Down to the Bone

Dir: Debra Granik

2004

****

I have to say I feel a little sorry for Debra Granik. Her 2004 feature debut should have put her on the map, and it did to some degree, but it will be remembered most for Vera Farmiga’s utterly compelling performance. Her 2010 follow up Winter’s Bone drew huge amounts of praise but again, it was the making of Jennifer Lawrence, rather than herself. I like to think people know her now after the brilliant Leave No Trace but who knows, either way, she’s a phenomenal director who deserves more credit. Visual flare aside, what really makes her a great director is her generosity and the way she allows each actor to flourish. This is why people remember the performances and the actors, rather than her, and its that kind of integrity that the industry needs more of. I’ve never directed a film, so that might sound condescending, but it annoys me because I think artists such as Granik are woefully overlooked, even though they make great film after great film. Down to the Bone tells the tale of Irene Morrison (Vera Farmiga), a working class mother of two boys, who lives in Upstate New York and works as a supermarket cashier. We learn early on that she is keeping a cocaine addiction a secret from her family. Much of the film is fly on the wall family stuff; her eldest son pesters her to buy him a pet snake for his birthday; her husband builds them a second bathroom; the marriage is largely sexless etc. On the night of Halloween, Irene takes her kids trick-or-treating and, at one of the houses they visit, she meets Bob (Hugh Dillon), a nurse, and there is a connection. The next day, Irene takes the kids to a reptile shop to buy a snake, but finds that they don't have enough money for one. While her boys wait in the car, Irene visits her dealer, asking him for another fix, but he refuses since she hasn't been paying for the last couple of weeks. At work, Irene contemplates taking money from the cash register. She then goes back to her dealer with Ben's birthday money given to her from her mother-in-law, but the dealer refuses to take it. We follow her day to day life as she juggles normal life with a clear craving for drugs. At a support meeting about cravings, she meets fellow addict Lucy (Caridad de la Luz), and befriends her. While at the facility, Irene again encounters Bob. Before she leaves, Bob visits with a book that helped him during his quitting phase, and offers her his support. At Irene's first Narcotics Anonymous meeting, a man celebrates one year of abstinence. In the following weeks, Irene finds it difficult to stay clean when her friends use drugs around her. One day at work, she is called into the manager's office. She is told her usual fast work has slowed and she admits her past drug, proclaiming it was the drugs that helped her work so quickly. Her honesty costs her and she is subsequently fired. Lucy suggests they start a cleaning business in order to gain money, to which Irene agrees. On the way to her next NA meeting, Irene offers to give Bob a ride and the pair begin an affair. Bob then takes her to a snake breeder so she can purchase one for Ben. The night the two become intimate, Bob excuses himself to the bathroom. Irene then walks in to find him shooting up. Furious at his hypocrisy, she argues with him, kicks him out but ends up using his drugs and the pair later reconcile. After taking drugs in Bob's car one night, the two are pulled over by the police. They are both arrested and detained when an officer finds a drug burner on the dashboard and a half-ounce of heroin. A lawyer briefs Irene on her best sentencing option: if she pleads guilty, she must commit to 50 individual counselling sessions, 100 group counselling sessions, and 250 NA meetings a year; he informs her that if she screws up, she'll be sentenced to several years incarceration in a state prison. When she arrives home, she admits her affair to Steve, who tells her to move out. Lucy gives her a place to crash, although she's angry with Irene for flaking out on a job. Irene eventually finds herself a house and gets some custody of her kids. After another of Irene's Narcotics meetings, Bob shows up to apologize for getting her caught up in his mess and subsequently avoiding her calls. Irene forgives him and he begins to stay at her house. Meanwhile, Bob is using, but intends to start going to support meetings again. His dealer tries to persuade him to sell some pills, but he refuses. Irene realizes he's been getting high by combining his prescribed methadone and other drugs, and as a result could endanger her kids; she confronts him and silently asks him to leave – the first step, we hope, of her full recovery. It’s a very gritty and realistic drama that shows that there is no glamour to drug addiction and many addicts lead normal lives. Addiction ruins families and relationships and makes bad people of good folk, and this is what Done to the Bone shows perfectly. Stark and powerful, as it should be.

Beautiful Boy

Dir: Felix van Groeningen

2018

*****

Felix Van Groeningen’s 2018 film Beautiful Boy is remarkable on several levels. It’s a touching and brutally honest depiction of drug addiction and the effect it has on relationships but shown from two different angles. The screenplay is based on the memoirs Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction by David Sheff and Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines by his son Nic Sheff and its surprisingly low on schmaltz. Luke Davies’ screenplay successfully avoids showing the two different angles as contrasting films or differing points of view and concentrates mostly on the events both memoirs cross over on. While David Sheff clearly researched drug addiction, the film doesn’t attempt to belittle addicts and suggest why anyone would become one, but rather deals with the Sheff family itself. Paramount Pictures and Plan B Entertainment acquired the film rights to both memoirs back in 2008 but seemingly didn’t know how to approach it. It was announced in 2011 that writer and director Cameron Crowe had written a script based on the books and that he was looking to direct the film after he had wrapped his romantic film Aloha, with New Regency getting involved in this project after Paramount dropped out. In December 2013, it was reported that Mark Wahlberg was circling the project to play the role of the father. However, in 2015 it was announced that Belgian director Felix Van Groeningen had taken over as director with a new script written by Australian writer Luke Davies. I think this was a vital move. Cameron Crowe has his own unique style of American cinema but I don’t think Beautiful Boy would have suited it. There are many other American directors I can think of who could come close to what the film should have looked like but I can’t think of any who would have been better than Van Groeningen. His 2012 film The Broken Circle Breakdown is one of the greatest non-American American films of modern times and the mood and his observational style are perfectly suited to such a story. It is also important that Luke Davies was attached as screenwriter, Davies being a former heroin addict himself. Both men gave the film the authenticity it deserved. Steve Carell played the father like no other actor could – the father anybody would want and the father everyone could see themselves as. Will Poulter was initially attached to play the son but I’m glad that the role eventually went to Timothée Chalamet. I’m not hating on Poulter, he’s proved his worth time and time again when no one thought he was right for the role but I genuinely don’t think he would have been right here, where Chalamet was in his element. Chalamet is fast becoming an actor to watch, indeed, if he’s in it, I’m interested. His style of acting, which I suppose you could could call method in the classical sense, is lending itself well to the young actor. His passion is met by his ability and it’s quite a relief to see such an important subject and a real-life character being respected and played with such enthusiasm. Watching Chalamet and Carell together felt authentic and I believed they were father and son. Maybe it’s because I’d recently become a father to a beautiful boy myself just before watching, but I found their relationship to be tender, heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. Again, I found this all to be suitably authentic. I was surprised to learn that the editing of the film took seven months in total, meaning that the movie was completely re-cut, multiple times. Initially Nico Leunen, Van Groeningen's long-time collaborator, was not involved in the project but when Van Groeningen became dissatisfied with the editing process he brought Leunen to Los Angeles to reconstruct the film. That’s a lot of time in the movie making business, so it’s good to see a bit of leniency given by the studio for the sake of art and the story’s integrity. It’s great when a complex story and an important subject are given the best treatment and Beautiful Boy is the perfect example of passion and integrity in action to produce a respectful and compelling adaptation.

