Maiden


Sailing takes on a different attire in the oceans of Antarctica.

(2018) Documentary (Sony ClassicsTracy Edwards, Jo Gooding, Bruno Dubois, Barry Pickthall, Skip Novak, Bob Fisher, Howard Gibbons, Sally Hunter, Nancy Harris, Jeni Mundy, Claire Warren, Dawn Riley, Angela Heath, Marie-Claude Heys, Tanja Nisser. Directed by Alex Holmes

 

We like to characterize women as the fairer sex, but there’s always the underlying “the weaker sex” that goes unspoken except in actions which are, of course, much louder than words. Over the last century or so women have been struggling to prove that myth wrong and have done so, sometimes in triumphant fashion.

Sailing has always been a man’s world. There was the unadulterated bull excrement that it was bad luck to have a woman on board sailing vessels, as if vaginas somehow brought on the wrath of the gods. For longer endurance races, however, there was always the need for physical strength and endurance, something that admittedly men possess in greater amounts.

Tracy Edwards grew up in England a rebellious teen who was devoted to her father who sadly passed away at a young age. When her mum remarried, she found her stepdad to be a loathsome individual so she left and took on odd jobs from flight attendant to bartender, eventually working on the crew of yachts for hire. There she fell in love with sailing.

When she heard about the Whitbread Endurance Race, the longest of its time, she was eager to be part of it. However, the nearest she could get was to be a cook on one of the entrants. She was treated as a second class citizen and felt that she wasn’t contributing as much as she would have liked to. She realized early on that the only way to run the race as an on-deck crew member would be to captain her own boat, something that had never been done before. And since few male crew members would work for a woman, she would need to hire herself an all=female crew.

She was met with a great deal of skepticism if not outright hostility. It’s expensive to enter a vessel in the Whitbread and finding sponsors was a heck of a mountain to climb. Most were at best apathetic; others treated the idea as a joke. There were some sympathetic to her plan but quite frankly they were concerned about the publicity that would be incurred if the ship sank during the race and they went down with all hands – a distinct possibility particularly in the rough and treacherous Antarctic seas. Nobody could believe that she could actually do it.

By random chance, she met King Hussein of Jordan who grew to believe in her. He arranged for Jordanian Air to sponsor her and through that she was able to buy and refurbish a second-hand boat which was re-christened the Maiden Great Britain (get the aural pun?) and entered the vessel in the race. Journalists were skeptical with one, Bob Fisher, going so far to call the entry a “tin can full of tarts.” Nevertheless, she entered the 1989-90 Whitbread and journalists eagerly and with more than a little snarky glee took bests on how far they’d get. The rest would be history.

You can be forgiven if you’ve never heard of any of this. I confess I didn’t even know about the Whitbread (which is now called the Volvo Race after their current sponsor) and knew even less about Edwards. All this occurred 30 years ago and frankly I don’t really follow sailing at all. This isn’t a situation unique to me and an obstacle director Alex Holmes has to overcome.

He does the best thing possible to overcome it – he tells the story simply and lets the power of the narrative and the character of the participants draw the viewer in. Utilizing a lot of interviews with the participants in the race, their rivals aboard other boats and the journalists who covered the race as well as home movies and archival coverage, Holmes weaves the story nicely. The sequences in the Southern Ocean are particularly harrowing as we watch the tiny boat navigate rough seas that would put the North Atlantic to shame.

Edwards loathed the term “feminist” although her deeds mark her as a feminist to the core. The movie does lack a bit of context; what sort of effects did the Maiden voyage (see what I did there?) have on the world of yacht racing and on women in sports in general? Have there been any other all-female crews since? I can’t answer that but I can imagine that plenty of young girls who watch this movie may end up inspired enough to put together a team of their own.

REASONS TO SEE: A gripping story told well. The cinematography is spectacular as is the score. Edwards and her crew make for engaging subjects. Brings to light a little-known historic event.
REASONS TO AVOID: Really doesn’t delve into how the voyage of the Maiden changed things and the effect it has had on how women are regarded.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity. Mature situations and some sexually suggestive content.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The film debuted at last year’s Toronto Film Festival.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 6/21/19: Rotten Tomatoes: 97% positive reviews: Metacritic: 79/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: All is Lost
FINAL RATING: 8/10
NEXT:
The House (2019)

Advertisements

Patrick (2018)


All dressed up and nowhere to go.

