MOVIE REVIEW: Love (2015)

Love is a film that thinks it is being ambitious, but in the end just left the lingering taste of pretentiousness in the my mouth. I went into this film wanting to like it. I'd read very mixed reviews but suspected that I would be on the more positive end of the spectrum. Sadly it didn't turn out that way. This is a movie that should have been only half the length that it ended up being, and in my opinion, should have focussed its attention more on sex rather than love. It was the muddying of the waters between sex and love that had me constantly rolling my eyes, wishing the director would stop trying to be "deep" and would just have some fun.

Love interjects long, somewhat artful sex scenes with the 'tortured' story of Murphy and his long lost lover Electra, and the events that lead to their breakup. The sex scenes are hit and miss for me. Many of them are done really well, with a degree of taste but also sliminess that kept them entertaining. Having said that, by the end of the movie I was wishing they would stop. Director Gaspar Noé made a statement regarding Love, saying that he wanted to use iconography that pushed the bounds of cinema to rarely seen levels of sex and explicitness. The problem is, when the lead characters are so vapid and juvenile in their perception of what love is, the sex all seems very empty and I hate to say, mildly pornographic. It works for a little while, but when these scenes are being thrown at us for over 2 hours, it simply becomes a bore. Noé credits Stanley Kubrick's films as a great inspiration to him, and watching Love it is obvious that he was drawing heavily from films like Eyes Wide Shut. There is a scene in which Murphy and Electra visit a sex club that was particularly reminiscent of the secret society mansion scene is Eyes Wide Shut, without the masks and rituals of course. The score by Lawrence Schulz and John Carpenter was also very Kubrick-esque, and worked particularly well over the sex scenes. The music was definitely my favourite aspect of the film.

The film takes place in Paris, where Murphy is studying to be a film director and Electra is an aspiring artist (cliché much?) It is shot in the past and the present tense, with the present being filled with Murphy reflecting on and longing for his old life with Electra. We learn that due to his infidelity, he has gotten another woman pregnant. This woman is Omi, who engaged in a threesome with Murphy and Electra when they were together. At first I thought that Omi was going to be more of a main character, and that the story would veer in the direction of a love triangle, which could have been quite interesting. Instead, Noé used her more as a plot device to further Murphy's story arc, which I was never very invested in anyway.

The story of a tortured relationship, riddled with scandal, jealousy and infidelity is obviously a well trodden one, it has been done a million times. But nevertheless it is a good foundation for character building. In the case of Love, the predictable plot required one of two things, either really solid character development or a film that threw out the idea of meaning all together and focussed purely on exploitation and sensationalism. Instead, I feel like Noé tried too hard to walk the thin line between exploitation and a morally relevant story. The problem is, I saw both the central characters as immature, greedy, overly hedonistic and just not very interesting. Sure, their story is relatable. I think anyone who has been in a serious relationship understands the feelings of possession and jealously that come up frequently in Love. But just being relatable is not enough when the film also wants to be taken seriously or make some sort of moral statement about love. I've recently been reading a book which has changed my view on what love is, which might have impacted my views on this film. It basically convinced me that love is essentially a verb. It is something we do first, and feel second. Unconditional love to me is something that takes constant effort and attention in the face of difficulties and challenges. The kind of 'love' that is proposed in this film, and I guess the way many of us view it, is based more on feelings and desires. It is depicted as something that possesses us, makes us mean and neurotic, destined to end in crushing heartbreak. In Love we see this constantly. For instance when they are in the taxi after finding out they have both been cheating on each other. I actually like the way this scene was shot, it has great energy. Yet here we see how ugly this relationship has become, Murphy viciously spitting venomous insults at Electra and vice versa. In summation, I just didn't see any real depiction of love in Love, which is where it falls down for me. The film does a reasonable job of being emotive and intimate, but morally I find nothing to admire about the film or its characters. We see some regret in Murphy at the end of the film, but it still feels tinged by his selfishness and lust, rather than a realisation of what he did wrong.

