Palo Alto (2014) directed by Gia Coppola – A Film Review

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet there is a line of dialogue that goes, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” I mention this, as I believe this film was given an unfair stigma before it was even seen because of two of the names attached to it: Franco and Coppola. James Franco is often seen as a joker. As an actor he has played many comedic roles, some of which have been very lowbrow. However, he is also a respected academic. He has lectured at New York University (NYU) and has had a collection of short stories published.

Coppola on the other hand has the tarnish of being the granddaughter of one of the most iconic American filmmakers of the 1970s, in the form of the director of The Godfather (1972) Francis Ford Coppola. It is often very difficult for a family member of a successful person to step out of their parents (or in this case grandparents) shadow. Many instead choose to use a pseudonym or alternative name: an example of this being Duncan Jones, the filmmaker and son of music icon David Bowie. Yet Gia (to her credit) hasn’t done this. She has chosen to step up to the plate (as they say) and stand on her own to feet. Has she been able to do this? Well, lets discuss it.

Palo Alto is a melancholic, yet strangely grounded look at the lives of a group of teenagers in Palo Alto, California. Through the earlier advertisements for this film you may have been led to believe that this was a drama about a young girl and her relationship with her teacher, but you’d be mistaken. It’s actually a kind of mosaic examining the lives of multiple students who interact with each other over a short period of time. Each of the students has his or her own issues to deal with and are one way or another stuck under their feelings of angst and societal pressures.

So far that synopsis may have made the film sound like a kind of standard (generic) teen drama. However, what separates this teen drama from others of a similar kind is the level of emotional depth and intricacy each character has and displays. The characters don’t act like the kinds of archetypes that often permeate this sort of teen fiction. They think, they react and do things that are more morose and naturalistic. There’s no huge revelations, no over the top emotional moments unless a particular character is placed in a position where the natural reaction to do so is being presented.

The acting is also great in this film. James Franco is fine as a sleazy sports coach, but it was Emma Roberts, Jack Kilmer and Nat Wolff who really stole the show. Not forgetting a strong performance by Zoe Levin as the somewhat aloof yet promiscuous Emily. I’d go into more details, but their actions speak much louder than my words here ever could.

In a way, the film played like a much more naturalistic, almost documentary esque version of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012). Whilst I liked The Perks of Being a Wallflower, there was an American indie film feel to it that gives you the feeling that what you’re watching is a show: a fictional movie so to speak.

Visually the film was good. It had a nice look and framing to its compositions, with a nice use of colour and lighting. There wasn’t anything ground breaking here, but what was done was done well with tact and a sensible amount of style. 

As a debut feature, Palo Alto was a very intelligent and well-made drama. It showed off some great craftsmanship in both its style and content. And I believe that if more people gave this film a watch that many of them would have a thoroughly pleasant time. It’s a well-written, well-acted and interestingly directed teen drama, which rises above the everyday and is in itself something quite special.

Before I Disappear (2014) directed by Shawn Christensen – A Film Review

Based on the original short Curfew (2012), Shawn Christensen’s debut feature as a director is a cool and collected tour de force work of filmmaking. For a relative novice to the film world to produce such a mature and well-handled movie is a rarity and sets its director up as someone whose work should be looked out for in the future. The film, written and directed by Christensen, also sees him taking the lead role; a role which he also manages to fill with real panache.

The story itself is a difficult one to describe. A young man whose girlfriend has disappeared wallows in a meaningless existence. He works as a cleaner in a nightclub and soon discovers the body of a young woman who has died of a drug overdose. Sickened by his melancholic life, he attempts to kill himself. However, as he is about to do so, he receives a call from his estranged sister asking him to pick up and look after his niece for a few hours. This then sets up a chain of events, as he attempts to protect and look after his niece whilst navigating from one seedy New York location to another.

At the beginning of the movie there is a real friction between each of the characters. Everyone seems to be hiding something; they all seem to be on the edge, just hanging on to there sense of calm and balance. Our protagonist Richie (Christensen) is simply the most honest of them. He wears his heart on his sleeve and when forced to lie, he usually backtracks on it later. He’s really just a broken man, but put in the position of responsible adult looking after his niece, he has to step up and be the kind of man he feels like he can’t be.

