“No one told us. No one said you are going to lose both engines at a lower altitude than any jet in history.”
A defiantly memorable line from a triumphant film, delivered with all the finesse of one of the greatest living actors being directed by another. It is a coming together to be cherished, especially with results this good.
Clint Eastwood’s latest film has all the vigour of his heyday performances, despite the fact he has now reached the grand age of 86. Whilst many would have been thinking about retirement decades earlier – nobody would have blamed him for waving goodbye after what would have been a fitting farewell in 2009’s Gran Torino – he continues to surprise film lovers with yet more tremendous creative flourishes. In a year that has been tarnished by far too many deaths of icons of film, music, television and beyond, Sully is a much-welcomed gift from one of the greats.
Hanks and Eckhart are in fine form
Tom Hanks is in fine form as the titular Chelsey “Sully” Sullenberger, a former US Air Force pilot turned passenger plane captain who literally bet 155 lives on his own instinct when a flock of Canada geese destroyed both engines of US Airline Flight 1549 as it departed from LaGuardia Airport. Sully’s instinct led him to successfully land the plane in the Hudson River. Heralded by the media, along with his copilot First Officer Jeffrey Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), as a hero, the National Transport Safety Bord (NTSB) weren’t as happy, opening up an investigation into what happened with a pre-determined plan to pin the damage to the aircraft on Sully due to pilot error, which would end his career. Their argument pivoted on the feasibility that the aircraft could have been landed at any of the nearby runways, the best option of which was nearby Teterboro Airport.
The film’s story plays out in a non-linear fashion, flitting between the aftermath of the landing and build up to the court hearing, Sully’s recollection of the incident (and bouts of post-traumatic stress) and some flashbacks to his pilot training in his youth.
There is little in the way of artistic licensing from Eastwood, largely sticking to a realistic and human story. Indeed, where it really makes an impact is that it never simplifies the technicalities of the aircraft or the arguments of either side for the benefit of those who aren’t paying attention. This is an intellectual film that respects its audience. The only worrying thing is that it felt so fresh – a matter that is simply indicative of the state of Hollywood in the present day.
This film may not make great waves at the box office as it battles out against Fantastic Beasts, Doctor Strange and Rogue One, but in years to come it will stand up alongside any of the films that Eastwood and Hanks have been involved with and will be seen as a work of art.
Walt Disney Animation Studios will be releasing their 56th animated film globally on 23rd November 2016. Titled Moana (or Vaiana or Oceania, depending where you live), the film follows a 16-year-old as she embarks on a quest to a mystical Polynesian island to find the demigod Maui and uncover the island’s secrets.
This article should bring you up to speed with everything you need to know.
Who’s directing the film?
The directors are Ron Clements and John Musker, the directorial duo who have been responsible for some of the greatest Disney films over the last thirty years.
That’s a tremendous track record, with two of the films stone-wall classics and the remaining four well-regarded if a little under-appreciated. Their last work – The Princess and the Frog – may well be the best Walt Disney Animation Studios film released in the last decade.
Where is the film set?
The titular character is a native of the fictional island Motunui, which is said to be in the Pacific Ocean.
There is a coastal town in New Zealand that shares its name, and there is also an island just south of Easter Island, but neither of these is the setting for the film. Instead, the inspiration for the setting is said to be Teti’aroa, a different Polynesian island most famed for being bought by Marlon Brando in the 1960s.
This is located about where the pin is on the following map (courtesy of Apple Maps).
Basically, it’s in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean in French Polynesia. By all accounts, it’s a beautiful part of the world to visit and, thanks to the Marlon Brando Estate you can!
I’ll be, erm, saving up my pennies.
Who’s in it?
The lead character of Moana Waialiki is voiced by Auli’i Cravalho, a 15-year-old newcomer to the film industry. The video above shows you how thrilled she is to effectively be the next Disney princess. A huge role and it’s a nice touch they managed to find someone from Hawaii to take on the role.
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson voices legendary demigod Maui, the unlikely buddy for Moana to set off on her journey with.
