Movie Muser

Have your say about cinema

Straight Outta Compton – Revisiting the birth of NWA

By


First and foremost, if you are a fan of NWA, Dr Dre, Ice Cube, Easy E or West Coast hip hop between the late eighties and early noughties then go and see this film regardless of what I say, and make sure the cinema has a good sound system!

Straight Outta Compton tells the story of Dj Yella, Dr Dre, Easy E, Ice Cube and MC Ren: 5 young men who grew up in the tough city of Compton in the late 80s. They band together to form NWA, one of Americas most infamous, influential and controversial rap groups, and this film chronicles their rise from the streets through to how success fractured their relationships with each other as the business side of things took over.

You may or may not know who NWA were but their impact on hip hop was huge. However, you would have heard of Dr Dre and how he is now the richest rapper alive thank to a certain brand of headphones and a deal with a certain technology company.

To give him credit he has a great mind for business and incidentally you can buy limited edition ‘Straight Outta Compton’ headphones and can only obtain his latest album (which isn’t a touch on 2001 (1999)) via said certain technology company.

Music biopics can be hit or miss in my opinion, which is one of the reasons why I chose to review this film. Many of them are similar in structure and beats (no pun intended), and although the likes of Walk the Line (2005), Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll (2010) and Ray (2004) were great, they are also kind of forgettable and I rarely revisit films of this genre.

8 Mile (2002) made it clear that it was not a retelling of Eminem’s story and this set it apart from other biopics, and the term ‘based on a true story’ should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

The first half of this film is a thoroughly enjoyable rags-to-riches story of the beginnings of NWA, which is reminiscent of Boyz n the Hood (1991) as we have young men from the ghetto involved in gangs, guns, poverty, racism, and police brutality. We have seen this all before in other ‘urban dramas’ but for me it was great to see each individual member’s story and how they connected through music.

Their first record is pressed by Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti, being great as always) who then becomes their manager and gets them signed. We have wild parties, the recording of the titular album and are taken on a fun ride as they tour it.

The second half changes tack and plays out more like a business drama, focusing on the group’s frayed relationships over contracts and, as a result, the birth of their solo projects. We get an insight into the music industry in which greed and wealth is worth more than friendships, but it was made clear from the start that some of them were only in it for the money.

This half focuses more on Easy E, Ice Cube and Dr Dre’s stories and is great if you are a fan of hip hop, but almost completely forgets about Dj Yella and MC Ren. It has cameo rappers such as 2 Pac, a hilarious Snoop Dogg and a menacing Suge Knight, but unfortunately doesn’t keep up with the pace of the first half and loses focus.

It ends with the death of Easy E (no real spoiler here) but concludes with an excellent ‘legacy’ montage over the booming closing credits. It leaves you with the feeling that it only told you part of the story. I would like to see a semi sequel that deals with East Coast rappers of the same era leading up to Biggie and 2 Pac, and to me this seems like a realistic option as this movie has made a lot of money on a small budget. Add this to the box office revenues of Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Minions, Universal have had a very successful summer.

The film is confidently directed by F. Gary Gray and as expected some shots and scenes are straight out of hip hop videos, complete with slow-motion, lens flare, lowriders, girls and plenty of bling. The cinematography and editing is what you’d expect and fit this movie perfectly.

The young cast are all great, O’Shea Jackson Jr’s portrayal of Ice Cube is spot on and I’m sure that they will all go far as long as they are not typecast.

Like a lot of biopics it glosses over the dirt and Dr Dre and Ice Cube are portrayed in a strong, charismatic and positive light. No surprise as they have produced this film, but there have been some resurfacing stories about their pasts in recent weeks.

However this film is meant to be the story of five guys who wanted more from themselves and they got it through hard work, ups and downs and frayed loyalties. It touches on social issues like bad neighbourhoods, police abusing their powers, the Rodney King beating and subsequent LA riots: but some of these issues should have been expanded on.

I am a fan of the music and this film was great at painting a picture of what happened, but at the end of the day it is a Hollywood retelling of the truth. Film is meant to be entertaining and this film surely is, but some of the characters and their motivations are flat and the film loses its pace towards the end. Certain scenes should have been omitted as they are never expanded upon later and the latter half just seems to focus on how great Dr Dre and Ice Cube are (which I do not doubt) and the tragic loss of Easy E.

But as a film I must judge it as such. It is true that it is one of the best music biopics of recent years but it has its faults. It comfortably fits between a 3 and a 4, but I must be critical and not increase its rating due to my nostalgic love of the music.

Overall Verdict: A thoroughly entertaining film with a great cast and soundtrack which sometimes tries to be bigger than it is, and as such leaves a lot of loose ends. There are so many good things about this film it’s unfortunate it loses its focus, but ultimately is one of the best music biopics of recent years.

Reviewer: George Elcombe

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES:

The Saboteurs (DVD) – Stopping the Nazis getting the atomic bomb in Norway

By


Nordic Noir turns its attention to WWII in this cracking Nazi adventure story. What makes it slightly different is the theme of Norway’s collaboration with the Germans during the war, and the Nazi’s own use of Jewish scientists to try and win, two relatively new areas for drama to explore. Throw in a strong cast and plenty of action scenes and you’ve got a fascinating piece of TV.

Initially the story concentrates on Heisenberg, a Jewish scientist working on the possibility of nuclear energy. He is about to be sent to the concentration camps when the Germans realise his worth, and he is put into a programme working on this new science which he believes will power the planet, and they believe will blow up London. But is he really on their side or siding with science?

What the project relies on is heavy water, and there just happens to be a factory in Norway producing lots of the stuff. They are happy to produce it, the Germans are happy to pay huge amount of cash for it, there is only one scientist who works there who objects. He defects to Britain, and hooks up with Anna Friel’s Colonel Smith who organises a commando group to parachute over to Norway and blow up the factory. Needless to say it doesn’t go quite to plan.

It’s a fine looking, well-acted drama with plenty of period detail, but what sets it apart here is the debates over science, and the conscience of those involved. Heisenberg is constantly telling the impatient Nazis that whatever they are building the west is building it at the same rate, so the atomic bomb may be years away. Is he telling the truth or stalling? They have no way of knowing.

The owner of the Norwegian factory is a similarly fascinating character. He is perfectly happy to accept Nazi cash for his product, and even happier when they move him into a huge house with servants, but his wife has other thoughts beyond a slap-up dinner. When she witnesses the staff being loaded onto trucks she decides to do something about it.

Overall verdict: Unusual and fascinating look at a little-known chapter of WWII history, well-paced and directed. Anna Friel’s accent is all over the place and her romance with the Norwegian captain is predictable, but they are minor quibbles in what is a powerful drama. The only complaint about the discs is that there are no extras at all, which seems a bit odd.

Reviewer: Mike Martin

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES:

A Little Chaos (DVD) – Kate Winslet takes on Versailles

By


It’s 17th Century France and King Louis XIV (Alan Rickman) is on the throne. He wants a revamp of the Versailles gardens and hires architect Andre Le Notre (Matthias Schoenaerts) to build it. However, he needs help from a landscape artist and so brings in widower Sabine De Barra (Kate Winslet).

They have a few initial problems as he likes classical geometry and straight lines, while she is more forward-thinking and asymmetrical in her design (metaphor alert). Despite this, the two begin to fall for one another. This should be okay as Andre has an open marriage, however his wife (Helen McRory) isn’t keen on the feelings he develops for Sabine and plans to destroy what they are creating together.

Directed and co-written by Alan Rickman, A Little Chaos suffers from the strengths and weaknesses of quite a few other movies helmed by actors. It looks beautiful and the likes of Winslet and Schoenaerts are given great space and consideration to show off their skills (although Rickman himself seems a little distracted trying to act and direct at the same time). However, as a piece of storytelling it’s rather hit and miss, partly because it has so much respect for what the actors are doing that it defers to them rather than pulling the whole thing into something cohesive.

Its penchant for rather stodgy melodrama and slightly cheap storytelling devises undermine the good work going on elsewhere. A Little Chaos could have been far worse as it does have a fair amount of charm, a great cast and it’s never dreadful, but sadly it’s also duller than it should be considering the talent of all involved. It results in a movie that by the end will elicit polite applause but nobody is going to want to give it a standing ovation.

Overall Verdict: A Little Chaos looks beautiful and it’s obviously a labour of love for Alan Rickman, but unfortunately despite his best efforts and a great cast, the film is a little stodgy and never fully comes to life.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES:

Child 44 (Blu-ray) – Tom Hardy investigates child murder in Soviet Russia

By


When it was first announced Child 44 seemed like a good bet – based on a hit book, directed by Daniel Espinosa (Safe House, Easy Money) and a really good cast. However, when it arrived in cinemas it was met with bad reviews and made hardly any money at the box office.

I’m not entirely sure where all the animosity came from though, as while it has quite a few problems it’s certainly tense, uneasy and very watchable.

Set in post-World War II Soviet Russia, Tom Hardy is Leo Demidov, an investigator for the feared MGB who roots out traitors for Stalin. The organisation is judge, jury and executioner – and it extracts ways to find guilt in everyone they arrest. It’s an era of massive paranoia and one where deviating from the official line on something can be a death sentence.

Leo discovers evidence that someone is killing children, although his superiors tell him this is impossible (officially at least) as Stalin has said that murder is a capitalist disease.