(2018) Family (Screen Media) Beattie Edmondson, Ed Skrein, Tom Bennett, Emelia Jones, Emily Atack, Cherie Lunghi, Peter Davison, Jennifer Saunders, Gemma Jones, Bernard Cribbins, Adrian Scarborough, Meera Syal, Milanka Brooks, Scott Chambers, Rupert Holliday-Evans, McKell David, Roy Hudd, Maria Barr, Rosie Ede, Olivia Buckland, Elena Valdameri. Directed by Mandie Fletcher

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a well-known dog nut. Not merely a dog lover, but a dog nut, one who talks incessantly about my four-legged family members, who dotes on their every whim, and who would rather spend an evening cuddling with them rather than just about everything else. It does occasionally drive Da Queen batty.

Therefore, take the following review with a grain of salt as I will state outright that my objectivity goes right out the window when it comes to dog movies. In this one, Patrick is an adorable pug who is spoiled rotten by his wealthy, elderly owner. When she collapses while taking him for a walk and dies, his despair is palpable. But oddly, Patrick is bequeathed not to the exceptional, successful granddaughter nor to the equally wealthy son but to Sarah (Edmondson), the ne’er-do-well, disorganized hot mess of a granddaughter who can never arrive anywhere on time, not even granny’s funeral.

For Sarah, the “inheritance” couldn’t come at a worse time. She is stuck in an apartment after her latest in a long line of beaus has dumped her, leaving her in a neighborhood where she knows nobody in a flat that has a strict no pets policy which wasn’t an issue initially because Sarah hates dogs and she’s not terribly good with people either. She’s just starting a new job as a high school English teacher and she’s eager to make a good impression so that she’ll be kept on for next term. Patrick, used to having the run of the palace gets separation anxiety early and often and seems bound and determined to alert the landlord to his presence, destroy all of Sarah’s things and leave poop bombs for Sarah to step in or piddle puddles to slip on.

Naturally, she falls in love with the adorable little dog. It doesn’t hurt that through Patrick, she is introduced to Ben (Bennett), a stable and kindly man who loves dogs nearly as much as I and Oliver (Skrein), a handsome hunk of a veterinarian. He also helps her get through to her unruly class and preaches the joys of healthy living and exercising. Well, not so much preaches but allows her new mate Becky (Atack) to do the preaching; he just provides the opportunity, giving Sarah the excuse to go walkies in some lovely riverside parks throughout England.

There really isn’t a dramatic conflict here; the change from dog hater to devoted dog owner is a fairly seamless one and the film’s climax has to do with a fun run which she is physically unprepared for and whether or not she can complete it. Honestly, that’s it…so those film buffs among my readership might be excused if they want to give this one a pass. I do understand; as plots go this one is pretty much standard dog movie fare albeit one with lovely English settings.

Edmondson, best-known for Bridget Jones’ Baby over here, is an appealing lead who knows how to take a good prat fall. Some of her facial expressions are a bit over-the-top; subtlety might have benefited her performance more here but when you’re making a movie aimed at a certain demographic sometimes grand gestures and over-the-top facial mugging can be called for. I’ve never understood why. She is well-supported by a fairly impressive list of British thespians, including Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur), Jennifer Saunders (Absolutely Fabulous), Skrein (Deadpool), Peter Davison (Dr. Who), Gemma Jones (Bridget Jones’ Diary) and Bernard Cribbins (The Railway Children).

Patrick the pug will absolutely melt your heart, especially when you see him in his dapper tux during the funeral sequence at the beginning of the film. Sure, he’s a handful and spoiled absolutely out of his gourd but any pug lover (I’m looking at you, Char and Adam) will tell you that they are among the most loyal and loving creatures in the canine firmament. This is something of a niche film; dog lovers (and dog nuts) are going to be beguiled by the pug while others may find its charm wasted on them. As a romantic comedy it is a bit of a non-starter while kids who are looking for something a bit more frenetic may be bored. In any case I don’t think this is especially a kids movie even though it is being marketed somewhat that way; there are no children in the movie other than a niece and nephew who make brief appearances here and there whenever Sarah is with family. Still, those who like to dress up their fur babies and have placards proclaiming “A House is Not a Home Without a Dog” in their homes will be absolutely enchanted.