His sister Maggie on the other hand (played by Emmy Rossum) appears to be harder edged and collected. She’s a driven career woman who always plans ahead. Yet due to a mistake and some unforeseen circumstances, she is forced to open up and rely on her estranged and irresponsible brother Richie.

Richie’s niece Sophia is also very similar to this. She has a very set routine organised by her mother and is reluctant to step out of it. At first she seems cold and aloof. She has no interest in her uncle or where he’s been for all these years. However as the film goes forward, she begins to open up more and let herself loose. Throughout the film we find out more about his niece: who she is, what she does, her routines and most importantly, why she acts and behaves the way she does.

It’s in this area that the film carries its greatest strengths. Its use of character in plot development and story has a consistent maturity to it that has become more and more of a rarity in modern filmmaking. The very fact that the vast majority of the film is made up of two people talking to each other in a genuine manner is something very refreshing in itself.

Visually the film is also very nice. There is a great sense of colour to the cinematography and an interesting use of framing and camera movement. A keynote here is that the film never seems to be trying to be loud or flashy. It doesn’t over use or over do any cinematic techniques; the filmmakers simply applied them with tact when necessary to the story.

On the whole Before I Disappear is a smart and well put together drama which highlights the potential of pretty much all of the filmmakers involved. The story whilst not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea is extremely well handled. If I could think of a strong negative for the film, I would note it here, but from what I saw, the film overall is really something quite special.

The End of the Tour (2015) directed by James Ponsoldt – A Film Review

Known for his low-key naturalistic character pieces, James Ponsoldt’s The End of the Tour follows David Lipsky during his five-day interview with writer David Foster Wallace, whilst on a book tour promoting his second novel Infinite Jest (1996).  It follows their interactions with one another; beginning with what seems to be awkward trepidation and slowly transitioning into a much more relaxed and deep conversation.

Overall the film is well shot, well directed and on a technical level the film works fine. The story is well written, and both Segel and Eissenberg give stellar performances as Lipsky and Wallace respectively. Together they have the kind of unique chemistry that you really want to see from such an intense character focused drama like this, and the film really delivered on it. Each of these scenes, seemingly present themselves with a sense of fun and spontaneity in its character interactions.

In many ways the film had a similar style to the Louis Malle film My Dinner with Andre (1981), in the sense that it is a very intimate (yet irreverent) look at an art form by two artists that work within the medium: David Lipsky is also a novelist whose first book is published around the same time as Infinite Jest.

There is a camaraderie to the pair but there is also a deep-seated distrust between the two. Wallace is shy and demure, whilst his interviewer Lipsky is outgoing and charismatic. Wallace’s latest novel Infinite Jest is considered to be a kind of modern masterpiece, Lipsky’s own novel The Art Fair (1996) is not. The film utilises these character indiscretions and insecurities and plays them out expertly.

Yet that’s not to say the film is perfect. Whilst watching the film I did have a problem relating to either of the focal characters. Although the script is based on a true story, and it shouldn’t have to necessarily feature relatable characters as such, I felt that these characters tread already familiar ground. They seemed at times to be going through already familiar American indie film clichés. “Success doesn’t guaranty happiness”, “don’t long for what others have, because they have just as many (if not more) problems than you”, etc. etc. 

On the whole the film was a very good indie drama. In terms of the films craft there is little to criticise. However, the formulaic way certain scenes played out may put some people off seeing this one. It’s a nicely made film with some real heart. But to those more acquainted with American independent cinema, it may just seem as if you’re going over familiar ground here. 

Escape from L.A. (1996) directed by John Carpenter – A Film Review

Often compared unfavourably to its predecessor Escape from New York (1981), Escape from L.A. (1996) is a fun, tongue in check B movie that isn’t afraid to poke fun at itself. Unlike Carpenter’s previous morose and brooding effort, his sequel has real character and a sense of fun about it.

