Suffragette

(M) ★★★½

Director: Sarah Gavron.

Cast: Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Natalie Press, Anne-Marie Duff, Romola Garai, Ben Whishaw, Brendan Gleeson.

Test cricket had never seen such a volatile crowd.

FROM a modern perspective, it seems utterly baffling that there was ever a need for the women’s suffrage movement.

Much like the civil rights movement or the present drive for marriage equality, it is bewildering that there was a time when such things were necessary to overcome a legal form of discrimination and government-ordained inequity.

In the case of women’s suffrage, it is downright bizarre that there was ever time when the female of the species was not allowed to vote.

As such, Suffragette deals with important issues and events that, although they took centre stage a century ago, are still unfortunately relevant today, as women continue to fight against inequality, discrimination and harassment.

Part-fiction, part-fact, the film has Mulligan’s Maud Watts as our window into the suffragettes’ world. Initially happily married to Sonny (Wishaw), she is a doting mother who works as a laundress – a demanding and dangerous job.

Slowly she is drawn into the suffrage movement, almost by accident, as she witnesses women performing acts of civil disobedience to raise awareness to their cause.

Maud also begins to talk to her friends and discovers many of them are suffragettes, pulling her further into their world as she begins to weigh up what she is willing to sacrifice for a greater good.

As mentioned before, Suffragette deals with important issues and is suitably solemn. Its biggest downfall is it boils these issues and their historical context down into an overly straightforward plot, ditching any complexity for an awkward simplicity.

Thankfully the cast is top-notch and the characters are compelling. Mulligan is excellent as she grows from wide-eyed naif to strident suffragette, Bonham Carter gives a typically seamless turn, and Press, Duff and Garai are also great as women fighting their own battles amid a bigger war.

Also good are the men. Wishaw and Gleeson both play fascinating characters – the former as a confused husband struggling to understand and deal with his wife’s decisions and the latter as a policeman struggling with his own moral code. Perhaps Gleeson’s character could have been better fleshed out, but it’s a strong performance nonetheless.

Although appearing on some posters, Streep’s turn as real-life suffrage leader Emmeline Pankhurst is a mere cameo, although it does help lend a mythic quality to the character.

On the technical side, the film is fine, if given to an over-reliance on shaky handheld shots more than is necessary. But generally Gavron’s direction is solid, as she paces the story gradually and builds to a satisfying and powerful ending, aided by a strong score from Alexandre Desplat.

As an introduction into the world of suffragettes, the film is good, but feels like an over-simplified take on an important issue.

The Hateful Eight

(R18+) ★★★★

Director: Quentin Tarantino.

Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demián Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, James Parks.

"You can't make me go to Comic-Con."

TARANTINO’S aptly titled eighth film is most like his first.

A bunch of colourful characters are gathered in one location, each with their own stories and secrets that have led them to that point, each armed and probably dangerous. Things are likely to get violent and blood-soaked as they try to work out who’s working against who.

It could be Reservoir Dogs, but it’s The Hateful Eight. Instead of a gang of thieves hiding out in a Los Angeles warehouse, the leads here are a bunch of misfits that have sought shelter from a blizzard in a Wyoming general store called Minnie’s Haberdashery.

But QT’s eighth is also an opportunity to try some new tricks while still being as Tarantino-esque as ever.

Set shortly after the American Civil War, the film is a western thanks to its setting and collection of bounty hunters, cow punchers and gun-toting scoundrels, but at its heart it is a mystery, or rather several mysteries rolled into one.

But as the story escalates and the blood and bullets flow, its dark sense of humour grows, almost to the point of absurdity. The violence sits somewhere between Python-esque and like something out of a horror movie, and it’s part of the film’s undoing, as it paints itself into an increasingly claret-covered, black comedy corner. The final act can’t live up to what has gone before it, nor can it give a satisfying-enough outcome to the many story threads that have become entangled at Minnie’s Haberdashery. It is bloody good fun though.

The first two acts (or five chapters, as they’re arranged here) are great. As a director, QT is fantastic, but as a writer of dialogue there are few better. In the mouths of Jackson, Russell and co, Tarantino’s words sizzle and keep you entertained in spite of the exorbitant running time (167 minutes) and the film’s stagey, confined location.

In fact, Jackson has never been better. It’s a big call, given that he’s been in over 100 movies across four decades, but this is finest performance. Leigh is also a highlight – she’s an oft-ignored actress who has made a habit of doing an excellent job in thankless roles, but she is a scene-stealer here and worthy of awards.

There are no weak links in the cast. Russell channels John Wayne to great effect, Goggins and Roth get the majority of the laughs, and Tarantino proves yet again that he’s one of the few directors that knows how to get a decent performance out of Madsen.

QT seems like he was having fun putting The Hateful Eight together, a point evidenced by the number of returning actors he uses here. There’s a playfulness and a pointlessness (which is also part of the third act’s problem) that are a welcome change of pace after the historic heaviness of Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds. Don’t be fooled though – this is rated R for a reason and does lull you into a bit of a false sense of security.

Ending issues aside, this is another worthy addition to Tarantino’s back catalogue. While nowhere near as flashy, outrageous or energetic as the rest of his films, it is still a fine example of his way with words and his knack for putting together a great cast.

The Revenant

(MA15+) ★★★

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter, Domhnall Gleeson, Forrest Goodluck.

"I know there's an Oscar around here somewhere."

WILL Leo finally win an Oscar for his role in The Revenant?

It’s one of 12 nominations for the film, and probably the main one on award-watchers’ minds as it’s the fifth time he’s been shortlisted for an acting Oscar.

If he does win, it will be a worthy one, but something of a cumulative compensation. It’s not his best performance, nor his best role – take your pick from his turns in The Wolf Of Wall Street, The Great Gatsby, Django Unchained, Shutter Island, The Aviator, Romeo + Juliet, The Basketball Diaries or What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? for that superlative. It will be like when his regular collaborator Martin Scorsese won best director for The Departed – it was a great film but not his best, so the Oscar felt like a recognition of previous effort more than anything.

DiCaprio’s performance is one of many highlights in The Revenant. He plays Hugh Glass, a guide working with a bunch of fur trappers in the 19th century wilds of the USA.

When Native Americans attack the trappers, Glass, his half-native son, and the few survivors ditch their precious furs and attempt to flee back to a nearby fort one week’s trek away. But Glass’ situation goes from bad to worse when he is left for dead in the wilderness as winter falls, leaving him with seemingly impossible odds of survival.

The Revenant has a lot going for it. Aside from DiCaprio’s leading turn, and a strong supporting cast headed by Hardy, it is spectacular to look at.

As he did with Birdman, Iñárritu uses his trademark long takes to great effect, pulling off some incredibly complex feats of staging. The opening skirmish between the trappers and Native Americans is done in only a handful of elaborate (and viscerally violent) shots, while the final showdown between Glass and his nemesis is made all the more gripping by being one constant take.

The cinematography is also gorgeous, capturing the desolation, danger and beauty of the landscapes that are as much a character in the film as the cast.

But there is something distinctly lacking. As impressive and jaw-dropping as it is from time to time, The Revenant is unnecessarily long, with Iñárritu too often enamoured with the landscape and the trees and the sky, or distracted by yet another dream sequence. A more judicious edit could have ramped up the intensity of what is a potent story, as its meandering delivery somewhat defuses the power.

Also lacking is some substance beyond being a simple revenge film. Iñárritu’s delivery of Glass’ story seems to aim for some bigger themes, possibly about the acceptance of death, the importance of honour, finding God/peace, man's destruction of nature or relationship with his environment, but none of these themes ring true.