The purges of ‘traitors’ strikes close to home when Leo is asked to denounce his own wife, Raisa (Noomi Rapace), and when he refuses they are exiled from Moscow. He then discovers that the murders aren’t just happening in the capital. Leo decides to investigate, even though he is now persona non grata and the authorities have no interest in admitting there’s a problem, let alone finding the killer – as there are no murderers in paradise.

I wonder whether part of the problem with the film in the cinema was understanding the thick Russian accents all the actors use, as it does take a while to get used to even on Blu-ray (to be honest some people may want to put the subtitles on). And it is undoubtedly true that despite a penchant for extended exposition there are quite a few sections where it’s difficult to work out exactly what’s going on and why. Even here though you can always pick up the general gist.

I’ll also be the first to admit that it never quite gets to grips with the motivations for why people act the way they do or how the Soviet Union functions in the way it does, beyond a few easy pointers to the effects of World War II on the Russian psyche, and that it’s a paradise for brutes. This would have been helped if Joel Kinnaman’s Vasili wasn’t such a ridiculous pantomime villain, as it tends to undermine the reality of the situation, as well as that of a character who could have been the most fascinating in the entire movie.

However, beyond this there’s a lot that’s far more successful. The performances are good and Espinosa certainly succeeds in creating a relentlessly dark atmosphere – indeed at times it’s a little too dark, as it gives you little hint as to why anyone would believe Soviet ideals were worth fighting for, despite the fact many people did. There’s a real tension at the film’s heart of people scrabbling about in the mud (literally at the end), desperately trying to do more than merely survive by living an endless series of what they know are lies.

Some have criticised the film for being a thriller without thrills, which is rather unfair. It’s more that where action in other films might be described as exciting, here it is tense and dark. I have to say that despite all the negative things I’d heard I was pulled in by Child 44 and while the 137-minute running time could have done with a little cutting (especially as so many of the things that are difficult to understand could have been removed without seriously affecting the plot), it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Sure, some of the plotting is convenient and a bit over the top, but certainly not more so than most mainstream thrillers. Those who’ve read the novel seem particularly aggrieved by the movie, but as I’ve not read it, I could enjoy the film on its own. Ultimately you can’t watch this as a look at the truth of Soviet Russia, as it’s not accurate (and isn’t really trying all that hard to be realistic on this score), and you shouldn’t be expecting a movie like Taken either. However, if you want something dark and tense – even if it’s rather confused about what the film is for – it certainly works. It also raises interesting ideas about whether a serial killer who murders because he is compelled to is actually better than somebody who chooses to end lives based on something they don’t really believe in.

Overall Verdict: Dark, tense and with some great performances, Child 44 may be a bit confused and rough around the edges, but it’s also intriguing and watchable, with more than a few troubling ideas.

Special Features:
‘Reflections Of History: Recreating The World Of Child 44′ Featurette

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES:

Mistress America – Noah Baumbach returns with Greta Gerwig

By


Welcome back Noah Baumbach. After the slight misfire of While We’re Young, which fizzed for an hour before losing pace and petering out, his new film is a complete bullseye. All of his usual tics are present and correct, but infused with a new energy and perfect pacing which works perfectly. It’s a complete treat from start to finish, maybe because it sees him working again with his real-life partner Gerwig, who puts in a performance of fantastic range and depth.

It’s Lola Kirke who takes the lead though, playing Tracy, a student newly arrived in New York City and finding it very lonely. Her room-mate is sullen, her fellow English students are poseurs, her lecturers no help, and as she has no money she is cannot run with the moneyed students. She also clearly has talent as a short story writer.

Luckily her mum announces she is getting remarried and her husband to be has a daughter, Brooke (Gerwig) who lives in Times Square. They hook up, and Tracy finds the women she thinks she wants to be. Brooke is effervescent, kooky, full of ideas, and fun to be with. She has a cool flat, plays vinyl records, dances with a band, has flings even though she has a boyfriend. To Tracy she seems like a breath of fresh air, but before long the cracks begin to show. Brooke has had her one big idea stolen by her best friend, who has also stolen her former boyfriend. So together they go to the country to sort it out, along with Tracy’s student pal who she has a crush on and his jealous girlfriend.

What is so impressive here is the film takes on the form of a screwball comedy, especially in the country house scene in which new characters are introduced, all interacting with each other at lightning speed with witty one liners, but it never loses touch with the seriousness of it all. Gerwig’s Brooke is a complete triumph, a mass of energy but with a dark heart, dreadfully insecure, worried about her future and realising her life is trickling away into nothing. When she gets the chance to pitch her idea for a business venture she chokes, and only Tracy bothers to help her out. Her relationship with Tracy is brilliantly realised, two “sisters” who slowly realise they have very little in common and one, inevitably, which will end in betrayal.

