Showing posts with label Francis Lawrence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francis Lawrence. Show all posts

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

Red Sparrow
Dir: Francis Lawrence
2018
***
It’s been quite a while since the last really good Cold War thriller has been made, and while we’re told the Cold War is over, the film does suggest that it never really ended. While it might sound like political nonsense and a ‘what if’ scenario, we should remember that the novel on which it is based on was written by ex-CIA agent Jason Matthews. The Red Sparrows do in fact exist, so while the story is fictional, there is some truth to it. Matthews said the idea of sparrows and a sparrow school was based on State School 4 in the Soviet Union, though Russian "sexpionage" is now done by women contracted outside of spy agencies. The Russian concept of kompromat (compromising material about a politician or other public figure used to create negative publicity, for blackmail or for ensuring loyalty) was also influential. Director Francis Lawrence worked on adapting Matthews' book in 2015 (two years after its release), and has said that at the time, he had reservations about the timeliness of a Cold War story. I believe the release of the book was timed perfectly. Screenwriter Justin Haythe reduced the number of narrators and shifting perspectives in the novel, concentrating on Dominika. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who appears in the novel, was also cut from the adaptation, due to Lawrence's belief that it would be a distraction to have an actor play the highly public figure and frankly, the world the way it is in 2018, it was probably best avoided. That said, some might suggest that Matthias Schoenaerts’s striking resemblance to the President could have been why he was cast – this has been denied of course but either way, he’s great in his role. Matthews has said he based his book on his experiences in the CIA and was also hired as technical adviser, to supervise the accuracy of the depiction of espionage. It certainly made the film a more authentic experience in my opinion. The story focuses on Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence), a famed Russian ballerina who has supported her ill mother since the death of her father. Following a career-ending injury, Dominika is approached by her uncle, Ivan (Matthias Schoenaerts), the Deputy Director of SVR. She is tasked with seducing Dimitry Ustinov, a Russian gangster who took  shine to her during one of her last performances, in exchange for her mother's continued medical care. Dominika agrees but is unprepared for what happens. Help doesn’t come as soon as she expects and Ustinov rapes her, before he is killed by Sergei Matorin, an SVR operative authorized by Ivan. Ivan offers Dominika a choice to begin working for the SVR, or be executed so there are no witnesses to Ustinov's death. With little choice and for the protection of her mother, Dominika is sent to State School 4, a specialist training schools for 'Sparrows', SVR operatives capable of seducing their targets. Dominika excels in her training, despite some friction with her trainers, particularly the Matron (Charlotte Rampling), and she is assigned to Budapest. Meanwhile the SVR has been tracking a CIA agent called Nash (Joel Edgerton), and hopes to find out the identity of the SVR mole he has been meeting with. Dominika's assignment is to gain the trust of Nash, and reveal his contact. Things get a little complicated from there on, as the CIA find out exactly who Dominika is and she doesn’t do anything to stop them. Supposedly working now as a double agent, it is uncertain what her intentions are until the very end. I thought the conclusion was quite good, unexpected, if a little convoluted. On the whole I really enjoyed the story, and as much as I thought Francis Lawrence’s direction was strong, I think the structure of the movie was all wrong. I see the story as something far more Kubrickian than the finished article. It’s a long film but all the important aspects of the story felt rushed. I believe the first third of the film should have been about the ballet and the assassination, the second act should have just been about State School 4 and then the last chapter should have been her first assignment. Not enough time was spent in State School 4, it felt like she was only there for a couple of days, so I was never convinced by any of her methods. She went from ballerina to Sparrow in no time at all, which is pretty ridiculous. I think they should have gone Full Metal Jacket on the story and had distinctly different chapters. The performances are all very strong and Jennifer Lawrence clearly pushed herself to the limits in several scenes. I’m not sure they got all of her scenes right though, her sexual scenes in particular. By the end of the film there had been so many shocking scenes that they began to have less impact. I felt that the intrigue of the story lessened dramatically and I was only half as thrilling as it could have been. I don’t feel there was convincing chemistry between Lawrence and Edgerton either. The torture scenes also fell a bit flat – I’m not really into torture but when it is unconvincing as it was here, the sense of dread and danger is lost, and these are key components of a film such as this. The story should have been simplified for full effect but it certainly isn’t without merit. It’s entertaining and kept me guessing right until the end.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2
Dir: Francis Lawrence
2015
**
After watching the final part of the The Hunger Games it is abundantly clear that there was no reason to split Mockingjay into two parts. Harry Potter started it, maybe due to the length of Deathly Hallows it was granted, Twilight followed suit unnecessarily and The Hunger Games should have learnt from their mistake. The cash in paid off or course, people wanted to see the conclusion but interestingly The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 had the smallest cinema takings of all the four Hunger Games films. Much like with the Twilight series, The Hunger Games suffered from having way too much filler and not enough action. I'm not knocking the drama or the idea and I'm not saying it should have been explosion after explosion but many of the scenes between the action sequences were very long and very boring. A punchy script would have helped but I'm afraid there wasn't even a hint of one in either of the four films. I've said my piece regarding the story's theme and my dislike for 'Young adult' literature in my reviews of the previous films and while I thought the conclusion was quite powerful, it wasn't given the treatment it really deserved so a twist that should have had quite the impact turned out to be a huge anti-climax. I've not read the books (and nor am I interested in doing so) but I almost felt like I had, it was that predictable. I think there could be something inherently clever about the story but what little interest I had was diminished by a painfully slow pace, a whispering script and a shockingly familiarity to other, much better films. I sure it wasn't easy trying to piece together a film after the sad and unexpected death of one of the main characters, the brilliant and sorely missed Philip Seymour Hoffman. Some of these scenes really don't fit, hard to avoid but still, I think they could have done better and it is sad that such a great actor has a lazy, cash-hungry mega-franchise installment as their swansong.

Thursday, 20 August 2015

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
Dir: Francis Lawrence
2014
**
I really didn't care for the first two Hunger Games films and although I thought that part three (the first half of the Mockingjay adaptation) was a lot more interesting in story, it is by far the most dull chapter so far. The first two films were a copy of literature classics like Lord of the Flies and 1984 and cult films such as The Running Man and Battle Royale but they had a certain colourful flare about them. The message is quite positive with socialist idealism and revolutionary thinking, all rather lost in what is a capitalistic money making franchise but then that is taking it all a little too seriously - although many have. Mockingjay changes the formula of the story somewhat and picks propaganda as its main theme. I can picture a young Suzanne Collins now, half listening and half daydreaming in her history class (which followed her English literature class) and only half hearing how Russian propaganda helped overthrow a leadership and how the Nazis used it to take over Europe. I don't blame her really, I'm actually jealous I didn't think of it before but only for the money. I'd be embarrassed to be celebrated for what is a cheap and shallow imitation of some of the best examples of creative writing and important historical events - both of which I believe kids should be reading about instead of watching/reading the Hunger Games. I digress, as interesting as the theme here may be, the film itself is far too simplistic and never really captures what I believe it sets out to project. The direction is also a bit too simplistic and the production as a whole is positively dull.

Friday, 12 September 2014

Water for Elephants
Dir: Francis Lawrence
2011
****
On the face of it I can't say I was that thrilled about watching a romantic film starring Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson about a guy who runs away to the Circus and falls in love with the Ringleaders Wife. I was pleasantly surprised. Okay, so the romance wasn't that great I didn't think and anyone could have played the two leading roles, Witherspoon and Pattinson did a fine job but certainly wouldn't have been my first choices. However, Christoph Waltz was brilliant as the villain with a little bit more depth than most. Francis Lawrence's direction is the big star though, the special effects, props and overall look of the film is as spectacular as it should be. Although the characters may not be the most interesting, there is enough intrigue to keep one entertained throughout. Plus, it's got a really lovely old Elephant in it and if she doesn't warm your heart nothing will.

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

The Hunger Games:Catching Fire
Dir: Francis Lawrence
2013
***
I'm afraid I still don't get what all the fuss is about. A plethora of great actors but with no really good performance. I liked the political side of the story but I preferred it when it was originally conceived in George Orwell's 1984. It makes me worried that kids are reading Suzanne Collins's books over Orwell's, when they are poor imitations. I'm not knocking The Hunger Games but compared to Orwell they are inferior in every way and that is the truth kids. This sequel is a long winded copy of the first film which in turn was a copy of Battle Royale. Catching Fire is a much better film than Battle Royale II and is far more interesting than the first Hunger Games film but it does not deserve the praise it has received. It's watchable, even enjoyable to a certain extent but I very much doubt I will watch it ever again and really can't see it as a future classic.