Daniel's Reviews

Despite that fact that Chinatown has been one of my favourite films of all time from the moment I first watched it, it had previously been the only Roman Polanski film that I had seen. Although his noir detective mystery is widely regarded as his best film, Rosemary’s Baby (along with The Pianist) is also held in very high regard, and as a person who prefers a well constructed and intelligent psychological thriller over a modern slasher horror, I was extremely interested in watching Rosemary’s Baby.

The reason that Rosemary’s Baby works is because of Roman Polanksi’s approach to the genre. For the first half the film not much happens at all, when compared to what many expect from a horror. In fact almost the entire film takes place in one place, an apartment. There are very few scenes of violence either, for the majority of the film we are simply listening to the characters speak, this film is obsessed with details and this mean each character is extensively developed, we know everything about their lives, their feelings, and most importantly: their suspicions.

The characters, whose lives feel like part of ours, are aiding by fantastic performances all round. Mia Farrow is the star as Rosemary Woodhouse, a young woman who becomes pregnant but then grows increasingly paranoid over her and her baby’s safety following mysterious events and occurrences from those around her. Although I believe Mia Farrow gives the strongest performance, it was the performance of Ruth Gordon that saw the film gain Academy Award recognition, winning Best Actress in a Supporting Role, she is superb as an old woman who immediately befriends Rosemary after she moves into to her new apartment, although funny and friendly there is an awkward and dark feeling about her character from the moment we meet her.

Along with Ruth Gordon’s character there are a number of other subtle details that we are shown even at the beginning of the film that help build up an uneasy and disturbing atmosphere such as a suicide and even a wardrobe strangely positioned inside the new apartment. As the film progresses these small fears grow into even greater ones, with the potential threat of real danger becoming increasingly real, Rosemary is the character who feels these fears and even though she is alone and isolated in her concerns we feel a genuine connection to her as suspense is intelligently built up.

Although this film has supernatural elements, the fact that we do not see any type of real danger works in the films favour as through details we paint a dark and horrific image ourselves. The films ending is fitting and superb, although I will avoiding giving anything away about it in the review, the less you know then the better the film will be as you watch from start to finish and enjoy the suspense and horror built over two hours.

As a horror film, Rosemary’s Baby was received extremely successfully and as previously mentioned even managed to win an Academy Award. The film is said t have inspired and laid the foundations for many horrors and supernatural thrillers to follow but unfortunately none (at least that I have seen) have matched Polanksi’s level of horror created through a mature and organised structure, instead choosing to attempt to shock viewers with violent/scary images rather than allowing the element of fear build an image of such for the viewer.

Killing Them Softly is a film that due to its harsh and brutal criminal setting, won’t appeal to everyone. And it is a film that despite a delayed release, failed to pick up any Academy Award nominations, but do not let that put you off what is one of my favourite films of 2012.

The film is based on the 1974 novel ‘Cogan’s Trade’ by George V. Higgins, but it was decided that it should be set in 2008 America in order to integrate the story with the political and economic setting of the 2008 US Presidential election.

The film’s story is simple: a couple of small time criminals are hired by another criminal Johnny ‘Squirrel’ Amato (Vincent Curatola) to rob a card game ran by the infamous Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). Amato explains that should everything go to plan then the trio would have nothing to worry about as the blame would fall upon Trattman due to a previous incident in which he organised a robbery on his own game. The story though is not really important, it is relatively straightforward, what is important is the criminal world that we have an insight of, a local economy and the people who inhabit it and their lives.

The two main characters whose lives we have possibly the biggest insight to are Jackie (Brad Pitt) and Mickey (James Gandolfini). Brad Pitt is superb as the hit man responsible for sorting out the crisis created, he delivers most of the film’s memorable dialogue that includes some final lines, but more important to the film are the conversations he shares with others in the middle passage. Approaching the situation from a neutral, unbiased and level headed perspective, he argues with the ‘Driver’ (Richard Jenkins), who meets with him to deal with the situation, over various issues surrounding the crisis, he knows that Markie Trattman is not responsible but he explains how he still must die. He acts as the man who delivers the grim, dismal and inevitable bad news, even death, to various characters, ultimately reinforcing the message that hope – despite political propaganda – is just that, that life will ultimately never get better for these people who are involved in a dark and depressing business.