REASONS TO SEE: Edmondson is an appealing lead.
REASONS TO AVOID: A very rote family film.
FAMILY VALUES: There is plenty of dog poo humor and a bit of mild profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Edmondson is Saunders’s daughter in real life.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, iTunes, Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 2/18/19: Rotten Tomatoes: 32% positive reviews: Metacritic: 28/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Beethoven
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
ROMA

Tea With the Dames (Nothing Like a Dame)


What could be more English than old friends having tea on the lawn on an overcast day.

(2018) Documentary (Sundance Selects) Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Joan Plowright, Eileen Atkins. Directed by Roger Michell

 

Four mature English ladies get together for tea and gossip – four ladies who happen to be some of the most beloved and respected actresses in the history of the British theater. Two of them = Dench and Smith – are fairly well-known in the States due largely to their movie work which the ladies in question are almost dismissive of. Clearly, the theater is the first love for all these ladies, three of them who were born in 1934 whereas Plowright, the eldest of the quartet was born in 1930.

Apparently they gather annually at the country cottage of Plowright which she shared with her late husband Laurence Olivier. There, the four gather at the kitchen table and in the living room with tea and champagne to gossip and take a stroll down memory lane, augmented by a fair amount of archival footage and stills of the girls in their youth.

Michell, a veteran narrative feature director with such films as Notting Hill and Venus to his credit, is often heard directing questions at the ladies although he is not seen onscreen. That isn’t to say that we don’t have meta moments here; often the crew is seen setting up shots, while one taking still pictures off-camera clearly distracts Smith who chuckles “We would never actually sit like this, you know.” In fact, it is Smith who comes off as the most down-to-earth and delightfully droll as she discusses an occasion when she was acting onstage with Olivier and he actually delivered a real slap to her face. Not to be put off, she delivers the best line of the show “It’s the only time I saw stars at the National Theatre.”

While the movie doesn’t have many bon mots quite as clear as that one, it does have plenty of laugh out loud moments as the girls discuss their careers, their own foibles (Dench comes under much jovial fire as the others complain that they can’t get movie roles because Dench has nabbed them all) and quite a bit of gossip. Talking about her time in the Harry Potter films, Smith says that she and the late Alan Rickman had a great deal of difficulty coming up with original facial expressions for the innumerable reaction shots both of these decorated actors were forced to give at the antics of the children, which Smith is quick to point out “as was proper.”

Although the ladies rib the director for artificially setting up what is supposed to come off as an informal and natural conversation, in fact at the end of the day it feels exactly like that – as if we as viewers were sitting at the kitchen table with these extraordinary ladies and getting the benefit of their recollections, their humor and their honesty. As old friends are, the four are completely comfortable with one another.

Although all the actresses here are in their 80s, mortality isn’t discussed much other than Dench dismissing an inquiry from Miriam Margolyes about whether she had her funeral arrangements made with a curt but affectionate “I’m not going to die.” Plowright, who is retired now, has severe vision issues and is nearly blind but is still as regal as she ever was. In fact, the vitality of these ladies in their sunset years is impressive in itself; I hope that I’m as vital in my 80s as these marvelous ladies are now.

The thing about a movie like this is that it rises and falls on how the conversation goes. Not to worry on that account; clearly most viewers who see this will be wishing for more when the credits unspool. The thing is though, not everyone is going to be impressed with a film of this nature and that’s okay. It will appeal to cinemaphiles, theater lovers and particularly those of a certain age. It’s impossible not to like these ladies after spending a too-short hour and a half with them however. I’d be absolutely over the moon to share a cuppa with any of these magnificent women. To be in on a conversation between all four is something like manna from heaven.