Go!
Dir: Doug Liman
1999
****
Go is a strange film, very much of its time and something of a mark that acknowledges the end of a decade. In many respects it is the quintessential 90s film. Released in 1999, it had already picked all the great styles and techniques of the decade and pieced them all together to make something fun, unique and, as it turns out, a now cult classic. The interweaving stories and off-topic dialogue is straight out of The Acid House and Pulp Fiction (among many), the directional style is heavily influenced by Trainspotting – they are also both about drugs - and the killer soundtrack is thanks to all three. It certainly wasn’t the only film to copy this popular 90s style but it was the only one I can think of that made something unique, something individual and essentially likable. Although much of the film’s style is recognisable, I would argue that it was purely on-trend for the time, with the bulk of the story based on an earlier idea writer John August had which was made into a short film. It was decided that it had legs, so he wrote extra stories to go with it. Go is by no means a copy of any other film – something that I’ve heard many people pass it off as. The story begins around Christmas, with a girl called Ronna working overtime at her supermarket job to avoid being evicted. She is approached at work by two guys called Adam and Zack, who ask if they can buy 20 hits of ecstasy they were originally hoping to buy from her absent co worker, Simon. Needing the money, Ronna approaches Simon's dealer after work, and asks to buy the drugs but, as she is unable to pay the full amount, leaves her friend and other co worker Claire Montgomery with him as collateral. Before she can give Adam and Zack the drugs, Ronna is hounded by a stranger, who is desperate for the drugs himself. Suspicious that this stranger is a cop, she flushes the drugs down the toilet. Ronna then steals over the counter pills to replace the ecstasy she disposed of, helped by her friend and another co worker Manny, who swallowed two of the ecstasy pills earlier without knowing their strength. Ronna gives 20 of the fake pills to Todd, and she, Claire, and Manny make their way to a rave, where she sells the pills she stole as ecstasy.Todd soon discovers the pills are fake and pursues Ronna, discovering her at the rave. Ronna flees with Manny, but he is overcome by the drugs. Ronna leaves him in an alley and promises to return with her car, but Todd confronts her with a gun in the parking lot. Before he can shoot Ronna, she is hit by a car that speeds away. Then the story restarts from the perspective of Simon (Ronna’s absent co-worker), who is on a trip to Las Vegas with Marcus, Tiny and Singh. Tiny and Singh come down with food poisoning pretty much as soon as they get there (‘Never eat the shrimp!”), leaving Simon and Marcus to their own devices. Simon crashes a wedding and has sex with two of the bridesmaids before their hotel room accidentally catches fire. Simon and Marcus leave the hotel, stealing a car from someone who thinks Marcus is a parking attendant. The pair then go to a strip club, where Simon orders a private lap dance for them using Todd's loaned credit card, but he enrages the bouncer by groping one of the strippers. Simon shoots said bouncer with a gun that he found in the stolen car, and he and Marcus flee to the hotel, rousing Tiny and Singh. The four barely escape the bouncer but as soon as they’re gone, the bouncer traces Todd's address from the credit card Simon left at the strip club. The story then changes perspective to Adam and Zack from the beginning of the film. They are both actors in a daytime soap opera who are secretly in a relationship. Having been busted for drug possession, they are forced to work with Burke, a police detective and the stranger who approached Ronna earlier on in the film, to entrap their dealer. Adam is fitted with a wire. When they cannot find their usual dealer, Simon, the two convince Ronna to come up with the drugs. When Ronna arrives later to make the deal, Zack has a change of heart and secretly warns her away (something we didn’t see in the earlier scene), leading her to dispose of the drugs in the bathroom. Things then get even more complicated and brilliant when all four stories combine. After the film’s climactic finale, the characters are left asking “What should we do for New Year’s?”. Go reminds me of being a student, the 90s – a decade that I loved – was coming to an end but it felt like the party could continue into the 00s. It was a great film to end the decade on. Rather shockingly, the original foreign financing for the film fell through at the last minute because the film lacked a "bankable white male star." However, Columbia Pictures stepped in and financed the film. While there isn’t a big name star, it did have some of TV’s hottest actors and many supporting actors who were liked and well known at the time including; William Fichtner, Katie Holmes, Jay Mohr, Sarah Polley, Scott Wolf, Taye Diggs, Breckin Meyer, Timothy Olyphant, Desmond Askew, Jane Krakowski, J. E. Freeman and Melissa McCarthy in her film debut. The title is apt as it is all ‘go’ and also ‘go’ is slang for speed. It’s certainly an adrenaline-fueled ride and is directed perfectly by Doug Liman. For me though, it is the electric soundtrack that really frames the film. I couldn’t tell you how well its dated because for me it’s a nostalgia piece, a piece of authentic 90s gold, sadly the last of its kind.

Northern Soul

Dir: Elaine Constantine

2014

*****

Photographer and filmmaker Elaine Constantine has a well-documented interest in youth culture, her big break coming after being noticed for her contributions to Face magazine when she had her first solo show at the Marion de Beaupre's Gallerie 213 in Paris entitled Tea Dance - an exhibition that documented the Tea dance culture of Northern England. Her work has since been exhibited around the globe and she's had much success working for many top name brands, but it was Northern Soul that was her real labour of love. She struggled for fifteen years to go get the film made, all the major funding bodies rejected her, none of the key film festivals or institutional production partners in the UK were interested (which really surprises me) and in the end it was funded by a mix of private investors and largely by Constantine herself. Blood, sweat and tears (and lots of personal investment) clearly went into the production of the film and I believe it was blood, sweat and tears (and money) well spent. The film looks as glorious as you'd hope from a photographer of Constantine's stature, the use of colour aside, every frame is perfect, the composition is refreshingly refreshing and although it is set in 1974 - and really looks it - there is something rather contemporary about it. Maybe it’s because it feels so authentic. Many films based back in 70 England look the part, or at least look like they look the part but very few of them really look how it really looked, many of them get it wrong, mix too much of the 60s and even some of the 80s with the reality of the 70s. Constantine knows her stuff, she experienced it and had an endless catalogue of images to work from and authenticity was everything. This meticulous attention to detail doesn't just apply to the visuals though, the heart of the film's story is as real as it was too many inspiring teenagers of the era. Many films that deal with youth culture seem to delve into the darker sides but I found Northern Soul to feature real scenarios, the whole thing felt extremely believable, like it could have been a remastered copy of a 70s film, a documentary even. The big dance hall scenes are brilliant and the actual dancing is spectacular and spectacularly filmed. It made me sad that I wasn't around for it and had me tapping me toes to music that I don't even like that much. It's an incredibly infectious film, captivating from the start with some great performances as well as the typical cameos you'd expect, although I think these were largely unnecessary. It is by far one of the best English films of the decade and one of the best for some time. It's a great exploration of a very British chapter of lost history, lost no more.

T2 Trainspotting

Dir: Danny Boyle

2017

*****

There are quite a few films I can think of off the top of my head that I'd like to see a sequel to but would never expect one. However, I can think of more films whereby I loved the film so much that a sequel could spoil a treasured memory, some stories should be left where they were intended. Sometimes it works, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted (the follow up to Once Were Warriors) being a good example. The original was so good it really didn't require a re-visit but it was nice to see how the characters were doing after investing so much emotion in them. Half of me would like to see another film, because with good writing and passion, a story can go on forever. Look at Before Sunrise/Before Sunset/Before Midnight. I never thought a sequel was possible or a good idea, I certainly didn't think they'd get away with it for a third time but they did. Trainspotting was a huge iconic film of the 90s, the first film that my generation could really claim as their own. I resisted it initially, as all kids do when they're told something is cool, but over the years I've come to cherish it. I have never been a heroin addict but the social commentary, the way life was at that time, the music, art and creativity etc was a big part of my life, the 'Choose life' monologue had a huge effect on many of us and it's a bit of a generational mantra. Did I want to revisit this though? Failed sequels have never upset me too much, I had strong issues with The Force Awakens but I got over it, Star Wars is everybody's anyway and there were parts I enjoyed. Similarly, Jurassic World pissed me off but only because I have very fond memories of watching the first film with my best mate the day before it was officially released, which is still my favourite cinema visit to date. We saw Jurassic World together again (we had probably only been to the cinema together a handful of times since Jurassic Park) and couldn't believe how much the updated film had copied everything from the first. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that, but this was a horrible cash-in, that was all about the brand and product placement, rather than a creative adventure sci-fi story featuring dinosaurs. Many of our favourite bands, who split in the late 90s or early 00s have got back together and while many of them are great to hear again, a few are nothing more than a painful memory that certain things will never be the same or as good as they once were. Some even make you question whether they were any good in the first place. Nostalgia is a funny thing, it can be a warm blanket on a cold day but it can also hold you back from progression. I wish I wasn't so nostalgic sometimes but I'd be kidding myself if I thought I could ever kick the habit. Nostalgia is my heroin, T2 Trainspotting could have been the dirty bag of scag that could have ruined everything, luckily for me, it was the hit in the arm I never thought possible. I'm going to leave the questionable heroin references there, mostly because T2 really isn't about heroin, it is about so much more. As we visit each character from the first film, we explore various aspects of regret and redemption, a continuation of addiction and a study on life-long friendship. To be honest, it took me a while to get back on board. It didn't seem to be going anywhere and it felt incredibly predictable. I wasn't seeing the visual flare of the first film either, it just didn't seem to be coming together. An early scene sees Renton take out a record in his old room and the first second of Iggy Pop's Lust for Life, the first film's theme tune in many respects, plays before he quickly takes the needle away, clearly not ready to revisit old memories. I thought it was an over-obvious scene that added nothing, other than be a message that the film wouldn't tread familiar ground, even though it clearly had. It was the film's first proper funny scene that finally reeled me in. The set up looked horrible, it takes place in a working man's club and Renton and Sick-boy find themselves having to take part in an impromptu performance of karaoke. I could barely watch and then something magical happened. The film slapped me across the face, it's a black comedy, the characters once again revealed themselves authentically, in came the visual flare and Danny Boyle whipped away the table-cloth with the contents of the table remaining still and intact. I think the trailer fooled a lot of people and to great effect. It is what it was supposed to be, a very realistic approach to a cherished group of characters. It embraces nostalgia and gives it a big warm hug and then pushes it away and kicks it in the balls, before embracing it once again. The elephants in the room are dealt with accordingly, the joyously tender moments being brilliantly balanced with gut-punching home truths. Beauty and ugliness really do fight it out like old friends after too much drink. Every element that made the first film is present in the second, some not always obvious and others loud and unapologetic. The 'Choose life' monologue is updated beautifully, the soundtrack is updated and is the equivalent to what the original was back in 1996 (I bought it straight away). The very last scene made me incredibly happy and really brought the whole thing together. Me and my wife danced in the aisle during the end credits, I was elevated, felt full of beans and had a million and one ideas all at once. My life is very different to what it was in 1996 but I suddenly felt twenty years younger, twenty years younger with twenty years of experience under my belt, invigorated and immensely happy and looking forward to the next twenty years. I danced like I didn't care, just like I did all those years ago. Now that is how you make a sequel. 

Trainspotting

Dir: Danny Boyle

1996

*****

I was in Art College in 1996 when Danny Boyle's cult adaptation of Irvine Welsh's 1993 novel was released. I remember being surrounded by rather annoying people (posh art students like myself) who hadn't read the book but seemed to immerse themselves in the culture that the story was about. The poster was iconic, the soundtrack was the soundtrack of the summer of 1996 and the film was quoted to the point where I was fed up to the back teeth of hearing about it. The film was misunderstood by those around me who thought that drug culture was somehow desirable and cool and I'm afraid it had something of an effect. I totally avoided the film, had no interest in it and didn't feel I was missing out. Friends would ask if my girlfriend at the time and I were going off for 'casual sex', they would re-enact the scene where the boys were asked what they were talking about (football) and the girls were asked what they were talking about (shopping), when both were talking about each other, and being called a biscuit-erse by a posh south-west London law student is indescribably irritating, especially when it's every day for a year. I secretly watched it about a year later and although I tried to resist, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've watched it once every few years since it was made and each time I feel slightly different about it, although I enjoy it more with every watch. I'm an extremely nostalgic person and the music alone triggers happy memories for me but it is amazing how much of an influence the film has been and how iconic it has become. It's amazing how everything about the film has become iconic too, from the artwork, music and the snappy direction of the film. Danny Boyle's Shallow Grave gave us something a bit new and Trainspotting was his opportunity to exercise what he'd learned and do what he thought he could get away with.  Producer Andrew McDonald worked with Miramax in selling the film to the American audience as a 'British Pulp Fiction' which clearly worked although it was a lazy comparison. Everything vaguely edgy during the 90s was described as the 'new Tarantino' which was really unfair on talented and creative directors such as Boyle. Trainspotting is remarkable in that every scene, and I do mean every scene, is memorable. I can forget scenes from all of my favourite films but Trainspotting is somehow in-bedded in my memory and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I've used the same word several times now but the term 'iconic' is the best way to describe Trainspotting all these years later. You know a film is doing something right by the amount of people who gathered to discredit it, without knowing what it was about and in a famous few cases, judging without even seeing it. It doesn't glamorize drug taking or addiction, quite the opposite, it shows what a destructive force it can be and the selfish monster it can turn you into. The ending may seem like a happy one but actually, it's a very self-centred and quite ugly conclusion, and beautifully so. The 'choice life' script was often quoted and somewhat overused but it really did make people of that generation think about things; life, consumerism, the future, independence and opportunity, and an overwhelming realization that you can buck trends without killing yourself. It is the quintessential film of my generation in many respects, and I have no problem with that.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

Dir: Todd Strauss-Schulson

2011

***

I'm not a huge fan of what are known as 'Stoner movies' but I can appreciate them but there is something strangely appealing about the Harold & Kumar films. Putting the sex, drugs and risky humour to one side, they're incredibly inventive, refreshingly original and there's never a dull moment. There are two kinds of 'Stoner movie' in my opinion, the type whereby the script is written with stoners in the lead role and ones that are written by stoners. Now sometimes both is true but I find that the stoner films in which it is clear the writers have never once smoked a joint and rely on what they think a drug experience is like are far inferior in creativity than the ones that have been written by people that do burn the herb and were almost certainly high as kites when coming up with their ideas. When watching the original Harold & Kumar film, I could almost picture Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg giggling between themselves in a cloud of green smoke. Then when Kumar and Harold went to Guantanamo it was clear the writer/producers had a few things to say and understood the art of satire. However, in A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas I don't believe a single leaf of marijuana was touched. The guys know there stuff but have also become successful and a little more grown up. Indeed, we see both Harold & Kumar have too and life isn't just about getting high anymore. That said, there is more drug taking in 3D Christmas than there is in the previous two films put together but it's all a little different. It has a lot of humour in it that, much like the first two films, didn't tickle my ribs but it probably had more going for it than before. This most definitely a Harold & Kumar adventure but they also get the Christmas element spot on. It's a fantastic festive alternative with so much creativity and some brilliant scenes. It pushes the boundaries of acceptability but the script is undeniably sharp with lots of brilliant ideas coming thick and fast. The 3D element (because every third film of a franchise has to be in 3D - it's the law) is also handled rather knowingly and they proved there was a place for it in comedy after I was sure Jackass 3D had killed it off by reaching its full potential. It's not perfect but it is hugely enjoyable, like I said, this really isn't usually my kind of film but there is a charm to the Harold & Kumar films that somehow shines through, particularly in this festive outing of theirs. It's a niche Christmas film I guess but it's now one of my favourites - Cheech and Chong take note!

Sweet Sixteen

Dir: Ken Loach

2002

****

Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen follows a young 'Ned' (Scottish term for a hooligan, lout and petty criminal who usually wear baseball caps, tracksuits and general sportswear) called Liam who lives with his grandfather and abusive boyfriend of his mother. When Liam refuses to sneak drugs into prison for his mother, he is beaten and kicked out of his home. He moves in with older sister Chantelle and her young son. Chantelle escaped her mother’s drug taking and abuse years before and is studying so that she can work in a call centre. Life is bleak for young Liam, he's clearly an intelligent and caring lad with a keen interest in astrology who has never been given direction or a chance in life. Out of revenge and opportunity, Liam decides to steal his would-be step-dad's drug stash and soon catches the eye of a local drug dealer. Liam is approached by the local king-pin and his life suddenly gets serious. He soon makes good money and saves up to buy a caravan for his mother for when she gets out of prison. Liam's story is one of innocents and maturity, he is still very much a fifteen going-on sixteen year old but he has been forced to grow up fast. Like most of Ken Loach's films, the film is matter of fact and never preachy. Liam does wrong and knows he is doing wrong but his situation has forced him into a position. Loach reminds us that many kids his age don't turn to crime but also shows us that many do, especially when they've got nothing left to loose. Liam is a clever boy making decisions someone of his age should never have to make. Although similar to his other films in style and content, Sweet Sixteen could also be seen as an updated version of François Truffaut's The 400 Blows, indeed the very last scene is almost a carbon copy and I suspect a direct tribute. Loach's films are very much an English answer to French new-wave, although unlike the Nouvelle Vague, they haven't run out of steam and are still very much a true social representation of the era they are set. By adopting a realistic approach and using non-actors, Loach, once again, focuses on one person to show a much bigger problem. Ex-professional footballer Martin Compston is perfect in the main role and is an example of Loach's brilliant ability to direct people above everything else.

Leaves of Grass

Dir: Tim Blake Nelson

2010

***

Tim Blake Nelson's fifth feature shares it's title with the collected poetry of Walt Whitman but little else apart from the fact, it could be said, that both explore some of the more overlooked elements of life people sometimes forget to enjoy and looks at what really matters in life. Praised by critics and overlooked by the public (due to a lack of circulation to be fair) Tim Blake Nelson was celebrated for his rather quirky and irreverent version of what could be seen as a Dionysian play, a cross between Greek comedy and Greek tragedy. The film sees Edward Norton (who took a huge pay-cut due to loving the script) playing twins, one who left home to become an academic and the other who stayed and became a prolific seller and grower of hydroponic marijuana. Both brothers are highly intelligent and both had a difficult upbringing, the story shows the different paths each brother took and why they took them. It's very clever and beautifully written but I can see why it has been overlooked as a goofy comedy. However, the early comedy element is rather misleading as the film suddenly turns quite dark, and not in a 'dark-comedy' sort of way.  I loved the film's unpredictable twists and I certainly can't think of another film quite like it. Edward Norton is very good in his duel-role, I can see why he took a 50% pay-cut to play the characters, ironic though seeing as he is essentially playing two roles. Tim Blake Nelson is also impressive as Bolger, Brady's (marijuana growing brother) partner in crime and the film's constant character throughout the film. He leads the film in-front and behind the camera quite effortlessly and should be congratulated on his achievement. It is everything you could want from a quirky little independent film, it's a real shame it wasn't released to a wider audience. It's got a little something from every genre you can think of and is far from predictable.

