Deadfall

Sibling Rivalry

Deadfall is a film I watched on a whim, and by doing so, only did the smallest amount of plot research before watching it. Usually I pride myself on knowing a released film's plot, in case it comes up in conversation and also because I'm a huge nerd when it comes to film knowledge and trivia. However, the tiny plot synopsis I read gave me slightly high expectations of the 90-odd minute drama, which weren't going to be met any time soon.

The synopsis in question read:

“A thriller that follows two siblings who decide to fend for themselves in the wake of a botched casino heist, and their unlikely reunion during another family's Thanksgiving celebration.”

Unfortunately, this led me to believe that the film was going to centre around the family's Thanksgiving celebration and the tension between a normal American family and the Bonnie and Clyde siblings. Let me just point out, I am a massive fan of these type of films. In recent years, some of my favourite releases have been small, independent films that feature a sparse cast with the action often taking place in just one room. Fantastic examples of these would be Hard Candy, Right At Your Door and Michael Haneke's original Funny Games. So when I expected a film along those lines, I was quite disappointed by what I saw.

The film begins just after the siblings (Eric Bana and Olivia Wilde) pull off their heist and crash their car. For unknown reasons, they split up and plan to meet over the Canadian border. The sister hitches a ride with a fleeing criminal (Charlie Hunnam) who is on his way to his parents for Thanksgiving, whilst the brother starts a murderous trail that alerts the local sheriff's department. It all culminates with the tense Thanksgiving dinner and a shoot-out where family ties on both sides are tested.

Going back to the original synopsis, I shall pick out phrases used to describe Deadfall:

“...thriller...”,

“...fend for themselves...”,

“...botched casino heist...”.

The film is in fact a drama with some sudden gory moments and the occasional fight or chase sequence; it is hardly a thriller. I rarely leave a cinema auditorium for a bathroom break, however with Deadfall, I felt comfortable in the belief that I wasn't going to miss any relevant plot developments, and unfortunately, I was correct.

The siblings hardly 'fend for themselves'. Like I described, Olivia Wilde, the initially dim-witted sister instantly relies on a stranger's charity and possessions to survive, leeching his resources for most of the film. Eric Bana, on the other hand, starts two-dimensionally causing chaos everywhere he goes, indifferent about the attention he inevitably attracts. He might have to contend with injuries and a lack of winter clothing, but he just wanders around snow-covered forests like he is Bear Grylls on a pleasure stroll. There is as much tension in these tedious build-up scenes as in a Looney Tunes cartoon.

“But wait! What about that botched casino heist that started this whole escapade off?! Surely that's going to get explained and maybe even featured in a flashback scenario?” Nope. Swept under the floorboards like a shameful second-family.

So that leaves us with the finale, where the siblings reunite during the convict's Thanksgiving family meal. Thankfully, this is the best section of the film, but it's too late. By now, you have no interest in anyone apart from the sweet, innocent parents (played by an alliterator's dream couple: Sissy Spacek and Kris Kristofferson).  The film has taken too long setting up too many pointless scenarios for you to fully pay attention to it's climax!  

Does that spunky bar-owner finally separate herself from the company of her ex-husband's family? 

Did the innocent kid get shot during one of Eric Bana's pointless gunfights? 

Was that a hint of incest in the opening scene between the siblings?

It doesn't matter, because these threads are never touched on again!

It irritates me how the film's writer had this fantastic premise of a finale, and then wasted most of the film on pointless nonsense.  In my opinion, Deadfall could have been greatly improved just by having the siblings take the family hostage in the film's first act, and then allow their respective back-stories to be seen through realistic exchanges between the characters over the course of the film. This would have made me care about what was going to happen to Jay The Convict's family.   It also would have given the brother-sister relationship much more depth and realism, instead of having Eric Bana briefly look at young childhood pictures and then pointlessly explain how he used to take care of his little sister, to that very sister.

It is a pity that the script and storyline let the film down so much, as the director does a very good job with the film's overall stylish and crisp aesthetic. However whilst beauty does captures attention, personality captures the heart, and this is where Deadfall falters.

Rating: 4/10

Star Trek Into Darkness

Shall We Begin?

When J.J. Abrams relaunched the Star Trek franchise back in 2009, I had to let out a huge sigh of relief.  Not because I'm a die-hard Trekkie, but because the Star Trek films had already degraded so much, I was worried the downward spiral would continue. And worse, it would be on the hands of the man who gave me polar bears and smoke monsters on a mysterious island.

But even if my sigh of relief was mixed in with some 'Huh?'s due to the complicated storyline, I was impressed by how accessible Abrams' had made Star Trek to wider audiences, without sacrificing the TV show's integrity or charm.

However, whilst Star Trek ('09) had the burden of introducing the audience to the crew of the Enterprise and starting off all their storylines, Into Darkness is able to jump straight into the action and take you for a super-charged adventure.