REASONS TO GO: The conversation is fascinating throughout. This is very much like sitting around the kitchen with a bunch of old friends.
REASONS TO STAY: Sometimes the wealth of archival footage feels a bit busy.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some brief sexual references
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Despite the film title, none of the four actresses are ever seen in the film actually drinking their tea.
BEYOND THE THEATER: Amazon, Fios, Google Play, iTunes, Microsoft, Optimum, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 10/7/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 100% positive reviews: Metacritic: 85/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: My Dinner with Andre
FINAL RATING: 7.5/10
NEXT:
Mandy

Juliet, Naked


Love triangles are inherently awkwward.

(2018) Romantic Comedy (Roadside Attractions) Rose Byrne, Ethan Hawke, Chris O’Dowd, Jimmy O. Yang, Megan Dodds, Lily Newmark, Azhy Robertson, Ayoola Smart, Lily Brazier, Johanna Thea, Georgina Bevan, Paul Blackwell, Janine Catterwall, Michael Chapman, Ko Iwagami, Karol Steele, Steve Barnett, Lee Byford, Florence Keith-Roach. Directed by Jesse Peretz

 

Sometimes to make a relationship work, we go along to get along. That’s all well and good but it can leave us in a rut that is anything but comfortable but we accept that it’s the way that things are and we just accept our situation. What do we do then when that which put us in that rut in the first place kicks us out violently?

Annie (Byrne) is in one of those ruts. She is certainly a go along to get along kind of gal; she curates a local museum in an English seaside town because her father left it to her to do. She lives with her boyfriend Duncan (O’Dowd) essentially because she’s used to him; they’ve been together for eight years in a kind of stagnant inertia-free relationship. He works as a professor of Film and TV studies at a local college when he’s not taking Annie for granted or ignoring her needs.

In fact it can be said that he has more passion for a forgotten indie rock musician named Tucker Crowe (Hawke) than he does for Annie. Crowe was a singer-songwriter of enormous potential having released a well-regarded album called Juliet chock full of loved-and-lost songs that bespoke a soul that had something to say when he exited a tour mid-set and dropped out of sight. The blog that Duncan runs endlessly discusses with other Crowe fans the minutiae of the few songs released to the public and reviews bootleg tapes of live Crowe performances from back in the day. There are some who believe that Crowe is in fact dead and gone

It turns out he’s alive and well. A demo tape of Crowe’s original album titled Juliet, Naked makes its way to Duncan but is intercepted by Annie who gives it a listen. She sees it as a naked cash grab by someone trying to live off of past glory and posts it in response to Duncan’s worshipful review of the piece. As it turns out the real Tucker Crowe reads the review and Annie’s stark response and he appreciates the honesty. It turns out he is coming to England to visit an estranged daughter, one of several progeny from a variety of post-rock star lovers, most of whom he hasn’t had much contact with. The only child of his that he spends any time with is Jackson (Robertson), possibly because Jackson’s mom (who has a new beau) allows Tucker to live rent-free in her garage.

It turns out that Crowe has struck up an e-mail correspondence with Annie and the two are developing a relationship. It also turns out that Duncan has messed up big time and Annie has asked him to leave. And it turns out that Duncan has difficulty believing that the other man in Annie’s life is the object of his obsession.

If you guessed that this sounds like something Nick Hornby would write, give yourself a pat on the back – it’s based on a novel by the prolific English writer. If the plot doesn’t give it away, then the terrific soundtrack that includes songs by Red House Painters and Hawke himself covering the Kinks criminally overlooked “Waterloo Sunset” should seal the deal.

Hawke has been on something of a roll for the past five years, turning in one outstanding performance after another. In fact, ever since Boyhood I can’t think of any movie he’s been in that he hasn’t been outstanding in. He is a fair enough singer as well, performing original songs written by luminaries like Connor Oberst for the soundtrack.

Byrne isn’t really well-suited to play dowdy but she does a credible job of it. However, the real revelation (sort of) is O’Dowd who essentially steals the movie. His hangdog look and oblivious demeanor is perfect for Duncan. O’Dowd strikes the right notes as the comic relief and has moments of actual pathos during the course of the movie which he proves quite adept at. Duncan isn’t the most likable of characters but O’Dowd imbues him with enough charm that we don’t end up loathing him, although we end up cringing at his actions.

The movie can be a bit talky in places and there are rom-com clichés in abundance. However, the movie finds humor in the ordinary (despite the extraordinary premise) and those moments really are the best ones in the film. It seems to me that rom-coms are making a bit of a comeback after a few off years following a period when we were inundated by cookie cutter romantic comedies that led to a bit of a pushback by the moviegoing public who demanded (and got) better romantic comedies. This isn’t a game changer by any standard but it is a solid and entertaining entry into the genre which in 2018 isn’t a bad thing at all.

REASONS TO GO: O’Dowd steals the show. The soundtrack is terrific.
REASONS TO STAY: There are a few rom-com clichés.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Byrne was six months pregnant during shooting. Her condition was covered up using shots medium shots and close-ups and strategically placed props.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 8/31/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 80% positive reviews. Metacritic: 66/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Song to Song
FINAL RATING: 7/10
NEXT:
Blood Fest

Loving Vincent


But is it art?

(2017) Animated Feature (Good Deed) Featuring the voices of Douglas Booth, Saoirse Ronan, Helen McCrory, Chris O’Dowd, Robert Gulaczyk, Jerome Flynn, Cezary Lukaszewicz, Eleanor Tomlinson, Aidan Turner, James Green, Bill Thomas, Martin Herdman, Robin Hodges, Josh Burdett, John Sessions, Joe Stuckey, Piotr Pamula, Kamila Dyoubari . Directed by Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman

 

As a painter, Vincent Van Gogh was one of the world’s most influential, creating works that remain iconic to this day – most of us have seen at least pictures of some of his work. As a person, Vincent Van Gogh was an enigma; beset by mental and emotional issues throughout his life (there are some experts who believe he was bipolar) that led to him shooting himself fatally at age 30 in 1890. He remains a mystery to many, producing over 800 paintings in the last 10 years of his life and then abruptly choosing suicide.

Armand Roulin (Booth) is a roustabout, a ne’er do well who is the son of Joseph Roulin (O’Dowd), the postmaster of Arles where Van Gogh lived and a friend to the Dutch painter. Joseph has come into possession of a letter that Vincent (Gulaczyk) wrote to his beloved brother Theo (Pamula) near the end of his life. It is 1891 and Van Gogh has been dead for a year. Joseph has tasked his son with the job of delivering the letter from the late master to his brother in Paris, only when Armand gets there he is unable to locate Theo. He goes to Vincent’s art supply dealer Pere Tanguy (Sessions) who informs him that Theo has followed Vincent into the hereafter. Armand then decides that in lieu of delivering the letter to Theo he will deliver it instead to Theo’s wife Johanna. Tanguy doesn’t know where she is living but suggests contacting Dr. Gachet (Flynn) in Auvers who treated Vincent in the last months of his life and was with him when he died.

Roulin travels to Auvers only to find that the good Doctor is out of town. He decides to stay at the same inn and pub where Vincent stayed; the kindly innkeeper’s daughter Adeline Ravoux (Tomlinson) who remembered the painter quite fondly puts him up in the very room where Vincent lived and died. Armand sets out while he waits for the doctor to return with talking with various townspeople about the painter, from the doctor’s daughter Marguerite (Ronan), his housekeeper (McCrory), a boatman (Flynn) and the local policeman (Herdman). The more Armand interviews the people who knew Van Gogh the more murky his death becomes. Was it really suicide, as the painter himself confessed to on his deathbed? Or was it something else?

First off, this movie is a remarkable achievement in animation. The filmmakers started by filming the actors against green screen, then utilized more than 100 artists to create each frame as an oil painting in the style of Van Gogh (inserting actual paintings of the master in various places more than 40 of them – see if you can spot them all) which came out to about approximately 65,000 paintings all told. In a way, we’re getting a view inside Van Gogh’s head and coming about as close as we will ever get to seeing the world through Van Gogh’s eyes.

The voice acting can be stiff and stuffy at times, but unlike a lot of reviewers I found the story compelling. There is a bit of a mystery to the death of Van Gogh, particularly in light of a 2011 biography that questions the official account of his death and hints that he may have been the victim of an accidental shooting and that he insisted it was suicide to protect the person who shot him. There are certainly some compelling reasons to think it, mainly based on the angle of the shot that mortally wounded the painter. Most suicides put the gun to their head; most don’t kill themselves by shooting themselves in the stomach which is an exceedingly painful way to go. The angle of the wound also suggests a trajectory that would have made it physically unlikely that Van Gogh shot himself although it was possible.

