Most crime films of the modern era seem to take a lot from the French New Wave because the rebellious nature of the time period fits so well with the rebellious cool of the modern crime film. This has resulted in many films that are cool in their superficial and referential natures like Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino’s best film), and almost any other straight crime thriller of the modern era, most of them entertaining. In fact, look up any review, and you’ll probably find a description of Free Fire as a knock-off of that type of movie. However, these almost seem to miss the point of Free Fire. Free Fire never wants to be cool. It just wants to be playful, and playful it is. The best way that I’m left to describe it is like a Shakespearean tragicomedy spiced up with the intensity of a paintball match, and it’s satisfying for being just that. The reason I say Shakespearean is that the film’s characters and comedic methods are firmly rooted in Shakespearean drama. There are the main players, there are their comedic “subjects,” and most of the problems come out of misunderstandings and dumb shit that the subjects do. One is almost reminded of The Comedy of Errors as these dipshits shoot at each other with no idea sometimes of who is actually on who’s side or who has just shot at them. Fittingly, the gunfights display a crazed chaos, that never tilts over into being mean. Again, this movie isn’t cool. It’s playful. We know just enough about the characters by the time the shooting starts to care but little enough to have a sense of detachment, making every bullet hilarious. The fact that the movie is directed by Ben Wheatley and written by him and wife Amy Jump also calls to mind that Free Fire is a film that is especially well read. The two are responsible for the great A Field in England and High-Rise, so any estimation that they were making a film that was just a superficial shootout is kind of an insult. They bolster their characters through intertextual connections to Shakespearean comedy archetypes keeping the film light on its feet while still feeling particularly rich, something that also wouldn’t be possible without the work of the actors here. Cillian Murphy, Michael Smiley, Brie Larson, Sharlto Copley, Jack Reynor and many, many, more are in on the gunfight here and if that’s not enough to get you into the theater it really should be. This movie is effectively a line up of all the world’s great, if slightly underappreciated, actors all crammed into the same movie and the tone being more funny than horrifying is up to them in many ways. Larson and Murphy have a rapport for the ages, creating agency just through the few words that they share. All the actors are good enough to do that, and most of them hit their mark just right. Some, however, are somewhat underutilized, but that seems to be kind of built into the premise. Also built in seems to be the film’s main flaw where the verisimilitude (the illusion time passing realistically) doesn’t always seem to ebb and flow correctly because of all the artistic flourish and big moments for each character that Wheatley chock fills the movie with. Of course, these moments make the movie for the most part so the sacrifice of some more realistic timing is definitely worth it, but it something you notice every once in awhile. Free Fire was my most anticipated movie of the year and it, for the most part, paid off exactly how I thought it would. This is a small-scale miracle, both hilarious and richly layered. It’s low stakes certainly won’t be for anyone without an attentive eye for the archetypes that it finds itself wading through, but for those who do see them, I’d say Free Fire will be a hysterical, if a bit flawed 90 minutes. I give Free Fire an 8.5 out of 10.
0 Comments
The original Trainspotting was an intoxicating blend of Scottish culture, frenetic pacing and a morbid sense of humor that could not be ignored. It was about people who weren’t good to anyone else but themselves because the artificiality of their world wouldn’t let them feel good about life even if they tried. T2: Trainspotting is the same characters acting their charming asshole ways through what happens whenever an important element is added to the mixture of the movie: time. It’s been 20 years and now Renton (Ewan MCgregor) has returned to Edinburgh to seek forgiveness from his friends (i.e. all of your favorites from the original) whom he stole £16,000 from them years earlier. Time as a storytelling device is very interesting. It allows us to better know our characters as they progress and becomes something else. Time changes people. This is a vital part of why it can affect us as audience members so deeply. It allows for drama in contrast and that’s where T2 might actually misstep, creating a film that’s fun like the first one, but hardly has transcendent as it really should be. The problem comes in that there doesn’t seem to be much of a change to all of the characters, not that this is as They just seem like less energetic and more mature versions of their original selves, which on one hand makes them more realistic as 40 and almost 50 year olds, but also seem to rob them of the sharp personality of the first one. It does often seem like this is all intentional, as all of these half joking satirists of the fakeness of their existence slowly start to realize, to their great disappointment, that they might just be right, but it also comes off a little flat. The fact that not all of the main protagonists don’t relate to the main storyline gives it less weight than it already has, which is to say it doesn’t have much, and this takes a chunk out of an otherwise fine film. For the record, T2: Trainspotting is certainly not a bad movie. It’s fast and funny (though less so than the first one), and when it actually does consider it’s group of misfits place in the world, it gets really emotional, with director Danny Boyle and his screenwriter John Hodge employing the use of children to represent the characters at their most vulnerable. There’s an almost desperate consideration of the role of a man who can only live in violence, that turns out to be the movie’s highlight scene, with Begbie (Robert Carlyle), of all of them, truly attempting to find a meaning to his existence. Scenes like this one, the tear-inducing return of “Choose Life,” and a quick detour into another corner of people abandoned by a society that didn’t end up the way they wish all juice up this otherwise somewhat light sequel. Time should do more to this movie than it actually does. After 20 years, all of these assholes are the same assholes that they were before with maybe a little bit of the wind taken from their sails, leaving the film chiefly stranded in the realm of only good rather than the originals perfect. As a film, it’s fun enough to be good but as a sequel to such a classic it disappoints. T2: Trainspotting gets a 7 out of 10. Review by Stephen Tronicek |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |