swans and wolf mouth keep everything fresh even at the end of the film. If you really want to get in depth, these images which are part of the landscape could also be seen as symbolic of the childlike innocence which has been destroyed.

In the scene when Hanna is escaping for the first time from the agents, the thrilling images are accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack by The Chemical Brothers. The best thing about this soundtrack is that it isn’t techno or electronic music pumping constantly throughout the film, but the sounds are mixed up depending on what is happening in the film at that point in time. One would think that the film was choreographed around the music by how well it matches up and not the other way around.

Saoirse Ronan, this young woman loves the roles that push her boundaries, and why not? She pulls them all off. As Hanna, she physically suits the role as the young girl brought up in the wild. She doesn’t really give a great deal of emotion in the scenes where it is needed, yet she is great as the girl who has never got to experience anything that a typical sixteen year old has. She also doesn’t show a tremendous amount of aggression, which one would normally expect in an assassin. There is aggression there, just not enough.

Eric Bana seems to glide through this role. Like Ronan, he doesn’t show a great amount of emotion. Yet, it is great to see him in another action role. He is a natural in this type of role and looks right at home in the action fighting sequences. Cate Blanchett is very good as the role of the evil agent. She really is quite terrifying and becomes the role with every ounce of her being.

Hanna is truly a work of art. It is visually beautiful and everything is pieced together with the greatest accuracy and care. It is always a great joy to see a film know that it is a piece of art and live up to it.

8/10

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones
Year: 2009
Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Susan Surandon

In My Own Words
I really didn’t want to write this review. Not because I have lost motivation at all, or even that I am not in the mood. I didn’t want to write this review because I always hate writing bad things about a movie I have really been looking forward to. However, this is all part of being a film critic and it has to be done.

I read the book “The Lovely Bones” by Alice Sebold about 2 months ago and I absolutely loved it. It was one of the most beautiful books I had read in so long. I had been looking forward to the movie before it, but after I read the book, it was leading the way as the Boxing Day release that I most wanted to see. Obviously it took me a bit longer to actually get around to seeing it though. I thought that the book was so wonderful that nobody, especially Peter Jackson, could make it into a bad movie. It was a silly thought to have, as 40 minutes into the film I was thinking “This book should have never been made into a movie”. The book is just far too complex with too much emotion in its words to be transferred onto the screen in a two hour movie. In saying this, there are certain aspects that could and should have been done better. Maybe Peter Jackson should stick to the adventure genre that he has established himself in.

It’s such a dull feeling seeing a film that you expected so much out of when it turns out to be far less than your expectations. I normally try not to expect too much from movies so I won’t be disappointed if it is a flop, but this one I felt so strongly about considering it is such an amazing novel. My advice, read the book if you think the film sounds interesting. You’ll feel more satisfied after that than the film. Harsh, but true.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Lovely Bones” is the return to the drama film for award-winning director Peter Jackson. Box office wise it is a triumphant return, but critically wise, not at all. This film could have been spectacular, but it falls in a mess not even half way through. “The Lovely Bones”, based on the best seller written by Alice Sebold, is about a young girl by the name of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who is murdered by a man in her hometown and travels to her own heaven. From there she watches all the people on Earth that she has left behind and who are affected by her death.

One would think that “The Lovely Bones” would be an extremely moving movie that so much could be done with. Peter Jackson turns it into just that, a movie that so much COULD have been done with. This is probably the wrong way to say it, Jackson does do so much with the movie, but it isn’t the right mixture to make the film into a masterpiece. Fans of the book will be severely disappointed in this film and people who have not read the book will be confused and disappointed. Jackson overdoes certain aspects of the film and neglects others. It is no doubt that there are some dazzling images and the cinematography is amazing throughout the film, but a film with a subject matter such as this cannot rely on stunning images to pull it through. If the film was primarily about the afterlife, this may have been acceptable, but throwing what is happening where Susie was left behind makes it an uneven balance. There is not enough of the emotions which her family go through to make it a particularly emotional film or to feel any connection to these characters at all. People who have not read the book and watch the film, will be confused with some parts and wonder why some things are happening, particularly at the end. Jackson leaves much of the book out and some parts which he does include, do not make sense without the parts he leaves out. In Jackson’s defence, he would have to make the film far longer than what it actually was to truly capture the essence of the emotion which is supposed to be felt as well as the beauty of heaven.

The acting in the film is not half bad, although there is not enough of it. Ronan is the star of the film and does do a good job. She exhibits the characteristics of a young, innocent teenage girl and goes through the emotions to come to the understanding of her death. Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg as Susie’s parents, are good in parts, but far more could have been done with their characters. Although they do well with what is given to them, there is no chemistry between them on the screen, but this can be attributed to no in depth character and relationship development throughout the film. Stanley Tucci, as Susie’s murderer, is the stand out of the film. His character is the only one with is well developed and creates a bond with the audience. He oozes the air of that unusual neighbour that nobody knows much about, but everybody knows there is something not quite right about him. In all, the acting is not bad by any of the characters, bit is just badly directed.

It is such a shame to see Peter Jackson’s direction take a downturn after the success of “The Lord Of the Rings” and his remake of “King Kong”. It would seem that he tried to take the winning aspects from his prior successes and bring them into “The Lovely Bones”, a film that does not rely on special effects to make it memorable. “The Lovely Bones” is first and foremost, a disappointment.

3/10