That said, most scholars today agree that this new theory is less likely than suicide and while the filmmakers here seem to lean in the direction of homicide, it at least gives us a bit of a gateway into examining the painter’s works, particularly in the last months of his life. While the movie seems preoccupied with Van Gogh’s death more than his life – something in which Adeline Ravoux actually scolds Armand about during the film – there is no doubt that the filmmakers hold his work in great reverence.

And that’s really the beauty of the film. It brings the world of Van Gogh to life, gives it depth and meaning in ways that most of us could never do on our own. It will hopefully give some folks the impetus to take a closer look at his work and his life; it did me for sure. Spending so much time trying to make sense of his death may give the movie a bit of a morbid tinge but that doesn’t detract at all from the overall beauty that Van Gogh created – and the filmmakers re-created with such obvious love. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ended up on the shortlist for the Best Animated Feature Oscar for next year.

REASONS TO GO: The technique is startling and brilliant. The use of Van Gogh’s paintings is clever. The story is compelling. The end credits are extremely well done. The film will likely motivate you to explore Van Gogh, his life and his work.
REASONS TO STAY: The film seems more concerned with Van Gogh’s death than with his life. Some of the voice acting is a little stiff.
FAMILY VALUES: The themes here are fairly mature; there’s also some violence, a bit of sexuality and plenty of smoking.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Each one of the film’s more than 65,000 frames were hand-painted using similar techniques to what Van Gogh actually used. It took a team of more than 125 artists more than seven years to complete the massive task.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 10/11/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 79% positive reviews. Metacritic: 61/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Painting (Le tableau)
FINAL RATING: 8..5/10
NEXT:
Clarity

David Brent: Life on the Road


David Brent is his own biggest fan.

(2016) Comedy (Netflix) Ricky Gervais, Ben Bailey “Doc Brown” Smith, Jo Hartley, Tom Basden, Mandeep Dhillon, Abbie Murphy, Andrew Brooke, Tom Bennett, Rebecca Gethings, Andy Burrows, Stuart Wilkinson, Steve Clarke, Michael Clarke, Nina Sosanya, Stacha Hicks, Kevin Bishop, Alexander Arnold, Dermot Keaney, Diane Morgan. Directed by Ricky Gervais

 

Most Americans are aware of the version of the sitcom The Office that starred Steve Carell and a fair amount of them are probably aware that it was based on a British version starring Ricky Gervais. Much fewer of the American audience have probably ever seen any of the British episodes and fewer still will likely have enjoyed it; certainly it is an acquired taste and although it shares many attributes with the American version, the two are quite different.

David Brent (Gervais) was the boss in The Office but he’s fallen on hard times. He works as a salesman of toilet cleaning products for a company called Lavichem and although he turns a somewhat upbeat face to it, one can tell that he is not satisfied at all with the way things have turned out. He’s bullied mercilessly by fellow salesman Jezza (Brooke) and is often the subject of serious conversations with HR manager Miriam Clark (Gethings).

He isn’t without admirers though, like Nigel (Bennett) who looks up to him as a comic mentor, or hopelessly besotted Pauline (Hartley) and the sweet receptionist Karen (Dhillon).  Still, Brent can’t help but feel as if his destiny is passing him by and that destiny is to be – a rock star. So, he assembles a second version of his original band Foregone Conclusion (which includes We are Scientists drummer Andy Burrows) and taking unpaid leave from Lavichem hits the road to do ten dates in the Midlands….all within a few hours’ drive of his flat in London. Along for the unwilling ride is Dom Johnson (Brown), a fairly talented rapper whom David brings along for the street cred he miserably lacks and whom David generally refuses to allow to perform except to use David’s abhorrent lyrics. Cashing out his pension, David undergoes financing the entire tour himself, much to the concern of sound engineer/road manager Andy Chapman (Chapman).