Kirke is the equal of Gerwig, a desperately lonely girl, almost incapable of empathising with anyone, talented but begrudging of praise, and dressed in a dowdy student uniform of baggy jumper and puffa jacket. One throwaway line encapsulates the film perfectly, when a minor character refers to Tracy as “the young one”, which Gerwig responds to with outrage. It’s funny and heartbreaking at the same time, much like the film as a whole.

Overall verdict: Cracking indie treat with a heart, terrific performances and beautifully written. Ultimately it’s about the fear of ageing and not leaving a legacy. Fantastic.

Reviewer: Mike Martin

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES:

Pixels – Adam Sandler & co. must save the world from videogames

By


You may have already heard about this film in a less than positive light with comments along the lines of ‘worst film of the summer’ and ‘watching this film will reduce your IQ’. But ask yourself this: what do you expect from an Adam Sandler movie?

Say what you like but Happy Gilmore (1996), The Waterboy and The Wedding Singer (both 1998) are all great films, and Sandler has even had some serious roles in Punch-Drunk Love (2002) and Reign Over Me (2007). That being said I only made it through half an hour of Grown Ups (2010) before switching it off and I haven’t seen many of his other movies from the last decade; mainly due to poor reviews.

It seems that as his career progresses the quality of his films has declined, but there is an active audience for these kinds of movies and as long as they keep making money, the studios will keep producing them.

Pixels is about aliens who have intercepted footage of a 1982 arcade championship, and misinterpreted the games as a declaration of war. They challenge Earth in a series of retro arcade style challenges, and President Cooper (yes, Kevin James is the president) recruits his lifelong friend and former arcade champion turned TV installer Sam Brenner (Sandler) and a few others to save the world by utilising their gaming skills.

It is based on an entertaining 2010 short by Patrick Jean (which you should check out online) and I was surprised to hear that they were developing it into a full length feature. However this practice is not uncommon and to name a few, Alive in Joburg (2005) became District 9 (2009), Frankenweenie’s 1984 short became a full length feature in 2012 and Monster (2005) became The Babadook (2014).

One positive of this film is its nostalgic feel (especially in the 80’s scenes) and use of video game licences. The Pac Man chase is a lot of fun but the Donkey Kong finale seems anti-climactic.

It is a film designed for geeks and you will have fun spotting some of the classic characters from yesteryear. But it also fails in its stereotypical use of overused stereotypical characters, situations and general plot development.

Acting wise Adam Sandler plays Adam Sandler as the underdog held back by the past but whose destiny will have him save the day and get the girl – that girl being Michelle Monaghan as Lieutenant Colonel Violet Van Patten. She is a recently divorced mother who is wary of Sandler until he proves his worth and you know the rest.

Kevin James is worrying as the President but then again America voted in Bush Jr twice, and we’ve voted in Cameron twice.

I do wonder why Peter Dinklage is in this film as anyone who has seen Game of Thrones (2011-onwards) can tell you that he is a fine actor. In this he plays an egotistical douche of a gamer named Eddie Plant, who has his moments, but come across as tedious and annoying. Shame (pun intended).

There are a few other supporting characters who have their moments, such as Josh Gad’s socially awkward ubergeek Ludlow and Brian Cox’s Admiral Porter, but you have seen these characters before in other films and sitcoms, and the portrayal of the British prime minister is borderline racist.

But this film is what it is and I guess the message is that it’s ok to be a dumb, fat, middle-aged male as you will eventually save the day and get the girl. No wonder these films do well in the States.

There are a few laughs, the action scenes play out well and it is fairly enjoyable especially if you enjoy video games. But this is far from director Chris Columbus’s finest.

I did find it strange that it’s rated 12A due to ‘infrequent moderate sex references and implied strong language’ – which are no worse than in any recent family film. In my opinion it should be a PG as it would make more money and I believe kids would enjoy this film significantly more than teenagers and adults.

Tron Legacy (PG – 2010) showed similar ‘pixel gore’ but more violence, and Jurassic World (2015) pushed the boundaries of what’s acceptable in a 12A. However we do see some gory footage from The Last of Us (one of the best games I will ever play) which I think is far more damaging to a child than innuendo.

But is Pixels worth seeing? If you want a dumb film with a ridiculous plot and a few laughs then yes, go and enjoy it for what it is. However don’t blame me if you want your money back.

Overall Verdict: This recent Adam Sandler film seems to fit the standard and is what you expect: it’s not awful and it’s not particularly good either. For ‘turn your brain off, appealing to a dumbed-down cinema audience, full of mediocre jokes’ it is what it is and I’m sure it will turn a tidy profit. But to quote a friend it’s basically a montage of old ideas.

Reviewer: George Elcombe

CHECK OUT THESE RELATED ARCHIVES: