For It Is Man's Number: austin butler

Showing posts with label austin butler. Show all posts

Tuesday, 26 August 2025

Eddington (2025)

It's very good to remember that films featuring immoral characters do not make the films themselves, or the film-makers, immoral. We can have stories featuring bad and unpleasant characters, and the best stories can use those characters to explore society and humanity in ways not always possible with bland, "good", heroes. I also have to note, however, that presenting those characters in a way that doesn't do enough with them, isn't good. And, as is the case here, it can sometimes feel quite irresponsible. I get exasperated enough with the news lately mistaking impartiality with equal screentime for opinions that are unequally-informed (or simply incorrect, which means giving equal time to truth and lies). Having to tolerate it for the duration of a 148-minute movie was not a great time for me.

It's 2020. A global pandemic is happening. In Eddington, New Mexico, this creates ongoing friction between a mayor (Ted Garcia, played by Pedro Pascal) who wants to abide by the rules and a sheriff (Joe Cross, played by Joaquin Phoenix) who believes that people should be allowed to maintain their personal freedoms. Everyone is forced to take a side on the issue, and tempers rise, especially when Cross decides to run against Garcia for the chance to be mayor.

There's plenty to laugh at here, and writer-director Ari Aster does enough to justify taking viewers back to the madness of 2020 in the first half of the film. Arguments about what is and isn't permissible, the rabbit holes that people went down when they had too much time on their hands and access to the global asylum that is the internet, and the clarification of the divide between the haves and the have-nots are just a few of the things that Aster explores well enough in the earliest scenes in the film. Sadly, Aster then throws more into the mix (including the ease with which people can try to win arguments by throwing out triggering words that stain others forever, but also looking at protest, counter-protests, false flag operations, agendas and agitation, and domestic terrorism) until it all boils over to create a huge mess that he cannot clean up by the time the end credits roll.

Phoenix is absolutely brilliant in the main role, as expected (considering his usual level of talent, as well as the fact that Aster seems to have placed a lot of faith in him for the two movies that have allowed them to collaborate). He's cowardly, smart enough to make him a dangerous idiot, and constantly pushing back against more powerful people without ever considering just how he is being manipulated by so many others. Pascal is also very good, although he isn't given enough to really sink his teeth into before the film moves beyond him to start reminding viewers of a bigger picture. Emma Stone feels wasted, as does Austin Butler, but there's a turn from Deirdre O'Connell that makes up for that disappointment. Others caught up in the madness are Luke Grimes, Micheal Ward, Matt Gomez Hidaka, Cameron Mann, Amélie Hoeferle, and William Belleau, and none of them drop the ball.

The one dropping the ball is Aster. What could have been an effective skewering of a situation that turned so many people into temporary lunatics (and I count myself in that demographic, considering there's a big reason why I have now been sober since May 2020) becomes sadly neutered and defanged with each subsequent story beat. Cinematically, there are moments that work when viewed out of context. But none of this should be viewed out of context. The context is key, and the context should have been the target that Aster kept in his sights for the duration. He doesn't. Which means that viewers can, metaphorically, examine the target once the movie has finished to see that it retains the marks of only one or two lucky strikes.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Friday, 9 August 2024

The Bikeriders (2024)

Based on a photo-book by Danny Lyon, The Bikeriders is the latest feature directed by Jeff Nichols, and it was a film that I was tentatively looking forward to seeing for months. I tend to like the films of Nichols, and I have enjoyed the acting work of stars Jodie Comer, Tom Hardy, and Austin Butler, to varying degrees. With the likes of Mike Faist, Michael Shannon, Boyd Holbrook, and Norman Reedus in the supporting cast, I felt quite confident that there would be enough here for me to enjoy.

That confidence was a bit misplaced.

There's a storyline here, but it's a very slim one. Comer plays Kathy, a woman telling her story to Lyon (played in the film by Faist). She explains how she ended up meeting Benny (Butler), and how she often felt that he was torn between herself and the leader of a motorcycle club (Johnny, played by Hardy). The club goes through a number of changes, the world starts to change even faster around them, and the people do their best to pretty much stay the same. And that's it.

A lot of men are stuck in various stages of arrested development. I get that. I AM that. Hey, I like to act mature and wise sometimes, but you have no idea how often I have clicked on the adverts for some awesome LEGO sets and wistfully sighed as I eventually backed away from them. I'm a middle-aged man who can be very childish. I don't want anyone to make a movie about me though, and I would expect that movie, if made, would show me up for the occasional idiot I am. A lot of people also need to be part of something bigger than themselves, which doesn't always align with a position that society thinks you should have. I also get that. I am happy, via the upside of the internet and social media, to be connected to many film fans and collectors worldwide. Again, however, I'm not sure any film showing that would make me look anything other than a bit silly and super-geeky (not that I would be bothered, I have fully embraced my geekiness for a good 10+ years now).

The Bikeriders has cool people being very uncool. The men shown act more like children a lot of the time, and they are all connected by their love of motorbikes, and a subsequent loyalty to one another that stems from the bike-riding outings. There's a way to make that story, but Nichols doesn't find the right approach.

Both Hardy and Butler do fine with what they're given, and neither feel as if they are being stretched, but it's Comer who ends up being the highlight, mainly due to her character being able to see both the allure and the major downsides of the lifestyle being recorded by Lyon. Shannon is as great as ever, and both Holbrook and Reedus do enough with their limited screentime to make a surprising impact, considering the stars overshadowing them.

Everyone looks the part, the period feels nicely recreated, there are some treats on the soundtrack, and the pacing is just right, thanks to the various main incidents plotted out on the way to a fairly inevitable conclusion. Sadly, none of this can overcome the inherent problems in the material, especially without the best way to take viewers into the onscreen world. Considering how many others seemed to really like this though, maybe the "problem" lies more with me than the film.

5/10

Tuesday, 9 April 2024

Dune: Part Two (2024)

The film that fans of Dune: Part One were forced to wait an extra five months to see in cinemas, that delay seems to have done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of those eager for more visually gorgeous sci-fi on the big screen. It certainly gave me time to FINALLY watch the first instalment and join those who were eagerly awaiting the concluding part of the tale. Except, and I feel it’s important to say this somewhere in this review, this isn’t really a conclusion to the tale. It’s another lengthy chapter, and I was disappointed as the end credits rolled after an ending that didn’t feel like a proper ending. It might be in line with the source material, and there is certainly more to come from Denis Villeneuve working in this world, but that didn’t help me when I was underwhelmed by the way in which things just started to move towards the next part of the epic tale.

I will give a brief, and very poor, summary of the plot. After the events of the first film, Paul Atreides (Tinothée Chalamet) and his pregnant mother, Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), are living with the desert-dwelling Fremen on the planet of Arrakis. Powerful people still want to destroy the Fremen, all to control the spice and become even more powerful, but Paul may well be the secret weapon that helps to end the ongoing battles. Or he may well cause even more destruction and bloodshed. There are strong bonds forged, and broken, there is a prophecy that many start to doubt, and there is a need to learn how to walk without rhythm in order to stay safe from the giant sandworms.

Although a visual feast from start to finish, as well as an aural feast too (thanks to Hans Zimmer and everyone working in the sound department), Villeneuve and Jon Spaihts have once again done a magnificent job of compressing an epic tome into a digestible and entertaining movie. It has a slightly different tone from part one, mainly due to the fact that we are witnessing Paul exploring his true potential, but it’s often the equal of the first film.

The cast are perfect, as many of them already proved last time around. Both Chalamet and Ferguson get to be a bit stronger and meaner this time, which is an interesting change to their characters, Javier Bardem has a bit more fun in his role, and Zendaya gets to do a lot more than just be some mysterious woman in a vision. Christopher Walken and Florence Pugh are sorely underused, as is the wonderful Léa Seydoux, while the likes of Stellan Skarsgård, Dave Bautista, and Josh Brolin are given just time to stay involved in the ongoing plotting and scheming until Austin Butler comes onscreen and threatens to steal the entire movie away from everyone.

I have less to say about this than I had to say about Dune: Part One, but only because it is so perfectly in line with the groundwork set out a few years ago. Villeneuve is arguably one of the best directors around when it comes to creating an entire world in which to immerse viewers (imagine the worlds we could see if he ever worked alongside Guillermo del Toro), and this is incredible stuff. It’s grandiose, it seems to emanate dry heat from every frame, and the prospect of getting to spend more time in this world is the silver lining to the small cloud that is that non-ending.

Much like the spice featured at the heart of the tale, this is pure and powerful stuff. And that’s without even mentioning how depressingly it parallels events in our reality that have been ongoing for decades.

8/10

Friday, 19 August 2022

Elvis (2022)

Let’s start by mentioning what Elvis is and what it isn’t. Elvis is a look at the legendary 20th-century performer (played here by Austin Butler) and his fateful connection with “Colonel Tom Parker” (played by Tom Hanks). It shows the latter viewing the former as a golden goose, someone to be controlled and manipulated to benefit their own ends. What we don’t get here is a look, track by track, at the songs Elvis lifted, reworked, or had written for him by black artists. That isn’t to say that we don’t see him lifting from the music and people around him. We do, and those claiming that Elvis was ever coy about this are conveniently forgetting how much he spoke about it, but the film uses the development of a few key hit songs to show where his musical roots lay. What we also don’t get here is the more unsavory side of Elvis, to put it politely. We see him abusing himself, we don’t see him abusing others. We see him being groomed by The Colonel, we don’t see him being the groomer (Priscilla figures in the movie, of course, but her very young age is never clarified).

This is a film about a legend. It wants to state some truths, but it is much more interested in showing the effect that Elvis had on a generation, be it as a handsome and hip-shaking rock god or as an out-of-shape “performing monkey” who still gave it his all whenever he was on stage in front of an audience, despite also already being viewed as something of a cautionary tale.

The story is, basically, what I have already mentioned above. Things start with a young Elvis being discovered (although the structure allows for Colonel Parker to frame everything behind his own filter for a while), move through various great successes and flash points, and move towards a massively important TV comeback special, growing dissatisfaction and health issues, and the Vegas years. It’s a primer for the life of Elvis, but I would encourage those who enjoy the film, or the artist, to then delve deeper.

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sam Bromell, Craig Pearce, and Jeremy Doner, this is a typically vibrant and kaleidoscopic slice of Luhrmann cinema. He is a man who loves putting on dazzling shows, making him a natural fit for someone who could arguably be described as one of the greatest musical showmen of the last century. While it doesn’t assume that anyone going in to the movie will know anything about Elvis, there are a lot of nice little touches scattered throughout for those who are already familiar with his story.

Key moments are given room to grab your attention, and all of the 150+ minutes of the runtime just fly by, while the soundtrack dances between classic Elvis hits, the original songs that he appropriated, and some more modern interpretations (Luhrmann being as entertainingly anachronistic as ever). If you want a film packed with just the facts and pure reality then this ain’t it. This is heightened reality all the way, although there IS an authenticity at the heart of every scene, and it’s a tale told by someone being highly subjective.

It is also a tale told with the help of one of the best central performances I have ever seen in a biopic. Butler is AMAZING as Elvis, and deserving of all the awards that I hope he ends up nominated for. It is easy to do an impression of Elvis, which would have also suited this particular film, but Butler also invests every little movement and mumbled phrase with the emotional undercurrent that shows his determination, his charm, his vulnerability, and also his turbulent mental state. Hanks is a different beast altogether, and I am still unsure about his performance. He certainly plays his greedy schemer with a twinkle in his eye, but the accent and make-up help to make his character feel like he is almost a parody villain, although it could be said that The Colonel acted in that way to wrongfoot people who would then underestimate him. Maybe. Olivia DeJonge makes an excellent Priscilla, Helen Thomson and Richard Roxburgh are quite good as Gladys and Vernon, the parents of “The King”, and there are very enjoyable supporting turns from Kodi Smit-McPhee, David Wenham, Kelvin Harrison Jr, Luke Bracey, Dacre Montgomery, Leon Ford, Alton Mason (as great at playing Little Richard as Butler is at playing Elvis), and Shonka Dukureh, as well as many others.

I do think it’s a shame that Luhrmann didn’t also include more of the bad alongside the good (a lot of bad was also missed from the TV movie, which had the excuse of being a TV movie), a decision that holds this film back from being a real modern classic, but I also can’t entirely disagree with his reasoning for it. This is a classic cinematic case of “print the legend”, and I think the legend makes for a superb movie. I know many who would agree.

I will, however, end by once again encouraging people to seek out the truth elsewhere. There are a litany of books out there on the subject, although I recommend starting with “Elvis & Me”, the book written by Priscilla Presley, and then asking for further recommendations from those who have much more knowledge than myself.