Into Darkness chronicles the first real challenge for the Enterprise and her crew on the new timeline which began in Star Trek ('09).  A year after Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise, a home-grown terrorist, John Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), begins to target the Starfleet peace-keeping organisation and Kirk volunteers to lead a revenge mission to bring Harrison to justice.

Now as I stated earlier, one of the problems with Star Trek ('09) was how the storyline of the Romulans and Captain Nero was often pushed to the side in favour of introducing new characters and their relationship to the others, which was necessary for a rebooted franchise.  However, due to this, the audience weren't given an impressive villain to fear, as it wasn't the most important part of the film; it was the formation of the well-known crew and the friendship between Kirk and Spock.  For this reviewer, I felt there was too much Star, not enough Trek.

This is where Into Darkness differs. Since we know who these characters are, we are able to jump straight into the action and meet our dastardly villain, John Harrison. I'm a huge fan of Cumberbatch, since first seeing him in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and his impressive turn as Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, and he steals the show once again.   His performance as Harrison is mesmerising and you hang on every word he says.  He brings such an amount of menace and patient terror, performing like a drunk magician; you can't help but fear him and wonder what he has up his sleeve.

Along with The 'Batch, the writers take the relationship between Kirk and Spock to an interesting new level. A common theme during the film is “If I were him, what would I do?” and the resulting actions make their friendship more believable and genuine, as it seemed a little forced in Star Trek ('09). The film also reproduces memorable scenes and one-liners that the average Trekkie will recognise from previous Star Trek films.  However, Abrams' manages to change them ever so slightly so that they feel new, fresh and interesting.  

Even though the film seems to be switching from 'science fiction' to 'science fantasy', you forgive the film for these instances as you're having such a fun time watching it.  Of course there are a few plot-holes that slightly confuse things or don't get explained, but they are quickly followed by something exhilarating and funny to take your mind of it.

If Iron Man 3 has started the summer blockbuster season, Into Darkness has definitely kicked things into warp drive, and it would take something very impressive to beat this for Blockbuster Of The Summer.  I highly recommend going to see it, even if you're not that big a fan of sci-fi films. There's enough for everyone to enjoy, and let's hope the Star Wars sequels get the same reaction when Abrams' releases them.

Rating - 9/10

Lincoln

Earlier this year, after watching Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, I followed it with Steven Spielberg’s latest epic, Lincoln.  Lincoln details the political atmosphere during the American Civil War and the final triumph of the titular President, Abraham Lincoln. Having gone from such flippant and violent humour surrounding the subject of racial fairness, to the serious and realistic portrayal of the same topic was quite the jarring sensation. It was as if I had marathoned The Life of Brian, Harold and Kumar Get The Munchies and Inglorious Basterds with The Passion of the Christ, Requiem For A Dream and The Pianist.  Like visiting the dentist after a trip to Cadbury World.

Spielberg’s latest recounts the few months after Lincoln’s second term re-election; the Civil War continues to rage, slavery is still permitted by the Constitution and the American people seems to be on the brink of collapse. Lincoln swears that he will put a stop to the bloodshed by introducing the Thirteenth Amendment; which will both formally abolish slavery and end the Civil War. However, he must pass the Amendment by a vote in the American House of Representatives, which could be an impossible task.

So let me pitch this film to you how I saw it immediately after the film finished. “This film is centred entirely on the last days of the American Civil War, but the most life-or-death, nail-biting scenes occur in a room full of stuffy-shirted white men, voting.” A tad unconventional, right? That’s mainly due to the action taking place solely within the drama rather than the ongoing warfare.

A large amount of my enjoyment is due to Daniel Day-Lewis who again gives an Oscar-deserving performance as Abraham Lincoln. DDL is known to use his method-acting style to great effect and this is another fantastic example. Personally, I am not too familiar with most of DDL’s work, apart from There Will Be Blood, where he again won the Academy Award for Best Actor. This is because he is quite selective about the roles he undertakes as he dedicates such devotion and effort into each performance. This is quite obviously evident in Lincoln. He fully embodies Lincoln and gives an incredible performance. The self-confidence he exudes with a tenacious but quiet persona is mesmerising, especially during a scene where he calms and entertains a group of staff with an anecdote during a tense period of silence.

Along with DDL, Tommy Lee Jones gives an understated but impressive Oscar-nominated portrayal of Thaddeus Stevens, one of the Thirteenth Amendment’s biggest supporters. He exhibits a calm and yet powerful attitude that often provides TLJ with opportunities to chew the scenery, entertain the audience and prove that he has still got it.

Even though these central performances were stellar and worthy of their Academy Award nominations, I felt like the film lacked a certain Spielberg charm. Perhaps the film was a little drama-heavy for me, and I would have preferred to see more of the Civil War that was raging whilst the politicians argued away from the carnage. Either way, I left the cinema screen feeling like I was impressed by the performances but unfortunately, not the overall experience. But compared to Django Unchained, this was the preferred alternative of the subject of racial equality. Whilst Django handled it quite immaturely, Spielberg provided the subtle and intellectual comparison to Tarantino and I believed it was the superior film.

Rating: 7/10