In terms of cinematography, Love is just fine. The sex scenes contained by far the best shots visually, but lots of the other shots felt pretentious because of the content and dialogue that was being delivered within them. I enjoyed the long tracking shot following the two on their first meeting in a Paris park, but the dialogue between the two was so dreadful that I still ended up bored by the end of the scene. Overall I wasn't under or overwhelmed by Love visually. I certainly don't think it's boundary pushing, despite being slightly controversial upon release. The film premiered in 3D, which I guess might have enriched it somewhat, but to me it sounds more like a bit of a tack on to make up for the film's lack of originality. Personally I would have taken much, if not all of the dialogue out of Love. This might have made the emotion in it more powerful and clear-cut, as well as placed more emphasis on the music, but this is all hypothetical.

Love does not justify its 135 minute run-time. It is overly indulgent in almost every sense, with characters that failed to involve me in their story whatsoever. I think that Gaspar Noé should have focussed more on examining the dynamics of sex, rather than planting an undertone that suggests the film has something to say about true love, which frankly it doesn't in my mind. A small saving grace was the score, which wasn't  absolutely spectacular but complimented the sex scenes well. The fact that the movie took me three sittings to get through says it all for me. I wouldn't recommend Love unless you have a certain taste for this kind of softcore cinema or have a lot of free time on your hands. One thing's for sure, I will not be watching it again.

Acting: 25

Narrative: 20

Visuals: 55

Music: 65

Overall: 41/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

I admire Micheal Moore. I think his heart is in the right place. I also think he is a pretty good film maker. I legitimately enjoyed Bowling For Columbine and learnt a lot of valuable and relevant information about gun laws in the U.S.

I don't know what it is though, perhaps the recent tsunami of PC culture, socialism and regressive leftism that has taken control of my generation, but I just can't get on board with Moore's attempt to condemn capitalism in such an aggressive way. Last time I checked, he was not an expert on economics, although granted he does know the basics. Neither am I, by the way. But the way Micheal talks about capitalism you would think he was the foremost expert the world has ever seen, maintaining a condescending and rather immature tone of voice for the whole of this 2 hour leftist circle jerk.

I am far from a pure capitalist, and I actually agree with most of the points Micheal brings up in this documentary. Crony capitalism has been a primary cause for much unnecessary suffering in the west over the last 40 years. But instead of tackling some very tough and complicated issues by analysing the mechanics of capitalism or the reasons for this extreme corruption, I feel as if Moore just tries to blame the principals of capitalism for everything through shocking case studies.

As a young person, it would easy for me to jump on the band wagon of these extremely left leaning ideologies, that by the way normally have much more of an agenda than right leaning ones. But as I grow, both in age and maturity, I am starting to realise just how naive it is to look at whole economic systems so simplistically. I believe capitalism without corruption can potentially create the most liberal and fair society on Earth. We don't have that at them moment, but my main values remain. I believe in self reliance, and the right of every person to make the best or worst of themselves. What I see happening all around me, especially in far left circles, is the reverse of this. More insulation, more desire for state control, less personal responsibility. Ultimately, less freedom. I am not saying Moore's documentary is full of falsehoods, or even that it endorses any of these socialist principles. I just think that he chooses an easy target in order to slate an entire system which can be both good and bad.

I think my dislike of Capitalism: A Love Story just comes down to its blatant agenda and Micheal's rather patronising commentary, which I'd had far too much of by the time the movie ended. It is not completely without merit and it does contain some interesting case studies that underline a real need for political change, but for me it just failed to hit the mark like some of his older films did.

Overall: 40/100

MOVIE REVIEW: A Single Man (2009)

I went into A Single Man with no real expectations. I didn't know anything about the film, not even that it was directed by Tom Ford. I actually spent the first 10 minutes thinking I was watching the Coen Brothers' 'A Serious Man', most probably a very different film to this one. Whoops! A quick Google search rectified my error and I settled into the experience of this stylish Tom Ford movie. It is adapted from Christopher Isherwood's novel of the same name and stars Colin Firth in the leading role, Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult.