Elsewhere there are contributions from Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger as Moana’s mother Sina, Temura Morrison (Episode II’s Jango Fett) as Moana’s father Chief Tui, Flight of the Conchord’s Jermaine Clement as the crabby Tamatoa, Rachel House (who you may remember as the over-zealous welfare services officer Paula in Hunt for the Wilderpeople) as Moana’s grandmother Tala and Disney regular Alan Tudyk as idiotic bird Hei Hei.
On top of that, there are musical contributions from Lin-Manual Miranda, who has managed to fit this in between the massive success of Hamilton and the preparation for the Mary Poppins reboot he’s just been cast in. Oh, and Star Wars.
There’s a short clip of the song “You’re Welcome” below.
Are there any trailers or clips available now?
Disney have been releasing a slow trickle of scene previews and trailers. Here’s a selection:
It has various release dates. The key one for me is the UK release date of 2nd December, although it will be hitting USA screens a few weeks earlier on 14th November.
Most of Europe will have it before Christmas, apart from Scandinavia who won’t be able to enjoy it until 2nd and 3rd February. The last country to get it is Japan on 10th March, a full four months after its initial release date.
Whilst Nocturnal Animals may be one of the most stylish and effecting pieces of cinematic art released in 2016, it may also suffer from being the second biggest Amy Adams film released in the month of November (Arrival is set to hit cinemas later this month). The films are targeted at a completely different audience, and if you’re interested in seeing Tom Ford’s latest then you need to know what you’re getting yourself in for. It’s a veritable misery-fest. And it’s absolutely breathtaking.
The film stars Adams as Susan Morrow, a hugely successful art gallery curator married to a handsome but unrelatable husband (Armie Hammer). Feeling like her life is unfulfilled, she unexpectedly receives a manuscript for a novel through the post from her ex-husband Eddie Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). The book, titled ‘Nocturnal Animals’, is dedicated to her. As she delves deeper into the grippingly horrific story – which plays out for the viewers with fabulous turns from Gyllenhaal, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Michael Shannon – we come to discover the history between Susan and Eddie and the inspiration for the story.
There were long periods of the film where I was so absolutely gripped by the fictional tale Gyllenhaal’s character was spinning – the film within a film – that I almost dated to forget that we were reading it with Adams’s Susan as she struggles with her insomnia. The meta-tale is brutally horrific, with the male central character experiencing the some of the worst experiences imaginable in life. It takes until quite near the end of the film to realise why he has written this story, and at this point we also remember the times Susan has thrown the book down in disgust. It’s easy enough to play out a story and leave a reveal until the very end. It’s quite something else to leave the audience so gripped in the journey.
Tom Ford executes every moment of the film with an unrivalled stylishness that was evident in his debut feature ‘A Single Man’. It is in the L.A. art scene that we see the characters inhabit the sort of regal living spaces most people can only dream of, despite their thin veneers here only acting as a cover for a desperately hollow existence.
The resoundingly successful final scene is an absolutely devestating act by Eddie. Susan is left emotionally drained following the reading of the manuscript that finally reveals his potential as a brilliant writer. It is also laced with accusations at Susan. She is left with no resolution. This is a clearly a reflection of how he felt after their relationship originally broke down. The answer is never clearly spelled out, with the audience left as smartly frustrated as Susan. This is a really intelligent move that epitomises the ability of Ford to sit the viewers firmly in the position of the people on the screen and ask themselves how they really feel.
It is a wonderful piece of cinema that I’ll be recommending to anyone who will listen.
Sour Grapes is a brilliant documentary film that makes it extremely difficult to think anything but support for its main star: Rudy Kurniawan.
Kurniawan is an Indonesian man currently serving a ten-year prison sentence for selling fraudulent wine to the aforementioned win enthusiasts at auction. To be precise, $35.3m of wine over two auctions.
All Kurniawan had was an expert memory for taste and a likeable personality, but this meant he was able to penetrate what was ostensibly an old boys’ club. This is a club that would meet on a regular basis to share wine with values totalling over $100,000 in a single night. It’s easy to not feel too much sympathy for the individuals that were hoodwinked by him.