Whilst Brad Pitt’s character acts as the man responsible for delivering death, he refuses to get close to any of the men he needs to kill, he does not want emotions to get involved and instead likes to kill them softly, from a distance. This is where James Gandolfini’s character comes in, a character that has limited screen time but makes a huge impact. There are only two scenes that I can actually recall with Mickey, a hit man called in to help out Jackie, he turns out to be far from the man that Jackie remembers him as, now a past his prime, alcohol loving and prostitute addicted old man, it quickly becomes apparent that he wont be committing no murder. These two scenes are filled with dialogue, I have actually heard some people criticise this and label his character and stories pointless, this however is far from true and these conversations act as a negative and pessimistic reminder of the dismal fate of men. Jackie, who refuses to get emotionally connected to any of his victims, finds himself listening to a man who represents to him someone who he could potentially become, Mickey is the only character who refuses to take orders from Jackie, and in a reversed role ironically ends up being the bearer of bad news to Jackie.

The rest of the supporting cast are as strong as they need to be, each one having their individual moments of interaction with Brad Pitt’s lead character. Another actor who stood out for me was Scoot McNairy as Frankie, the more intelligent half of the duo that robs the card game at the beginning of the film.

As well as containing great performances and dialogue, the film is also brilliantly directed from a stylistic point of view; with Dominik doing a great job of created a dark and gritty atmosphere to fit the run down criminal community. There are a number of fantastic and memorable scenes in the film; my favourite involves brilliant use of slow motion in a graphic and bloody drive by murder.

Being a massive fan of The Sopranos as well as numerous crime films such as Goodfellas, I was looking forward to watching this film. Although it has two actors from the former and shares noticeable elements with the latter, as a whole it felt like something much different, a unique film that works because off the world it creates and its in inhabits that represent to us the cynical and depressing side of the world, in that sense I would say a better comparison is to the Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men.

If I had to recommend to people one film from 2012 to see, I would avoid the bigger names and crow pleasing usual suspects, and go with Killing Them Softly. A unique film that has fantastic direction, a great screenplay and all round great performances, unfortunately it seems to have been met with a ‘love it or hate it’ reception, probably down to its cynical and pessimistic message. Soon I suspect I will watch The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, an earlier film from Dominik that is based in a genre that I love (Western), if it is as good as this – generally I have heard more positive thoughts on it - then I am sure I will love it.

Looper is one of the most creative and original films of 2012, Rian Johnson’s ambitious film combines an intelligent futuristic Sci-Fi plot with a human story centred on its two main characters that are brilliantly portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis.

With its Sci-Fi setting, Looper was always going to be a film met with mixed reaction from audiences, with a 2074 based time travelling story asking its viewers to go along with the premise in parts where everything might not make complete sense.

However plot difficulties never seemed to me a problem for my viewing thanks to Johnson’s fantastic screenplay, which had it not been for the genre of choice perhaps would have picked up an Oscar nomination. The story is based around ‘loopers’, men who are paid a fortune in gold to kill other men who are sent back to them from the future, what’s the catch? Loops are eventually closed, this means that the loopers are paid to kill their future selves; they are paid a huge sum of gold to do so and can live their life lavishly until the day comes that they need to be sent back in time.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character is asked to close his loop, but allows his future self a moment of opportunity to escape, something he immediately regrets and brings with it a whole raft of consequences.

So how does this relationship between Gordon-Levitt and his future self, Bruce Willis, play out for the entire film? It’s not simply a game of hide and seek, or an action filled Sci-Fi film that it easily could have been, although it does have a good amount of interesting action scenes. Instead we are introduced to a third character who gives the film another dimension: the mysterious ‘Rainmaker’, a person who is responsible for much crime and pain in the future world.

I enjoyed all the performances in the film, before their paths split about halfway through, Gordon-Levitt and Willis get the opportunity to give us one of the finest scenes in the film where the two exchange heated conversation at a small diner as their differing personalities clash, both have their own personal motives for wanting to either kill, or let live the older Joe.

By the end of the film I was very pleased with the direction it took and how it intelligently came to an end, it kept me interested and I can honestly say I was unsure exactly what was going to happen at times. A Sci-Fi film that is intelligent and respectful, with a great screenplay and top performances to go with it, one of my favourite films of 2012.