I really enjoyed A Single Man, from the slick and stylish aesthetics, to the dialogue, to the deep sense of melancholy. Hey, I think we all need a bit of melancholy now and again. The story follows a middle aged British college professor living in L.A in the early 60's, George Falconer, who has recently lost his long time partner Jim in a car accident. From the start we learn of the immense trauma that this loss has caused him as we get reoccurring flashbacks of their times together. Simple moments, stored forever in George's memory. The first scene is of the highest order, a silent scene of George approaching Jim's dead body just after the accident. He lies with Jim, kissing him with defiant acceptance. This is all that was needed to set up the central premise for the film. George is grieving, yet realises that he must move on and rediscover some sense of himself. The first 20 minutes are used to explore George's mindset and how he views the world. The death of Jim has drained meaning from his day to day life and job, and as he himself exclaims very early on, he is just trying to "get through the goddamn day". The first act also introduces us to Julianne Moore's character, Charley, a very old friend of George. She was the first to console him after he received news of Jim's accident, portrayed in a very moving scene where George is quite literally breaking down in front of her. This establishes their firm bond, which is explored further later on.

One of the main themes of A Single Man is sexuality. Both sexual ambiguity and promiscuousness. I never got the sense that George was depicted as an exclusively gay man, although he probably is. He mentions to Jim in a flashback that he used to sleep with Charley before they met, to which Jim is surprised. Jim never slept with any women. George claims this to be a reason why he felt so deeply in love with Jim, because he was always so sure of himself. I see this as a very important moment in understanding the psychology of George and Jim's relationship. It seemed to me that George was not only in love with Jim, but deeply in awe of him. His outlook on life, his exuberant confidence, made George a better person. Without Jim, he is devoid of something essential to his happiness. This is further reiterated towards the end of the movie when Charley tries to imply that Jim was a substitute for real love, sending George from his mellow drunken state into a defensive rage. He insists that Jim was everything, and nothing can ever replace him. The theme of sexual ambiguity is a real one. Early on when George is teaching, he daydreams about the human form, both the male and the female, distracting his focus on the class he is trying to teach, eventually veering off topic as he riffs on the fact that "fear is destroying our world", blatantly self referencing when talking about the fear of being alone and insignificant. Through these early scenes, Ford develops the complex nature of this man and the cold reality of his heartbreak.

After the class, one student, Kenny, becomes particularly enamoured with George. He quickly makes advances on him, maybe detecting certain aspects of his nature and perhaps even his sexuality. George tries to quell these advances, but it only ends up adding to his conflicted torment and denial about Jim. One of my favourite scenes in the film occurs a little later on. George drives to a convenience store to pick up a bottle of gin for Charley, but as he is leaving it is knocked out of his hand by a young handsome Spanish man. His reaction is humbling and to my eyes displays the essence of human compassion. He manages to overcome his frustration and decides to treat the man with kindness instead of contempt, looking him in the eye and saying "its ok, it was my fault". He buys another bottle and shares a cigarette with the man, who is clearly also interested in George, either sexually or as a friend. It is this constant blurring of the lines between friendliness and sexual tension that really captured my attention throughout the film, being present with Charley, Kenny and the Spanish man. Sometimes we can confuse the two, or even overlook simple human decency and kindness because of sexual connotations. The man wants to go on a car journey with George, but he politely declines and the two part ways. This middle stanza was probably my favourite section of the film.

The next part of the movie focusses on George and Charley. They get drunk together and the whole atmosphere of the film becomes lighter and more fun. The two revel in each others company, laughing and dancing the night away. This was a fun scene to watch and was genuinely heart warming. You feel the visceral bond between them, as well as some unresolved sexual tension. By the end of the scene it is obvious that Charley has always wanted more than friendship with George, but the fact that it isn't reciprocated makes it hard for her to deal with her own life. After this encounter we get perhaps the most important flashback to when George and Jim met at a local sailors bar. The way these flashbacks are constructed paints George's past as richer, happier and more full of life. His nostalgia for this time in his life is so overpowering that it consumes his present. He ends up running back to the same bar, where he conviniently runs into Kenny. This final stanza is where we see George's redemption, he finally beats his nostalgia and fully realises his identity. Through Kenny and Charley, George finds his way back to the present, before finally succumbing to his heart condition. We then get a reverse shot of the opening scene, with George's dying body being kissed by Jim. It is a touching and fitting end to the film.

The acting in A Single Man was really impressive. I am a big Colin Firth fan, though I acknowledge he can be quite one-dimensional. I think he fit this role as well as anyone could have. His quiet, classy demeanour helped the serious scenes feel real, yet he displayed the range that was needed to give life to the character. Overall I felt he stole the show. Julianne Moore was really good as well, giving the character of Charley a sassy, eccentric spark. Her chemistry with Firth brought real depth to their ambitious relationship. Nicholas Hoult was passable, and he definitely worked for the role of Kenny. I would have liked to have seen some more adventurous dialogue written for him though. Aesthetically, A Single Man is simple but classy, as one would expect from a world renowned fashion designer like Tom Ford. Nothing about the visuals or music blew me away, but this is a very character focussed movie, it didn't need to be flashy.

A Single Man is a very serious film, so don't go into expecting a laugh a minute. Its humanistic qualities and themes of compassion, empathy, love and heartbreak are what made it such a satisfying experience for me. I have no real criticisms of it, and at only an hour and a half it is quite an easy watch. If anything, I would have liked it to have been a bit longer so that it could have explored some of the relationships in more detail, but that is just me splitting hairs. Overall I would highly recommend this stylish adaptation to anyone with a love of cinema, or a touch of melancholy.

Acting: 85
Narrative: 80
Visuals: 75
Music: 70

Overall: 78/100

ALBUM REVIEW: Kendrick Lamar - Untitled Unmastered (2016)

You know what I love? Waking up on a Friday to a new release from the current god-MC Kendrick Lamar. The man can do no wrong right now, and this EP/Demo tape/album/whatever you want to call it DOES NOT put a stopper on his current fine run of form. I have been consuming it in my headphones all morning and afternoon, so I already have a pretty fully formed opinion on what he has given us with Untitled Unmastered. This release has been rumoured since Kendrick started performing these freestyles on various talk shows, as well as at the Grammy’s last month. Many people wanted him to reproduce the songs in the studio and properly master them. Well, he delivered on half of that. The title of the project seems like a play on the fact that people were asking for these to be mastered and made into a proper album. It is clear that Kendrick wanted to keep the release low key and crucially, unmastered.

It is a testament to his genius that this album still packs the same punch that made To Pimp a Butterfly such a masterpiece, obviously without the sheen of proper mastering. But I actually think that in this case it works in Kendrick’s favour. The muddy, jazzy production perfectly suits the lyrics and delivery he’s throwing out on most of these tracks. Many of them seem like stream of consciousness freestyles, with the exception of a few that have a little more structure and form. Every single track is great, I loved every moment. Untitled 1 sets the tone, with a seductive monologue from an unknown speaker. Kendrick then comes crashing in and does not hold back. He mercilessly rounds off the ills of the world around him, and paints a picture of despair and a world gone wrong. Untitled 2 begins with an intro that plays with the well known chant “Hip hip, hooray”, changing it to “Pimp pimp, hooray”, a nice little reference to his most recent album. This is the track that Kendrick performed on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. It is slightly more formed, with 2 bridges and a really amazing hook where Kendrick shows once again that he is able to twist and distort his voice in weird and super-soulful ways that can truly give you goosebumps. Lyrically here he seems to be riffing on his fame and money, yet clearly he is in two minds about it, sounding like he’s on a guilt-fuelled ego trip. The beat switch up is great, and Kendrick brings us even deeper into his psyche. It is definitely one of the best tracks on the project.  

Untitled 3 is the same song as ‘Untitled’ which Kendrick performed on The Colbert Report last year.  Another mind-blowingly good track. The beat is light and catchy. Here Kendrick lists off a bunch of racial stereotypes, with no clear indication as to whether he believes they have any truth in them or not. I like how he doesn’t discriminate though, simply puts forward observations about the cultural differences between people of different colours and nationalities. Untitled 4 is mostly instrumental, with some vocals from Kendrick and TDE member SZA. It’s a nice break from the relentless cut throat freestyles that litter the album. Untitled 5 is undoubtedly one of my favourites. The intro and hook by Anna Wise and Kendrick is heavenly, despite containing some dark and cryptic imagery. Kendrick’s delivery on the first verse is so rousing. It immediately lifts the energy of the instrumental and makes the listener stand to attention. He talks about having lost touch with God thanks to an obsession with material goods, and calls out the delusion that simply having a bible “in the trunk” does not justify one’s irreligious actions. People too often see God and religion as they would like to see it, instead of how it really is, causing a disparity between their beliefs and their actions. A great verse from rapper Punch echoes Kendrick’s sentiments and nicely rounds off the track.

