Review: Sully: Miracle On The Hudson (UK Cert 12A)

On January 15 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia Airport in New York, travelling to Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina. Barely minutes into the flight, the flight suffered engine loss due to a bird strike. With 155 lives in the balance, pilots Captain Chesley B. 'Sully' Sullenberger III and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles did the impossible: they performed a water landing on the Hudson River. The whole event- from bird strike to landing- took just 208 seconds, and it was done with no loss of life. This incredible true-life story has now been made into a film, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Tom Hanks as Sullenberger and Aaron Eckhart as Skiles.

I'm sure I've said several times before that I'm not a massive Tom Hanks fan. That said, he's always a safe pair of hands; you can always depend on him to put in a solid, decent performance. That is very true here: he plays Sully as a thoroughly decent and likeable man, humble, self-effacing, thrown into a media storm for doing his job and having to come to terms with that. Unsurprisingly, there are questions to be asked when something like this happens and the film is then set up almost as a courtroom drama as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) begins its investigation. Here's where things start to skew a little; the film shows the NTSB as accusatory and prosecutorial, seeking to disprove Sully's version of events and showing him to have acted wrongly by performing the water landing and that the cause of the crash was pilot error; such a finding would have ended Sully's career. 

Other performances are decent enough; Eckhart is strong as the no-nonsense Skiles, although he's not given a whole lot to do throughout. Similarly, Laura Linney feels wasted as Sully's wife Lorraine, popping up throughout to cry or to harangue Sully (or maybe that's just how I saw it; she didn't exactly feel or seem supportive until the very end). The script attempts to flesh out the stories of some of the passengers- a father-son golfing trip, a wheelchair-using woman and her daughter, a new mother- but it all feels very surface and, crucially, you don't really care about them. Well, I didn't at least. 

Eastwood's direction is solid and the reconstruction of the plane crash and landing is done well. Some scenes play out like an anodyne version of the 2012 Robert Zemeckis film Flight- here, there's no suggestion of impropriety or alcohol/drug misuse- but the investigation scenes play well. It feels a little muddled which, given a relatively short runtime of 96 minutes, is a surprise.

However, the film is, at its core, a paean to 'the human factor'. It is this that Sully points out during the investigation; a computer simulation can only do so much. You need the human factor, its insight and experience, to inform decisions made- for good and bad. In a moment of crisis, humanity can pull together and help those who need it (an end-card gives praise to the coastguards, ferry crews, police and firefighters who helped rescue the passengers from the ditched plane). Given the darkness of our current times, this is a timely message.

All said, solid if unremarkable. 

Rating: 3 out of 5

Tez

Review: Nocturnal Animals (UK Cert 15)

Nocturnal Animals is the second film from fashion-designer-cum-director Tom Ford (after 2009's A Single Man)

Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a Los Angeles art gallery owner whose privileged surroundings are providing her little comfort as her marriage is breaking down and her husband is sleeping with another woman. She receives a manuscript of a novel called Nocturnal Animals, written by her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal) whom she cruelly mistreated then dumped. She begins to read the manuscript, a violent revenge thriller in which a young family are terrorised by a brutal gang of rednecks. 

Honestly, this film was one of the most pretentious piles of bilge I've had the misfortune of sitting through this year. Now, people who know me know I quite like films that certain people may describe as 'pretentious'. But this... this takes the cake. And then frames it badly on camera and gives it a lingering close-up to show how deep it really is. 

I don't know what's worse: the poor camerawork, the heavy-handed symbolism, the shoddy editing, the awkward and obvious juxtapositions or the facile script that has characters either spouting inane platitudes or fortune-cookie bon mots. The most egregious thing is A Single Man was a subtle, nuanced, occasionally very beautifully shot film. What happened? There's no subtlety here. No nuance. You are sledgehammered over the head with every piece of imagery- even down to casting Isla Fisher as Tony's wife Laura (because she looks so much like Amy Adams, don't you see? Isn't that clever?)- and, when you need to put a blatant jumpscare in to check whether your audience hasn't actually slipped into a coma, you're on shaky ground. Also, I have major issues with the opening which depicts several obese naked women doing a drum majorette routine in slow motion. Quite what is this supposed to mean? Is it a metaphor for the grotesque and soulless world of Los Angeles? If so, there are perhaps more appropriate and more tasteful ways to do it than to go down the route of fat-shaming. 

Performances are a mixed bag, to be fair. Amy Adams is an extremely talented actress that will undoubtedly win an Oscar one day, given the right role. And God love her, she's trying here. She's trying in earnest to turn this rotten sow's ear into a silk purse but there's only so much you can do with a script with the emotional depth of a stagnant puddle. Still, she tries to imbue Susan with some semblance of character which the script is sorely lacking. 

Gyllenhaal plays a dual role, as Edward and as Tony, the main character in the novel which is handily dramatised for our viewing... well, I'd usually say pleasure but in this case I'm gonna have to make an exception and say endurance. As Edward, he's sweet, naive, sensitive. As Tony, he's all of those things and then he isn't as the cruelty of the world breaks him. That is literally what this film is like. I'm really hoping one day Aaron Taylor-Johnson will look back on this film and cringe. Like I did, every time he was on screen. He's the leader of the redneck gang that intimidate Tony and his family and his performance is just dire. It is buttock-clenchingly, sphincter-tighteningly bad. He's about as intimidating as a wet paper bag and has clearly been directed to go for wide-eyed crazy as a default. 

However, there are some saving graces. Laura Linney is superb in her cameo role as Susan's ghastly, materialistic mother whilst there's a certain amount of gravitas to Michael Shannon's performance as Detective Bobby Andes, the taciturn and morally flexible lawman who helps Tony get some kind of justice for his family.  

I didn't enjoy the film. I found it boring, pretentious and convinced of its own worthiness. Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Seriously, if you watched Noctural Animals and liked it or enjoyed it or 'got' it, feel free to leave a comment below or drop us an e-mail and let me know what I'm missing. Because I genuinely couldn't see it. 

Frankly, if this is the best he can come up with, then might I respectfully suggest Tom Ford sticks to fashion design (which he knows a lot about and is very good at) rather than film-making. 

Rating: 1.5 out of 5

Tez

Review: Mr. Holmes (UK Cert PG)

Sir Ian McKellen reunites with his Gods And Monsters director Bill Condon for Mr. Holmes, an adaptation of Mitch Cullin's novel A Slight Trick Of The Mind which features an elderly version of the great detective.

It's 1947 and the 93 year old Sherlock Holmes (McKellen) lives in retirement in Sussex with his housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger (Milo Parker). Holmes is happy with his bees, preferring to stay out of the limelight after John Watson's stories of Holmes' cases have become famous. However, after more than thirty years, he is haunted by his final case; the case which ended his career. There was always something troubling about it, something that never rang true in Watson's version of events. Holmes resolves to figure out what. Not easy when the world's greatest detective is suffering from dementia and his once sharp intellect is waning. 

McKellen plays Holmes as both the younger detective and the older, more decrepit retiree and is superb at both. The older Holmes' dementia provides some poignant moments as he tries to put the pieces back together and there is a marked physical change between the two versions of Holmes. McKellen is the kind of actor that could read the phone book and make it sound like Shakespeare and he acquits himself brilliantly in the role. 

It's a shame the same can't be said of some of the supporting cast (but that's more to do with the material than the actors). Laura Linney is a much better actress than the material she's given here and she's practically wasted in the role which has her little more than a disapproving harridan. Some facile attempts to give the character character fall flat and feel shoe-horned. Milo Parker is better in the role of Roger, luckily eschewing any precocious brat instincts and acting as a good foil for Holmes. However, both Linney and Parker suffer from wandering accent syndrome, sounding at times West Country then Irish then occasionally Scottish which is a little off-putting, to say the least.

Hattie Morahan plays Ann Kelmot, the subject of Holmes' last case, with a beautiful fragility and it's actually quite a wrenching moment when all the pieces come together and you realise the truth of the last case. There's a supporting cast of top-notch British acting talent- including Roger Allam, Frances de la Tour, Phil Davis, John Sessions and Frances Barber- which rounds out things nicely.

It's a well shot and well designed films, the costumes and make-up are superb and it evokes the spirit of the times in which it is set. However (and it's a big however) the script is what lets the film down. It's poorly structured and one of the main storylines- Holmes' sojourn to Japan to find a plant that is reputed to help with senile dementia- is rather weak. If it had focused on the final case alone, the film would have been stronger. 

Ultimately, this is a pleasant, slow drama which would be perfect for a Sunday evening. Whilst the plot is inconsistent, it's worth seeing for the bravura performance by McKellen. 

Rating: 3 out of 5

Tez

Review: Hyde Park On Hudson (UK Cert 12A)

Earlier this year, whilst the epic Lincoln was still in the cinemas, another biopic of an important American President came and went with very little fanfare. 

Hyde Park On Hudson tells the story of the important meeting of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Bill Murray) and King George VI (Samuel West) at Roosevelt's country retreat in New York during June 1939, which led to America's involvement in the Second World War. However, it's not just about that pivotal weekend- it also delves into Roosevelt's private life, insinuating an affair with his distant cousin Daisy (Laura Linney). I really wanted to like this film but walked away from it feeling distinctly underwhelmed.

The main problem I had with Hyde Park On Hudson was that it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. Was it a straight biopic of FDR? A period piece about the meeting between the King of Great Britain and the President of the United States? A foreigners-abroad comedy? A country-house comedy of manners? A personal relationship drama? It tries to be all of these things (and succeeds at some whilst failing at others) but there's a jarring shift in tonality when the separate strands cross over. 

The film is narrated by Daisy. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with films that use omniscient narrators. The first rule of successful creative writing is show, don't tell. An omniscient narrator can sometimes be a shorthand way of telling the story which works in some films and doesn't in others. This falls into the latter category. The main problem is that Daisy narrates events that she wasn't present at. Linney does her best with the material she's given but Daisy is written as a bit of a wet lettuce, simply mooning after FDR and (rather hypocritically) playing the injured party when it's revealed there is another 'other woman' in his life.

Performances are generally strong across the board. Murray leads from the front, playing FDR as an avuncular rogue with a twinkle in his eye. He's charismatic without necessarily always being likeable and there's an after-dinner scene between him and Samuel West which is just superb. As George VI, West avoids coming off as a Colin Firth imitation (which is great) but is still initially lumbered with a stiff-upper-lip caricature. Luckily, that wears off during the course of the film. The relationship between George and Queen Elizabeth is strained by the trip, with Elizabeth worrying about the Americans making fun of them but also undermining George by comparing him to his brother. Luckily, Olivia Colman is playing Elizabeth and she is an actress who can elevate whatever she's given to make it something better than it is. There's also a nice (if underwritten) role for Olivia Williams, playing the formidable First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

It's a relatively short film (94 minutes) so doesn't outstay its welcome. The most successful parts of the film for me where the parts regarding the royal visit. More focus on that and less on the frankly tedious relationship side would have made it stronger. It's not a complete washout but certainly isn't greater than the sum of its parts.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Tez