Stop wining
There’s something ultimately deplorable about anyone that regularly spends so much on wine. Forking out what for many would be a life-changing amount of money on a drink, especially when the ultimate purpose is to prove your own status amongst a small and very exclusive group of peers, is never going to endear you to the masses.
The film builds up a balanced picture of Kurniawan and the people he had been associating with in these wine tasting circles. It follows him as he befriends the self-professed ‘Angry Men’ group in LA over a period of several years, buying up key vintage wines, developing his palette to unrivalled levels and becoming a key player in the wine buying and selling scene. The results are nothing short of fascinating.
The people he has ripped off have mixed memories of their time with Kurniawan, with some hating being duped and others in denial that he could be capable of any wrongdoing. The fact that he had the printing facilities in his house to mass-produce wine labels, several unmarked wine bottles and rudimentary formulae to recreate the most sought-after wine ever produced didn’t seem to budge their opinion on him either. That is testimant to his charm.
The only thing that lets the film down is a lack of a revealing interview with Rudy himself. It instead relies on old home videos and undercover camera work. He’s the centrepiece of the film but I suppose a man in prison is a tricky interview to land.
This a film worthy of a watch if you happen to find it.
I was buzzing for days after seeing La La Land at the London Film Festival last month. It’s a truly spectacular film and one I can’t wait to watch again.
Whilst I’m gutted the UK release date has been pushed back to January, I’m thrilled to see a new trailer has been released.
British-born Andrea Arnold may have created a cutting piece of social commentary in ‘American Honey’, delivered with a refreshingly natural voice, but with a running time of 163 minutes it does feel like there was scope to say the same thing in about half the time.
It follows troubled 18-year-old Star (Sasha Lane), a free-spirited girl looking after two young children for ambiguous purposes (they’re not her children and the connection she has to them is never clearly stated). A chance encounter with Jake (Shia LeBeouf) leads to an opportunity with a random group of youngsters selling magazines from town-to-town, led by Krystal (Riley Keough), and she opts to run away from an inevitable life of domestic imprisonment and abuse.
One of the principal achievements by Andrea Arnold is creating a truly realistic world for the cast to inhabit. She was involved in the principal photography and had essentially completed the entire road trip before they started filming, finding locations to realise her vision.
The cast was mainly taken from the streets with no experience, supplemented by more familiar faces. With no history of being in USA at that time of her life (she was busy doing children’s TV show No. 73 with Sandi Toksvig and Neil Buchanan) she has done wonders with a reflection of an oft-ignored part of society.
The cast are also tremendous and natural in front of the camera, usually feeling like they are simply being captured rather than working from a script. Indeed, many scenes were shot without a script so there’s an element of reality about that statement. The result is that each segment feels absolutely real, partially due to the fact that nothing is rushed. Unfortunately the lack of focus belies this, with pacing being the true victim.
Lane and LeBeouf have real chemistry
Arguably, LeBeouf does need to remind everyone that he is a pretty decent actor, especially after that dreadful performance in Nymohomaniac. He does a solid job here, with his real-life fame adding to the gravitas afforded to him by his fellow cast members (which reflects his character’s position in the group’s pecking order). He has always been a good actor, though the rest of the world may never realise it.
The plaudits must go to Sasha Lane, a complete newcomer to acting who was picked up on a beach in Florida whilst on spring break. She’s a complete natural on camera. When she gets angry, you believe her. When she feels lust towards Jake, you believe her. Star is a girl being given the chance to be her own woman for the first time, still having to demean herself due to her vulnerability, still dogged by feelings of maternal responsibility to the children that, in all likelihood, weren’t hers to feel responsible about. A truly thought-provoking performance.
The ambiguous ending, however, cemented the feeling that the story was overlong. To take so long to build up to a suggestion that Star was probably going to leave the group just seemed like a disappointment when it had taken so long to get there.
A great story has been sabotaged here by a lack of ruthlessness in the edit. Perhaps it’s an indication that Arnold had grown too close to the material and couldn’t bear to cut any of it out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – plenty of directors don’t care enough of their final product – but it was a lot to ask of this audience member.
Cinema, etc. 