The dialogue may be cheesy, the early 90s CGI effects may have been bad then and aged even worse, yet each of these things add to the charm of the film. That’s not to say that the film is a masterpiece: far from it. However, it is a fun and enjoyable movie that can be well appreciated by to those who are willing to give it a shot.

Overall the story is a simple one; much of the general plot is in fact derived from the previous film. In the future of the year 2000, LA has become an island separated from mainland America. And when an authoritarian theocrat is elected president, he turns LA into a prison for all those deemed unacceptable by the new PC president. Yet, when the president’s daughter flees to the island with a detonator to a new super weapon nicknamed “The Sword of Damocles”, Snake Plissken is again coerced against his will (this time by being given a deadly virus) to rescue the device.

On the whole, Escape From L.A. is a simple movie to follow. Its characters have clear motives and each of them can be understood from this perspective. The government officials appear to be selfish and corrupt: imposing their will on Snake and others. The president’s daughter is idealistic and only wanted to meet with her Peruvian terrorist boyfriend held on the island. Whilst Snake himself is a kind of cynical moral realist: he’s the films moral compass and gives it a sense of direction. That’s not to say that every film needs this kind of overly simplistic moral values and characters to them, but for this film it really works to its advantage.

In Escape from New York there was a real lack of direction to the action; here it seems the opposite. There is a real sense of Snake’s impeding doom. His short time in which to collect the device is much more prescient here, and it is one of the main cruxes that moves the plot forward in shaping the narrative. Unlike in the previous film, I felt a real sense of danger for the protagonist here. Reminding us continuously of his predicament helped build the suspense, and when he made a mistake or got captured, it really upped the stakes in a way that Escape from New York really failed to do.

To add another point here, the supporting cast seems to have a much more dynamic feel to it than in Escape from New York. In the previous film the supporting characters (in particular the antagonistic ones) just seemed odd and kooky. Here however, they all seem to have a fun sense of purpose. Whether it’s the stoner surfer Pipeline (played by Peter Fonda) or the Che Guevara like terrorist baddy Cuervo Jones (played by Georges Corraface), everyone has something that sticks out and is memorable about them, yet doesn’t intrude so much that it interferes with the story. To clarify, each character adds to the film.

Although not a perfect film by a long shot, Escape From L.A. is definitely a fun and enjoyable flick. With it’s tongue firmly in its check, the film has fun and plays by its own rules. It doesn’t take itself to seriously, but it doesn’t really have to; and in truth, that’s really a part of its charm.

Escape from New York (1981) directed by John Carpenter – A Film Review

John Carpenter is a director known for taking risks with his high octane, pulp fiction inspired movies; and Escape from New York is no exception. The film also stars Carpenter favourite Kurt Russell. But what is the film about, you may be asking? Well, I’m not sure I know really.

Set in the near future of 1997 (or the near past, as of the writing of this review) or the present as a title card tells us at the opening. Manhattan has become a giant prison and when a terrorist takes control of the president’s plane, he is forced to make an emergency landing on the island. However, when a group of soldiers is sent in, they are informed that he is being held captive by a group of criminals and if they attempt a rescue mission he will be executed. Unable to act directly, they send in a disgraced former Special Forces officer named Snake Plissken (played by Kurt Russell). In reward for the president’s rescue, the army offers Snake a full pardon on all his past crimes. Yet to keep Snake on track, he is injected with microscopic explosives with a time limit in order that the president might make a meeting between himself and the premiers of both China and the Soviet Union. From this point on it is a race against time to rescue the president and in doing so, saving his own life.

From this plot layout alone, you might expect a fun action thriller with lots of tension and suspense. As Carpenter has proven with films like Big Trouble In Little China (1986), They Live (1988), Prince Of Darkness (1987) and Vampires (1998), he can handle these large set piece movies with grace and intelligence. Yet here in this earlier effort, he seems to end up somewhere falling short.

