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
Leave a Reply. |
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. |