La Linea

Dir: James Cotten

2009

***

James Cotten's 2009 crime thriller La Linea translates as 'The Line' but there is nothing linear about it. On paper it looks like any other film of the mobster genre but in reality the film is a deeply poetic noir painting. The story really isn't anything out of the ordinary, it includes an aging hit-man, a dying mob boss, a power struggle among the family and moody looks, churchy bits and a few shoot-outs. It dabbles in politics, how the war on drugs is actually fought (or not) and the shady deals that are involved in drug cartels. It covers religion, sexuality, drugs, redemption, envy and pretty much all of the other seven sins and Ten Commandments. It's full of symbolism and metaphor, it oozes style and panache and is certainly one of the best looking films of the genre. There is a familiarity about it but it is original and certainly never predictable. The one problem it does have, and it's quite a big one, is that the setup is incredibly slow and the payoff is over far too quickly. The overall focus on the contradictions of life and crime are clear but it gets to the point in quite a clumsy manner at times, with issues such as east vs west and homosexuality often missing the mark and becoming a puzzling distraction. However, it always looks perfect. Ray Liotta is fairly subdued compared to his usual temperament in his other films in the same genre, this works exceedingly well and Andy Garcia is in a role that suits him to the ground. Esai Morales and Jordi Vilasuso are both utterly convincing in their performances and it is always nice to see Danny Trejo in a head henchman role. That said, these days seeing Ray Liotta and Danny Trejo listed together in a crime thriller might suggest the film is a low budget and low quality romp, La Linea is nothing of the kind, just make sure you're in the mood for it first.

Sicario

Dir: Denis Villeneuve

2015

*****

Conceived in 2010 during the height of the violence seen in Juárez, Sicario (Hitman) explores the often unorthodox tactics used by American and South American governments in combating the Cartel-run drug trade. The audience is kept in the dark for the best part of the film as is the film's protagonist, FBI Agent Kate Macer (played by Emily Blunt). After Macer and her team make a gruesome discovery at a Cartel address in Arizona that cost the lives of two officers, she and her right-hand man Reggie Wayne (Daniel Kaluuya) are recruited to a mysterious CIA task-force who ask them to help them catch the men responsible for their team-mates murder. They are teamed up with U.S. Marsials and a Delta Force squad lead by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and his partner, the mysterious Alejandro Gillick (played by Benicio del Toro). After an nail-biting first mission to recover a prisoner from Mexico across the boarder to the US, Macer starts to wonder if everything they are doing is entirely above board. As the film progresses, more and more is revealed about what it is the team hopes to achieve, how they intend to achieve it and who they really are. While Macer and Wayne understand the idea of fighting fire with fire but the ethics of the situation, morals and the threat to their own safety weighs heavy. The answer to their questions and the reason behind all the secrecy is eventually revealed in an intense and fairly devastating manner. What follows is even more shocking and then the final conclusion is nothing short of chilling, especially when you think of the validity of the situation. Just when you think there is a reprieve, you realize that you've just been set up for another startling revelation. Sicario is a non-stop thriller that is consistently intriguing and almost painfully intense - it's what director Denis Villeneuve does best. The performances are impressive, particularly from Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro, with Josh Brolin and Daniel Kaluuya in strong supporting roles. The brilliant score adds even more tension to the story and the direction and cinematography is exquisite, with every frame thought-out and composed beautifully. It's the ultimate crime-thriller/special-ops action film, with a little bit of politics thrown in for good measure. I can't fault it and I don't want to, one of 2015's best.

The Salton Sea

Dir: D.J. Caruso

2002

***

D.J. Caruso's neo-noir drug trip is visually stunning but also rather confusing. Neo-noirs rarely work in my opinion but Caruso's style here is nothing short of sublime with nearly every scene looking more gorgeous than the next, with vibrant colours looking just as chic as classic black and white. If I was rating the film on visuals alone then it would be a five star film, no question, unfortunately though the convoluted script and some dubious performances let it down somewhat. The cast is impressive; Val Kilmer plays it cool and Peter Sarsgaard is good in an early role. Adam Goldberg is Adam Goldberg, Luis Guzman is a gangster and Danny Trejo a henchmen while Doug Hutchison and Anthony LaPaglia play a couple of dirty cops. It's casting by numbers circa 2002. It was nice to see favourites B.D. Wong, Meat Loaf and R. Lee Ermey but neither actor is given his fair share of screen time. However, it is Vincent D'Onofrio's villainous 'Poah-Bear' I have the most issue with. His character is said to have done so much blow that his nose had literally fallen off. In most scenes we see him with a prosthetic but there is one particular scene whereby we see his lack of beak in all its glory. This makes him just that little too gimmicky for me. It lets the film wonder into the wrong kind of humour, a film whereby humour just isn't welcome. There are certain scenes whereby the audience is supposed to feel dread, intrigue and suspense but never does, maybe this is what drug life is really like but I'm not sure this was the intention. This is a rare example of a film whereby the sum of its parts are greater than the whole, it can go from sluggish to high-octane within seconds but never really works as one piece which is rather frustrating but just about forgivable, purely because it just looks so darn pretty.

The Legend of Shorty

Dir: Angus Macqueen, Guillermo Galdos

2014

***

In February 2014 the infamous drugs baron and public enemy number one Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman (known as Shorty as a boy) was captured by the combined force of the US and Mexican governments. It took them over thirteen years to finally track him down but it only took film makers Angus Macqueen and Guillermo Galdos a few months. The Legend of Shorty asks how it should be that public enemy number one is so easily found by way of exploring his legend, picking it apart and also adding to it. The film's soundtrack acts as quite a clever narration, Jackson Scott was hired to write folk-style songs telling the story of El Chapo's bloody history. The film makers get startlingly close to the cartels and El Chapo's inner circle. We see how drugs are packed up and smuggled, how much they are worth and how they are distributed and who is selling them. We even see an interview with El Chapo's aging parents, neither one having a bad word said about him, he is clearly good because he looks after them in their eyes. This makes for surreal and frustrating viewing. To balance this out there are interviews with journalists such as Anabel Hernandez who explain exactly what El Chapo is responsible for and how he gets away with it, suggesting that he is essentially free to do as he pleases for the right price. This is what Macquee and Galdos' clearly want to get out there, they do it well without ever having to say it themselves. It is quite clear that El Chapo has got away with his crimes and has escaped prison because he has paid the right people. Indeed, although Macquee and Galdos were both pipped at the post by the authorities El Chapo miraculously escaped later that year. I'm not sure I liked the overall structure of the documentary, it kind of builds up to an event that never really happens and although it is entertaining and interesting, there is always that anti-climax looming overhead. The story certainly isn't over just yet but at least eyes are now focused on those that declare a person public enemy number one just as much as public enemy number one themselves.

Reefer Madness (AKA Tell Your Children, The Burning Question, Dope Addict, Doped Youth, Love Madness)
Dir: Louis J. Gasnier
1936
**
Louis J. Gasnier's now cult classic Reefer Madness is just an old propaganda film from 1930's America. Yes they got it wrong, and maybe it's funny to watch when you're having a smoke of the green stuff but at the end of the day its actually quite dull to watch with only very fleeting moments of unintentional humour. It's cult status bemuses me somewhat, indeed, in this day and age whereby funny videos are shared on the internet all the time, Reefer Madness would be given minimal attention which I'm afraid it actually deserves. Students will still have the poster up for many years to come though (although I bet only half of them have seen it or have ever had a joint). Funny for about 10 minutes and is an interesting document of a 1930's republican viewpoint but nothing more.

Postcards from the Edge
Dir: Mike Nichols
1990
****
Based on the novel by Carrie Fisher, it's hard not to wonder whether the story of a women (the brilliant Meryl Streep), struggling with fame and with a larger than life, famous performer for a mother, isn't based on her own life, seeing as her troubles are quite well known and the mother character (played wonderfully by Shirley MacLaine) is just like Fishers' real life mother, Debbie Reynolds. She has said it's not based on her own life but I remain unconvinced, it matters not however as it's a great film none the less. Mike Nichols' direction is brilliant, the balance of serious drama and comedy is perfect. Streep's performance is as convincing as any of the big parts she's known for but it's the quirky set pieces, clever camera tricks and sharp script that gives the film it's unique and strongest selling point. The chemistry between two giants in the business is great, each giving the other their moment and each making the most of their own. The supporting performances from Annette Bening and Dennis Quaid are strong but Gene Hackman (who harnesses Richard Donner apparently) as the director who is strict but generous, steals every scene he's in and gives the film some of the more tender moments it really needed. Postcards from the Edge is somewhat of an overlooked classic, an interesting chapter of cinema as it crossed over to a new decade.