For one thing, Snake Plissken doesn’t seem to have much personality. Everyone in the film seems to know him (or know of him) but we never get a sense of what’s supposed to be so memorable about him. Russell seems to portray him in a kind of gruff and brooding way, as if he’s doing a hammy impression of Clint Eastwood’s ‘man with no name’ characters. Nevertheless it lacks the depth of such a character. The thing about these stoic characters, is that we are left to assume what kind of past that they may have had. And it feels as though half of Escape from New York is spent with people telling us how much they’ve heard of Snake Plissken, whilst at the same time not divulging any of their supposed knowledge to the audience.

There’s also a serious problem with the films tone. It seems (at the beginning) to be setting up a kind of suspenseful flick. Yet as the film moves on, it seems to plod along in too many drab and dull set pieces. The previously mentioned potential suspense seems to fall by the wayside, while we watch a number of scenes of non-progressive character development.

In Carpenter’s later works, there is always a weight behind the actions moving them forwards. In The Thing, the characters have to find out who might be infected in order to save themselves and the remaining crew. In Big Trouble In Little China, Jack and Wang are interesting characters who we want to see succeed. But here in Escape from New York, there’s no real sense of urgency. Even though Snake’s life is on the line, we never have a sense of anxiety or worry for him whilst watching the movie. He doesn’t show much emotion about these things, so why should we?

On a more positive note however, the film does have a nice look to it. There’s a great sense of style to the film in terms of art design, and the music (provided by Carpenter) really adds to the piece in the more successful sequences. Over the years I’ve often read that this is one of the definitive John Carpenter films, however, after viewing it for myself, I’m inclined to think they may be looking back on this one fondly through nostalgia goggles. It’s a creative, zany, visually pleasant film that, as a story, is a complete mess. It is however, the kind of mess that only a great filmmaker could ever wish to create.  

Tangerine (2015) directed by Sean S. Baker – A Film Review

It’s a unique film to say the least. It’s an American movie about prostitutes, pimps and their clients around the Christmas period. Also its lead characters are transgendered, which is quite rare in itself in the film world. Throw in the fact that the film was shot entirely on IPhones and you have something altogether quite special. Yet, a films impact and reception isn’t (or shouldn’t be) judged on its differential components in contrast to its contemporaries. A film should be judged on its own merits: on whether or not it works in terms of its story and craft.

The main crux of the story follows Sin-Dee and Alexandra trying to find another prostitute. The reason being that Sin-Dee’s boyfriend (also their pimp) has slept with another prostitute whilst she was in prison. As they attempt to find the mystery woman, we’re introduced to various clients and other locals to this particular part of Hollywood.

On the whole, the film has a fun dynamic to it. The story is well humoured and free flowing, never dragging or wasting time in its points of topic. There’s a definite tightness to the editing which works to the films strength. The dialog is fast paced and naturalistic, adding a kind of documentary-esque realism to the piece.

In terms of the cinematography, the film has a nice look to it. There were of course some visible problems of over exposed shots and backgrounds that you might expect from a film shot on lower quality cameras. However these technical problems seem inconsequential once the story really gets going. Overall though, the crew got some really nice shots considering the technical limitations they had set in front of them.

The film has a definitively indie feel to it. It seems very reminiscent of many American mumblecore movies, in that it uses a mix of amateur and professional actors. There is that same kind of natural yet quick flowing dialogue that can take away from the flow of the story, but adds (in a sense) to the realism. If there were any major problems with the film, I believe it came from this area. Conversations taking place at break neck speeds are extremely difficult to follow. As the film moves along you get more used to the conversational flow of the leads, but at the beginning of the film it can be seen as quite jarring.

For the most part Tangerine is an interesting movie. It has a fun story, good characters and some interesting melodramatic moments. It’s well put together and works well within its technical limitations; however, it isn’t a particularly memorable piece. It lacks a real (or genuinely) strong connection to its audience. What I mean is: whilst the scenes are well put together and the direction is acceptable, it doesn’t reminisce with you long after seeing it. Which is a shame, as it feels as though there was more potential to the story at the beginning of the film.