David’s tendency is to blurt out whatever comes to mind without first passing it through a filter, following it with a sort of strangled giggle as if to say “Oh dear, what have I gone and said now?” as a kind of embarrassed signature. He stops conversations dead with his pronouncements and off-the-wall observations that betray sexism and bigotry that most people have the good sense to keep to themselves if they possess those tendencies at all.

True to form, he alienates everyone in his band to the point where they force him not to join them on the tour bus he rented but to follow in his own car behind it. They refuse to dress with him, forcing him to have his own dressing room. The songs that he writes for them to play are pretty awful and the band is humiliated at gig after gig; the only saving grace is that nobody is showing up at them and those that do are drawn out of curiosity to Brent’s quasi-fame (the film treats The Office as a documentary which of course it was made to resemble) and most leave well before the gig is over.

Against all odds, one ends up feeling a kind of sympathy for Brent. He’s the guy who doesn’t realize that he is the joke and nobody is laughing. Still, he soldiers on either because he’s oblivious or refuses to let it get him down. There is a kind of nobility in that which is fascinating, because believe me Brent says some of the vilest things. There is a whole sequence around the “N” word that takes uncomfortable to new levels.

This is a comedy of awkward silences. There is no laugh track and no incidental music, just like the sitcom. The silence serves to make the audience feel more and more uncomfortable which I suppose is a form of humor. In its time it was innovative although it seems a bit dated now. The problem is that the movie doesn’t really add anything to what’s already out there; although Gervais has gone to great pains to distance this project from The Office, his presence essentially makes the sitcom the elephant in the room by default. That begs the question; why did this film need to get made? Some fans will just be happy to see Brent back in the saddle but others will need more than that.

In general, those who adored the British version of The Office will likely enjoy this or at least be interested in checking it out. Those who found the show puzzling will likely not find any insights here that will change their minds. It’s definitely an acquired taste and those who have not yet acquired it should probably give this a miss. Otherwise, those who have might find something here worth ingesting although they likely won’t find it as good as the original.

REASONS TO GO: Gervais actually manages to make Brent somewhat sympathetic. Fans of the British Office will find this right up their alley.
REASONS TO STAY: It’s a very acquired taste, just like the original The Office. It’s an hour and 36 minutes of awkward.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity, sexual innuendo and drug humor.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Although David Brent is depicted driving a car on numerous occasions in the film, Ricky Gervais actually doesn’t know how to drive.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Netflix
CRITICAL MASS: As of 5/22/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 61% positive reviews. Metacritic: 54/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Office (BBC Version)
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT: Burning Sands

In Circles (2016)


Some movies go around in circles.

(2016) Thriller (108 Media) James Fisher, Chloe Farnsworth, Jonnie Hurn, Cassandra Tomaz, Jodie Jamieson, Dan Burman, Jon Campling, Adrian Dunham, Sandy Kate Slade, Terry Roderick, Ian Manson, Steve Di Marco, Louis Mitchell, Olly Hunter, Marie Pope, Dayna Shuffle, Jacob Price, Rosalie Martin-Hurn, Isla McDonald, Denis Hurn, Serena Tombolini. Directed by Jonnie Hurn and Ian Manson

 

For decades, people have been trying to figure out what causes crop circles – intricate geometric figures hundreds of meters long in fields around the world. Mostly they can only be seen in aerial views. This has led some to speculate that they are the work of aliens from outer space; others are sure that they are pranks performed by particularly artistic humans on Earth. Some point to a supernatural origin other than extraterrestrials. Nobody knows the answer for sure.

Lara (Tomaz), a television journalist from Brazil who has to her mind been exiled to Europe to report on news that nobody in Brazil cares about, is looking to make a name for herself. Yossi (J. Hurn) is a cameraman who has already worked for the best and watched her get blown into a million pieces trying to rescue a small boy during one of many conflicts he has covered, one after the other, over the years. He wants something peaceful and meaningful; he longs to cover the act of creation rather than the acts of destruction. The two have been paired up and sent to Wiltshire in England, the world capital of crop circles where the vast majority of them are found.

Hatter (Fisher) is a local who is estranged from his son Dean (Burman) who works in London. Hatter owns an inn – well, it’s kind of an inn. It really is more like a pub with tents in the fields out by the river. From time to time Hatter has visions, very painful ones accompanied by loud noise and migraine headaches. The only relief he can get is to draw what comes into his mind which are often patterns that become significant only later on. The one employee at the pub is Aideen (Farnsworth), a pretty blonde who holds things together when Hatter is recuperating from his visions or tramping around the fields.