The beat for Untitled 6 is groovy and more up tempo, it really reminds me of the vibe I get when listening to Complexion or For Sale? from To Pimp a Butterfly. Kendrick’s laid back flow is exactly what the beat requires. The lyrics allude to his mother, and how she raised him to be who he was and not to conform. He encourages people to look past what is seen as normal, especially for men, and to seek other ways of finding love and happiness. The wordplay is witty and creative, overall giving the song a really soulful quality.

Untitled 7 might actually be my favourite. This song is so damn out there, with a delivery that sounds like it derives from a mixture of pain and euphoria. He explains that love, drugs, fame, chains, juice, crew and hate “won’t get you high as this”, indicating that he has tapped into a higher dimension or Hiipower. Perhaps ‘this’ is the song itself, or music in general, or his higher purpose. The shining light here though is Kendrick’s super passionate delivery, which encompasses a great range of his vocal ability. He finishes the song with a couple more great verses, commanding his audience to get out of their feelings and into something real, yet also acknowledges that he is far from perfect, trying to resist the temptations all around him. A song of this calibre could easily have fit onto TPAB, but its just as great to see it show up here. The album closes with Untitled 8, a really funky track with lots more lyrical excellence. He seems to be talking to a girl, or a series of girls, trying to pass on some of the wisdom he’s picked up on his journey. Again there are themes of conformity, money, poverty and struggle throughout the song. One of my favourite things about Kendrick is that he has the ability to combine heavy and dark lyrical themes with an an underlying sense of hope. On this track, the beat and flow are really uplifting, yet the lyrics still tackle some really personal issues that can make the listener think.

If To Pimp a Butterfly secured Kendrick’s position at the top of the hip hop ladder, then this project just reaffirms it. It is a year since that album dropped and began to make ripples not only in rap, but all of music. The kid from Compton may still not have reached his peak, and that’s a scary thought for all the other MC’s in the game today. This surprise album is not ground-breaking; it doesn’t want to be. It is just Kendrick checking in and proving that he is still head and shoulders above his competition right now. The verses on here leave me desperate for another album, but for now I am content to just enjoy this.

Score: 85/100

Dylan Dissected #1: Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands

I have been digging back into Bob Dylan's catalogue recently, as I often do considering he is my favourite artist of all time and has perhaps the richest discography of any musician in popular music to date. I keep having the urge to listen to Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, Bob's ode to his then wife Sara Lownds. It has always ranked among my favourite songs of his 'wild mercury' period in the mid 60's (his best period in my humble opinion), only behind masterpieces like Visions of Johanna. But I've never really considered why the song is so powerful. Many critics have cited its lyrics as sloppy and overly pretentious, a critique I don't think can be thrown at many Dylan songs. I do see where these people are coming from though. Reading the lyrics is mystifying to say the least. The metaphors seem slightly strained and sometimes even non-sensical. And yet, the song has always drawn me back, always fascinated me, always had me listening intently to each line. It made me want to look at the song in a bit more depth, so I thought about the song in the context of both Dylan's life and art in general.

After a little research, I found that Dylan also adored this song, and claimed it to be the best song he'd ever written upon its completion in February 1966. There are legendary stories about how Dylan worked in the studio, especially for Blonde on Blonde, keeping his musicians waiting for hours on end whilst he spontaneously added to his songs before sporadically recording them with little to no direction. When it came to Sad Eyed Lady, the band expected to only be playing for a few minutes and had no idea that Dylan intended them to play for almost 12!. As the verses kept coming they just kept playing, with no idea of when the song would finish. From the reports of the musicians who played on it and Dylan's own comments, it is clear that Sad Eyed Lady evolved very naturally. It is a song that sounds like mother earth, something beyond perceivable reality but at the same time inherently real. Upon hearing the acetate, Dylan quipped that it sounded like “old-time religious carnival music” – a description that I think fits it perfectly. There is something ancient and timeless about the sound of it, from the surreal imagery of the lyrics to the soft tone of the band, who all perform sublimely on the track. It is almost lullaby like in how it moves, swaying the listener back and forth until they fall under its dreamy spell.

So in my attempt to try and pin down the song, I have concluded that I love it for a similar reason to why I love the rest of Blonde on Blonde. I think by this point Dylan had almost completely transcended the medium of songwriting, and passed into a realm only a few artists in history have managed to reach. If you look at the lyrics for the songs on Blonde on Blonde, they aren’t technically his best. I think many tracks from Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 display a sharper example of Dylan’s genius, but those albums don’t quite possess the abundance of nuance of Blonde on Blonde. Sad Eyed Lady, amongst other songs on the album, gives the listener a sense that they are tapping into a higher reality, a pool of knowledge that one must nearly completely lose themselves in the music to find.

It is not the words on Sad Eyed Lady that astonish me. They are good, and taken at face value then one can find some really interesting imagery in there. But what really defines a song like this is its complete sound. This is backed up by a few things Dylan said during this period. I read somewhere that when asked about how people should listen to his songs, he replied that although the words are important, their main purpose was to punctuate the music. In other words, the sound of the words and instrumentation together is where the truth and message of the song lies, rather than any literal interpretation of the words. He reinforced this point at his famous San Francisco press conference in December of ’65 when asked if he writes the words or music first, cryptically responding that he just “writes it all”, implying a very holistic approach to songwriting. Of course he talks about having finally created that “wild mercury sound” that he heard in his head before Blonde on Blonde. Songs like I Want You and Sad Eyed Lady encapsulate this, and even though I don’t really know what the term means, somehow I understand what he is saying.

When I listen to the first 3 sides of Blonde on Blonde, I hear the city. It is metallic, rough edged and claustrophobic stuff for the most part. Visions of Johanna describes a vacuous party, Fourth Time Around an encounter with a prostitute, whilst Stuck Inside a Mobile captures a sense of disillusionment and entrapment in urban life. Yet by the time we get to Sad Eyed Lady, the whole pace of the album changes and it opens up. We get the chance to breathe with Dylan, meditate with him if you will. Dylan’s hypnotic voice is the same as it is on much of the rest of the album, yet it summons a different energy entirely, a much more peaceful one. I hear Dylan giving himself completely to the music in this song, almost stepping aside to make room for a more objective truth to come through. It is definitely one of Bob’s least self-conscious songs, which reminds me of what Allen Ginsberg said in No Direction Home, that by 1965 Dylan had become a sort of shaman, able to tap into a higher dimension and transmit it to his audience through the medium of music.

Thinking about the song in the context of Dylan’s marriage to Sara is definitely relevant, but far from the defining characteristic of the track. There is no question that it was inspired by her, as Dylan admitted himself 10 years later. After doing some more research on Sara, it appears that she was a very private person. She had a certain duality to her personality that intrigued the young Bob, and Sad Eyed Lady is a very fitting tribute to her indeed. Nevertheless, I still believe that the song is much more than a love letter to Sara. She is depicted in a divine light and as a symbol of eternal love in a world gone wrong. There seems to be an implicit acceptance in the words and the way Bob is singing them. He doesn’t want to change anything about this woman or the world she inhabits, he simply wants to observe and admire everything unfolding in front of him. This is of course, very un-Dylan like. The songs and albums that preceded Blonde on Blonde showed a songwriter who wanted to challenge ideas and perceptions at every chance he got. One could argue it was a step in the wrong direction for Dylan to waver too far from the finger pointing material he was writing just a year or so earlier, but personally I see songs like Sad Eyed Lady as an example of Bob maturing as an artist and a person, without sacrificing an ounce of his ability to dig deeply into the collective unconscious.

Sad Eyed Lady is not Dylan’s best song lyrically. It does indeed contain countless lines that are among his best, but also a few that seem thrown in to draw out the length of the verses. But thanks to what the fantastic session musicians manage to achieve musically, combined with Dylan’s enthralling vocal performance, it remains one of his greatest achievements as a songwriter. Roger Waters once said that after he heard Sad Eyed Lady he finally realised that it was possible to write 12 minute songs that don’t become tedious to listen to. The song was boundary pushing in more ways than one, being the longest track Dylan had recorded to that point and occupying a whole side on the first significant double album in rock history. It is a song I will always keep coming back to, learning and feeling more each time I do.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Greatest Game Ever Played

The Greatest Game Ever Played is a biopgraphical film about Francis Ouimet and his triumph at the 1913 US Open where he defeated his golfing idol Harry Vardon in an epic playoff. Adapted from Mark Frost’s 2002 book about the game, the film depicts Ouimet’s honest upbringing in Boston, his work from a young age as a caddy, and his father’s ambivalence towards the sport of golf for its elitist nature in the early 1900’s.