8/10

Thursday, 15 August 2019

Once Upon A Time . . . In Hollywood (2019)

If you take any one scene from Once Upon A Time . . . In Hollywood that features a look at the winding career paths of either Rick Dalton (former movie star, now a TV name, played by Leonardo DiCaprio) or Cliff Booth (main stunt double for Dalton, and good friend, played by Brad Pitt) then you have something pretty wonderful. Also take any scene with Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie) being happy and seemingly unspoilt by her near-stardom and you will be smiling, thanks mainly to the wonderful performance from Robbie.

But there's everything else here. Tarantino, for he's long been in the position where we don't have to use his full name, has crafted a fairytale, which the title clearly signifies, but he's done so in a way that loses focus, seems to often have its heart in the wrong place, and just stumbles into a grand finale that is, at best, uncharacteristically graphic and tonally jarring and, at worst, disappointingly disrespectful and distasteful.

The core of the film is based around the relationship between Dalton and Booth, as the former tries to keep working while not allowing his name to lose that star quality. Tate is shown being the kind of woman who lights up any room when she enters it, although those who know what happened to her cannot keep a tinge of sadness at bay, despite suspecting that the fairytale aspect may allow for more QT historical revisionism. And then you have the Manson Family, a shadow looming over the film once they make their first appearance.

Let me make something clear first of all. There are no bad performances here, and Pitt is doing his best work in years (this is arguably more his film than DiCaprio's, although the latter does brilliant with a range of acting, from his natural state off-camera to his cheesier style in some of his TV work). Robbie is phenomenal, if underserved, and there are also excellent turns from Timothy Olyphant, Margaret Qualley, Julia Butters, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell, and Al Pacino, to name but a few. Even those who turn up just to do a small impression (Damian Lewis is Steve McQueen, Mike Moh is Bruce Lee) do great work.

All of the things that don't work here come from Tarantino, a man who has indulged and deluded himself for so long that I doubt he will see anything wrong in what he may consider the culmination of his career. The soundtrack is what you'd expect, the barrage of movie and TV references are on point (and the second-best thing about it, after the lead performances), the violence appears (but it feels different from other violence he has depicted, it feels . . . more unpleasant and out of place, considering the tone of the rest of the finale, as if he felt everyone would need things to be pushed further and further, like some kind of cathartic release), and you get so many shots of people with their bare feet up in the air/on furniture that it starts to feel like he's trolling us all.

Obviously intended as a love letter to this time, and a way of both celebrating and lamenting the effect that TV had on the careers of many in the movie industry, Tarantino throws everything in the mix without considering how much of it is necessary. Although this allows for more treats (the technical side of things is wonderful, when it comes to capturing the feel of the time, and the many shows shown are wonderful, as are some of the movie clips, both real and re-envisioned with Dalton in a main role), it also allows for the moments that feel most sour. Why have your character shown to be a badass in a number of different ways when you can just have him go toe to toe with Bruce Lee? Why give someone a dark backstory when you can just imply a very similar fate to that of Natalie Wood? Why treat well-known names with a little more respect when they can be bit-players in the lives of the two main characters?

There were so many other ways to do this, ways that didn't have to be signposted less than halfway through the 161-minute runtime (at least I think the moment in which Booth is asked to fix a TV aerial is before the halfway point). This should have been a pure celebration from start to finish, showing the bad with the good but ending on a great upswing. Instead . . . well, it feels completely misjudged, completely gratuitous (sometimes for the better, often for the worse), and completely half-assed, considering how much the viewer is expected to bring to the table in order to fill in the gaps and place characters that ultimately end up being so transformed and/or discarded by Tarantino that they didn't have to be based on ANY reality at all. But then he wouldn't be able to feel quite so self-indulgent, and we all know that QT loves to indulge himself. It's just that his best movies also indulge the audience at the same time. This one doesn't. In fact, I am tempted to say that it ends up being downright insulting at times, but then often manages to make up for it with some little moments of cinematic beauty.

Hugely frustrating, hugely problematic, and still absolutely essential viewing for those who want to see where they stand on another Tarantino film that, at the very least, is once again steeped in the history of the cinema he loves.

5/10

You'll be able to get the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.