Wiltshire draws a lot of tourists because of the amount of crop circles there which the farmers don’t mind; they put donation boxes on the fences around their land and often make more money from those donation boxes than they do from harvesting the crops so if they have to put up with new age sorts and retro-hippies tramping around their land, it’s a small enough price to pay. When Lara and Yossi roll up, they meet Hatter who is cryptic about the circles but agrees to guide them to ancient stones and other sites that have dotted the Wiltshire countryside for centuries (Stonehenge is not far from where this takes place).

Dean picks this opportune moment to return home after a forced vacation is called for by his boss (Hunter) who is concerned that Dean’s work has fallen precipitously in quality. He and Lara hit it off and soon a romantic thing ensues which would likely be a shock to Yossi who dismissively calls her the Ice Monster and is derisive of her ambition and journalistic skills.

Yossi, for his part, is bonding with Hatter who recognizes that the cameraman is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and needs to vent about the things that are haunting him, most notably the death of his partner whose final moments which she urged him to capture on video he is unable to sell to anyone. This causes him to feel that her death was in vain.

As the two journalists get involved more deeply in the lives of the Wiltshire locals, Yossi begins to share some of the visions that plague Hatter including that of the Electromagnetic Man (Campling), a kind of Celtic image who causes mysterious cuts on the arms of the men and Dean in a moment of weakness confesses something momentous to Lara which will throw everything into turmoil. Will Lara take the information she has received and use it for her own gain despite what it might do to the locals? And will Yossi lose himself in the mystery of the crop circles?

This is a fairly low-budget British affair that examines a phenomenon that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention from Hollywood which is surprising. There is a rich vein of material that could be mined here for some amazing or terrifying movies. This one steers clear of the terrifying aspect, preferring to be something more like a suspense film. While there are elements of the fantastic, they aren’t the centerpiece of the movie. Still, I think I could characterize this as New Age sci-fi and not be far off the mark.

Hurn is from the area depicted in the film – the nighttime sequences in the fields were shot in the village he grew up in. That makes for a compelling story because it means something to the filmmaker, so it means something for the viewer. Unfortunately, the execution of the movie leaves a lot to be desired.

One of the main issues is that the music is absolutely annoying. It is neither interesting nor beautiful; it is often used inappropriately to generate suspense when none is needed and is frankly embarrassing to the film. I would have preferred no music at all to what I heard in the film. The sound effects are also loud and jarring. If ever a movie was sabotaged by one technical element, this is it.

The acting performances are pretty solid with Burman standing out with an uncanny physical resemblance to Colin Farrell but also stylistically similar as well. I also liked Farnsworth a good deal; she has a great spunky presence that made me think of Judy Greer somewhat. I’m hoping to see more of her on this side of the Atlantic in years to come.

The directors seem to be fond of what I call visual nonsequitirs; images that are unconnected with the action seeking to establish a mood or to set a style. For example, during a fairly important sequence in the film the director cuts away to a shot of little girls dressed as fairies gamboling in a crop circle. A beautiful image, yes; germane to the story, no. The little girls make no other appearance of the film and are only there to symbolize innocence which was a point that was already made.

I think as Hurn and Manson mature as a filmmaker he’ll get away from those sorts of shots and concentrate on telling his story simply and effectively. I’m not opposed to artistic license or inserting images that may not necessarily advance the storyline into a film but it shouldn’t be a habit. I do like that Hurn at least told a story that was essential to him and it shows in a few places, just not enough of them.

REASONS TO GO: Burman is reminiscent of Colin Farrell both physically and in his performance.
REASONS TO STAY: There are a whole lot of visual nonsequitirs. The soundtrack is one of the most annoying I’ve ever heard on a film.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some sexuality as well as plenty of profanity and a few scenes of terror.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Although the story is fictional the interview sequences were shot with actual crop circle investigators and researchers.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 5/7/17: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Signs
FINAL RATING: 4/10
NEXT: Clinical