The saving grace in many ways is DiCaprio. If the Oscar was an endurance race, he would win hands down. Every single moment of his largely wordless performance is gruelling and DiCaprio maintains the rage across the full two-and-a-half hours.

Hardy is also great if indecipherable at times, and Gleeson is good too, recapturing the form of Ex Machina having been the weakest link in the cast of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

By all reports, Iñárritu put his actors and crew through hell in his quest to capture the savagery and brutality of this story, making for one of the most gruelling shoots since Apocalypse Now.

These stories back up the sensation that The Revenant is the result of a director going mad with power and feeling he can do no wrong. He doesn’t go full Heaven’s Gate – the ill-fated film that sunk The Deer Hunter director Michael Cimino’s career – but there are touches of that here, with Iñárritu apparently employing Cimino’s technique of only filming during certain hours of the day to get the right look using only natural light.

At best, The Revenant is a flawed masterpiece. At worst it’s Oscar-bait from a director losing his mind and disappearing up his own butt while he makes his cast and crew suffer on the journey.

Sisters

(MA15+) ★★★½

Director: Jason Moore:

Cast: Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Ike Barinholtz, Maya Rudolph, John Leguizamo, John Cena, James Brolin, Dianne Wiest, Bobby Moynihan, Madison Davenport.

Fey and Poehler could feel there was something missing
from their lives, but they didn't know what it was.
It was Bunnings.

TINA Fey and Amy Poehler are regarded as a great comedy duo thanks largely to their work on Saturday Night Live and hosting the Golden Globes.

But on the big screen, we’re yet to see them in full bloom together. Their 2008 film Baby Mama received mixed reviews and they didn’t share any screen time in cult classic Mean Girls.

Thankfully Sisters is the Fey-Poehler feature-length team-up many people have been waiting for. While far from groundbreaking, it’s flat-out funny and the perfect vehicle for these hilarious friends.

The pair play the titular siblings, and in a reversal of their Baby Mama roles, Fey is the loose cannon while Poehler is the goody two-shoes. Fey plays Kate, an erratic single mother unable to keep a job, while Poehler is Maura, a divorcee too busy trying to help others to get her own life in order.

When they discover their parents (Brolin and Wiest) are selling their family home, Kate and Maura hatch a plan to host one last party there. It will be just like the huge, off-the-hook gatherings they had in high school. Except this time, Kate will stay sober and be the “party mom” while Maura will get to let her “freak flag fly”.

Plot-wise it’s slight – it’s like Project X for grown-ups – and all the usual party tropes are wheeled out. There’s the insane levels of damage, the one guy who’s really high, the misguided sexual adventures, plenty of drunken antics, the police intervention, and the deep-and-meaningful conversations.

What makes the film stand-out is that all the characters undertaking these typically teenage exploits are 40-somethings searching for a lost youth. It’s this theme of hanging on to or recapturing the past, whether it be through Kate and Maura’s disapproval of their parents selling the family home or with their attempts to stage one last classic shindig, that gives the story a nice angle that adds extra layers to an otherwise generic party movie.

In between, there are subplots about Kate trying to patch up things with her straight-laced daughter (Davenport), while Maura tries to get back into dating mode. These fare less well and serve to slow the film when compared to the steady flow of laughs streaming out of Fey and Poehler and their party people.

The two stars are the saving grace when things waiver. They’re a great team and the way they bounce off each other is the best thing Sisters has going for it. They instantly seem like siblings from the moment we first see them together – peas in a pod yet vastly different, with a natural chemistry and connection that is the glue of the film.

This glue becomes particularly important when proceedings threaten to get too outlandish or the pace slackens –  Fey and Poehler are usually on hand to offer a great (and hugely inappropriate) one-liner to keep things ticking along.

They also have excellent support. Add in their quirky parents (Weist gets to unleash some very inventive swearing), a great cameo from Cena, a nice subplot involving Rudolph as Kate’s enemy, and Moynihan as the unfunny funny guy, and there is a strong-enough team to pick up the slack when the film sags.