Golf has played a huge role in my life so far. I grew up playing the game at a competitive level and have always loved watching it on TV. Therefore, naturally I was drawn to this film and more engaged in it than others who are lesser fans of the game would otherwise be. However I must look at the film in the most objective way possible in order to review it. Truthfully I have mixed feelings on it. The subject matter and ‘story fascinated me. I loved the way the movie portrayed the game of golf as very much a gentleman’s sport in Victorian times. One of the main themes of the story was to display just how severe this elitism was on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, which gave Ouimet’s story as a hero an emotional weight. He overcame both the odds in both a golfing sense and a societal sense, changing the face of golf forever. Watching this film very much made me realise how far golf has come to the get to the point that is is at today, but also reminded me that it is not even completely there yet in terms of overcoming prejudice. Augusta for instance has only just inducted its first female member. This history is encapsulated quite well in The Greatest Game Ever Played and I must admire it for dong the full story justice.

The film shows us several phases in both Ouimet and Vardon’s lives. We see that these two golf legends both followed very similar paths to win their respective majors. Vardon of course was much more prolific, winning 6 British Open’s in his career, more than anyone in history. Yet there are definite parallels in the character’s stories, the most important of which is that neither of them came from well-to-do backgrounds. I liked how we got to see both Vardon and Ouimet as children utterly obsessed with the sport of golf. There is a very touching scene where the young Ouimet gets to meet Vardon who had just won the US Open in 1900. It sets the precedent for the following events of the film very nicely by creating an earlier connection between them. Soon we get introduced to Ouimet as a teenager, played by a young Shia LaBeouf. He has all but abandoned his dream to become a golfer, instead focussing on becoming a prominent businessman. This is until he gets offered a place in the 1913 US Open and his whole future is thrown into question. He declines initially, but eventually changes his mind. His decision angers his father, who is convinced that the game of golf is evil and set on scamming his son. All this preliminary backstory helped me to care more about Francis and his motivations for chasing his dreams.

The main bulk of the film is spent focussing on the championship, and this is maybe where it will lose those who aren’t golf fans. I was happy with how the tournament action was shot and described though, it is a credit to Paxton than he didn’t feel the need to make it too audience friendly yet still tense and watchable for more casual golf fans. That being said, being so into golf, I can clarify that the swings of almost every player were not very good. I realise that players back then would have swung the club very differently to players today, but we’re talking about Harry Vardon here, one of the greatest players of all time. I liked the nods to Vardon’s famous grip though, perhaps his most enduring legacy. The championship scenes were really entertaining, and the final holes felt very suspenseful despite being predictable. Ouimet’s victory was a cathartic and actually emotional moment. Seeing his father there in the adoring crowd during the celebrations was genuinely moving because you understood that his change of heart involved a lot of pain.

My main issues with this film lie in the acting and script. I don’t think anyone gave an outright bad performance, but there were only 1 or 2 that stood out and a fair few missteps. Shia LaBeouf was only 19 when he took on this role, and for the most part he does a pretty good job. It is nothing special, but he gave the character a fair amount of scope and depth. It did feel quite one dimensional at times though, like I knew how he was going to act in each scene. I didn’t particularly feel the performances of Stephen Dillane as Vardon and Stephen Marcus as Ted Ray. It felt like they relied too heavily on one particular persona, the stiff upper lipped golfers who gave people piercing glances when they wanted to convey an emotion. I would have liked Vardon to have had much more dialogue so that I could have got to know him better. Peter Firth played the eccentric newspaper magnate Lord Northcliffe and gave perhaps the best performance in the movie. His pompous snobbery was as disgraceful and shocking as it should have been, provided by the great dialogue he was given. The child actor who played Francis’ caddy Eddie, Josh Flitter, did a reasonable job considering his age, although he did often come off as very cartoonish. He did add some great comic relief to the story, but I’m not sure he always fitted the tone of some of the more serious scenes. All in all, it was a mixed bag on the acting front. The script had both highs and lows, but with a great story to fall back on, it didn’t detract too much from the film’s impact.

Despite having a few issues with The Greatest Game Ever Played, I really enjoyed watching it. It gave me a fascinating insight into the history of the game I love so much. I cared about Francis and his struggle to overcome the harsh prejudices of the sport in order to fulfil his dream to win a major. The movie will definitely split opinion, which will have a lot to do with whether you like golf and care about the characters. Even so, there is more to this story than just a young boy winning a golf competition, so give it a fair chance.

Acting: 60

Narrative: 85

Visuals: 70

Music: N/A

Overall: 72/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Sideways (2004)

Sideways is a 2004 film directed by Alexander Payne and adapted from Rex Pickett’s novel of the same name. I was unfamiliar with both the film and director when I randomly came across it this morning on NOW TV, but thought I’d give it a shot. For the most part this is a very enjoyable movie, with some great character development and a solid plot. Paul Giamatti plays recently divorced author Miles Raymond, a troubled and lost figure who is attempting to get his novel published and make a name for himself. He also has a passion for wine, one of the film’s main themes. His friend and actor, Jack, played by Thomas Haden Church is his polar opposite. He likes to party, fool around, and has little interest in wine, yet he is the one engaged to be married. It is this central juxtaposition that creates such an interesting dynamic between the two characters, mainly expressed through Miles’ frustration with Jack’s flamboyant and flirtatious personality.

The first thing I will say is that the film is beautifully shot. It takes place in California, and the road trip the two embark on takes us to beautiful vineyards and through rolling desert hills. It is a very American looking film. The way Payne shot many of the scenes captures the beauty of California in the summer, with lots of natural lighting and panning shots of the countryside. It made me want to be there myself. The theme of wine-tasting is a hard one to make exciting, but I genuinely found myself intently listening to Miles talk about it, so props for that!

The film develops at a steady pace. We learn a lot about both the characters in one of the very first scenes when Jack cracks open a vintage bottle of champagne in the car, to Miles’ horror. Yet here we also see the type of relationship they have with one another, Miles soon resigning himself to Jack’s antics, and Jack asserting a kind of dominant persona over Miles. This is fleshed out as the movie progresses, Miles playing more of a submissive role to Jack’s exuberant dominance. Yet, thanks to the depth of these characters, you also sense a deep rooted mutual admiration between the two, like nothing either one of them does will damage their friendship.

Jack puts his cards on the table early in the film, asserting that he is not coming back without getting laid. From this point on he very much plays the carefree scoundrel, getting involved with a girl without realising what the repercussions will end up being. He always has an axe to grind with Miles, who wanted to take Jack on a more cultured trip, drinking wine and frequenting fancy restaurants. Jack just wants to party. The good thing was that I could sympathise with both characters and felt as if I was really starting to get to know them by the end of the film.

The main events of the film take place around how the two guys approach and deal with women. They meet two attractive younger girls, Maya and Stephanie. We learn that Miles knew of Maya from previous trips to the area and after Jack eggs him on, he develops a fondness for her, not quite knowing how to handle it. Jack gets involved with Stephanie, who works at a vineyard and is friends with Maya. The most touching part of the film is watching Miles struggle to woo Maya, whilst having to watch his friend do it in textbook fashion. I got a real sense of his inner struggle, on the one hand wanting to move on with another woman, yet being constantly haunted by his previous relationship. In the end, Maya finds out about Jack’s marriage and the film transitions into more comical territory. Jack gets beaten up by Stephanie, before seducing another waitress and getting chased out of her house by her furious naked husband. He then crashes Miles’ car to create an alibi for his broken nose. This third act of the film was a lot of fun, and I was impressed with how Payne managed to maintain the depth of the characters whilst introducing some more light-hearted comedy.

I have very few gripes with this movie overall. Occasionally I felt like Haden Church’s acting came off as a little wooden, but Giamatti’s stunning performance as Miles more than made up for it. He very much stole the show in my eyes. I wasn’t blown away by any part of the film, but it impressed and entertained me for 2 hours this morning, so I must give it its due credit. This is a romantic comedy with a lot of heart and an engaging subtext. The Californian setting was pure eye candy and never got boring to observe, but if you asked me to split hairs then I would have liked a few more ambitious shots thrown in here and there. I definitely recommend giving this a watch if you want something that’s easy to watch but will also make you think a little.

Acting: 80

Narrative: 75

Visuals: 80

Music: N/A

Overall: 78/100