Sisters isn’t going to set the world on fire like, say, The Hangover or Bridesmaids, but it’s not too far behind. It’s solid comedy with a consistent train of laughs rolling through it and is the Fey-Poehler movie many have been crying out for.

Point Break (2016)

(M) ★½

Director: Ericson Core.

Cast: Édgar Ramírez, Luke Bracey, Ray Winstone, Teresa Palmer, Matias Varela, Clemens Schick, Tobias Santelmann, Delroy Lindo.

A pile of money being thrown out of a plane - yep, that sums up the Point Break remake.

LET’S be honest – the original Point Break is no masterpiece.

At best it’s a cult classic and one of the better examples of early ‘90s action movies, built on a charismatic turn from the late Patrick Swayze and its iconic bank-robbing and sky-diving scenes.

But when compared to this remake, the original Point Break looks like Citizen Kane.

As is typical of updates, this new version turns everything up to 11, but in trying to be bigger, louder and more exciting, it ends up being nonsensical and loses any sense of subtlety. And let’s face it – the original wasn’t exactly subtle to start with.

Bracey takes the Keanu Reeves role of Johnny Utah, who in this take is an ex-extreme sportsman turned FBI agent. Encouraged by his superior (Lindo) and a grizzled London-based agent (Winstone in the Gary Busey role), Utah goes on the hunt for a gang of “extreme poly-athletes” who are committing crimes while travelling the globe performing a mythical set of eight “extreme ordeals”.

Going undercover, Utah meets gang leader Bodhi (Ramírez), who takes Utah under his wing and makes the FBI agent question his loyalties.

The good bits of this remake are entirely restricted to the action sequences. Fans of extreme sports will get a kick out of this, but even the less excitable audience members will be impressed by the stuntwork here, which includes flying in squirrel suits, riding motorbikes across mountain ranges, snowboarding down cliffs, and big wave surfing.

It’s everything around these moments that sucks. Bracey, a graduate of Home & Away who starred recently in the atrocious Nicholas Sparks film The Best Of Me, does his best but it’s not good enough to save a bad film. And when Keanu Reeves does a better job in the same role as you, you know you’re in trouble.

Ramírez is a great actor, but not charismatic enough for the role of Bodhi. Winstone and Lindo are slumming it, but you really feel sorry for Teresa Palmer, who is making a habit of picking bad movies. Every single line her character Samsara utters is hippie-esque drivel intended to be aphoristic but which comes off sounding like a bad motivational poster. Her dialogue is the kind of crap people re-post on Facebook when they think they’re being deep, right in between posts about the healing power of crystals and how awesome Food Babe is (hint: not very awesome at all).

The movie is dripping with this faux-philosophical BS. It continually touts a line about giving back to the earth and sharing the wealth – meanwhile its main characters are sponsored by a wealthy billionaire playboy, travel the world with the best designer clothes and sports gear, and when their line of credit is cut off they resort to robbing banks and killing people.

Beyond the film’s moral idiocy, it struggles with its plot, dialogue and logic. The stupid moments and coincidences are too numerous to mention but my favourite involves Utah following Bodhi in a free climb up Angel Falls in Venezuela. Utah knows Bodhi is going to climb it. He even turns up right as Bodhi is about to climb it. But rather than arrange to wait at the top for Bodhi and arrest him then, Utah has to climb Angel Falls as well. It’s typical of the film’s approach, which is all about looking good, logic be damned.

There are so many dumb things in this film that you almost accept them as commonplace. When the very first death occurs, it’s because a character does something incredibly dumb. Is the audience supposed to feel empathy for that death or nominate the character for a Darwin Award?

If not for the amazing stunt sequences, this film would get one star – that is the lowest score I give, because all films deserve at least one star for getting made in the first place and film-making is not easy. But the stunts raise it to one and a half.

Still, the year has only just begun, and already we have a contender for worst film of 2016.