Ashes in the Snow (2018)

It's been two years since I read Ruta Sepetys's novel Between Shades of Gray, one of the most emotional as well as difficult to read books I've read. So when I heard it had been adapted into a movie, I was pretty excited to see it. Unfortunately, Ashes in the Snow —they changed the title to avoid confusion with the Fifty Shades series— is a disappointment. 

Set in the 1940s, the story follows Lina (Bel Powley), a sixteen-year-old Lithuanian girl who is preparing for art school, first dates and all that summer has to offer. But one night, the Soviet secret police force into her house, and her mother, Elena (Lisa Loven Kongsli), her little brother, Jonas (Tom Sweet), and she are deported to a Soviet labour camp.

Ashes in the Snow arguably has an important story to tell as I'm sure most people are unaware of the horrors perpetrated by Stalin during World War II —I personally had never heard about this side of the war, what the Lithuanian population had to endure, before reading the book— and the film does tell that story of atrocities and cruelty. However, while it is educative and manages to be an inspiring tale about the strength of the human spirit, the story isn't compelling enough to keep you interested as it drags in many places and focuses on many subjects for a while only to forget about them very soon, and it lacks the emotional impact of the novel.

Thankfully, the character of Lina is handled a little bit better, her arc being the most interesting part of the film. She goes from being a naive girl whose childhood innocence has been shattered to a strong and resilient young woman who finds a way to carry on in such miserable circumstances. I liked the contrast with her mother who weakens as the story unfolds. I didn't like her romance with Andrius (Jonah Hauer-King), another prisoner at the camp, as their relationship happens suddenly, without much of a buildup —frankly, I don't get why they didn't focus more on this instead of wasting time with many other subjects. The romance, however, was not as disappointing as Nikolai Kretzsky (Martin Wallström), a young Soviet soldier, the only sympathetic character on the Russian side. The problem with him is that he has such a sudden change that seems out of place —I don't remember this happening in the book, but I might be wrong— and makes the sympathetic character yet another despicable one. It angers me so much because this character had so much potential and they just threw it away.

Vertical Entertainment

The performance from Bel Powley is uneven. She is wooden to say the least at the beginning of the film, she looks confused and displays very little emotions. As the character grows, however, her performance gets stronger and, by the end, she is very convincing as she manages to convey the strength, emotions and courage of her character. It's from the supporting cast that we get the best performances. Lisa Loven Kongsli is excellent as Lina's mother, and Martin Wallström is fantastic as the sympathetic Soviet soldier.

Papillon (2017)

Something I've come across often when reading about Michael Noer's Papillon is that it is a bad remake of the 1973 film of the same name. Having read the book upon which both are based, I refuse to call this a remake. Instead, I consider it to be a different approach to the material whose outcome is barely decent, but still a notch above the "original". 

The film follows Henri Charrière (Charlie Hunnam), nicknamed Papillon because of the butterfly tattoo he had on his chest, a French safecracker who is convicted of murder and is sentenced to life in the notorious penal colony in French Guyana. On his way there, he meets Louis Dega (Rami Malek), a rich, convicted forger who asks Papillon for protection. In exchange, he will finance Papillon's escape attempts.

On paper, this was a very interesting and compelling story filled with adventures and humorous moments. On film, in this one, the story is dull, most of Papillon's adventures are left out —it's a good thing to be honest, as randomly picking only some would have made for a confusing story—and so is the humour. However, unlike the 1973 film, it addresses its themes in more deeper. It puts more emphasis on solitary confinement and its consequences, both mental —it could drive a man insane— and physical —tremendous weight loss—, on male friendship —Papillon's only glimmer of hope is the unlikely friendship he forms with Dega— and loyalty in its purest form.

As for the characters, they deserved better as this film brings to life —not sure those are the right words— pretty one-dimensional characters —many of the supporting characters weren't even referred to by name, which is such a pity considering how important they are to the plot. 

There are two solid characters though, Papillon and his friend Dega, and the credits go to the actors. Although his performance isn't as good as McQueen's —he comes pretty close though—, Charlie Hunnam gives an intense and dedicated performance as Papillon —he dropped 40lbs and even stayed in the prison cell alone, without food or water for 8 days— and he is very convincing and believable as the resilient man who never gives up on hope and freedom. Rami Malek is excellent as Dega, the nervous but optimistic intellectual —I actually enjoyed his performance more than Hoffman's— and his chemistry with Hunnam is incredible, and easily surpasses that between McQueen and Hoffman. 

Bleecker Street

As for the visual aspect, the cinematography is very good and successfully captures both the beauty of the cities and the jungle and the brutality, bleakness of the prison, and helps to portray the fight scenes with a sense of dread and sadness, without glorifying violence, which is something movies tend to do nowadays. Also, this version, unlike the 1973 one, is well-edited.

Papillon (1973)

Last December I finally bought and read Henri Charrière's autobiography Papillon. I wasn't crazy about it at first and I only kept reading because it was damn expensive and I didn't want to waste money like that. Eventually, it grew on me and I ended up loving it. So when I learnt there was a movie based on it, starring no less than Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, I knew I had to watch it. I've been putting it off ever since because of its length. I wouldn't have missed much if I kept putting it off as Franklin J. Schaffner's Papillon isn't that memorable. 

The film follows Henri Charrière (Steve McQueen), also known as Papillon, who, wrongly convicted of murdering a pimp, is sentenced to life and imprisoned in the penal colony in French Guyana. On his voyage there, he meets Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman), a forger who sold fake government bonds. Degas has enemies, Papillon vows to protect him and, over the years, with Degas's help, he attempts to escape many times, despite solitary confinement being the punishment.

Whether you believe it to be true or not —I tend for the latter as they are a lot of inconsistencies and fabrications in his "autobiography"—, Papillon's book arguably is a fascinating and compelling one filled with many interesting adventures. It's obvious that it's not possible to fit 500 pages in a two and a half hour movie, and I was not expecting the film to even attempt at that. Unfortunately, the adventures it tells aren't as interesting as they were in the book as the film tends to drag a little and is tremendously slow paced at times. In addition, the many things left out from the book —Papillon being befriended by strange people all the time, from leppers to cannibals, for istance— make the film quite confusing for those who haven't read the book. 

But while the story isn't nearly as entertaining as it was in the book, it still manages to capture the meaning of it. It is an ode to the human spirit, its strength and its desire for freedom; it portrays the weakness of human nature but also how much a man can endure; most of all it is a harrowing portrayal of the horrors of solitary confinement —arguably one of the worst things a human can do to another— and what it does to a man. 

If Papillon is as effective as it is, the credits go entirely to the cast, specifically to the leading actor, Steven McQueen. Other than being exactly as I pictured Papillon while reading the book, he gives one of the best if not the best performance of his career, as he delivers the Papillon's struggles, both physical and psychological, to perfection, in a way that we, the audience, feel them, and whether it's happiness, hope, depression or insanity, you can read it on his face. Also noteworthy is the performance from Dustin Hoffman as Louis Dega. The character, who only plays a minor role in the book —he isn't even sent to Devil's Island—, is very compelling because of Hoffman's excellent performance. The chemistry between McQueen and Hoffman, on the other hand, isn't that great —apparently they did not ge along on set— and because of it they fail to convey a sense of loyalty and friendship. 

Allied Artists, Columbia Pictures

Ultimately, while it captures the meaning of the book, McQueen and Hoffman give excellent performances and it's gorgeous to look at —the cinematography is both breathtakingly beautiful and brutal at the same time—, Papillon is quite a mess. It feels slow and rushed at the same time, it isn't very entertaining as most of the funny moments don't work, and it's extremely boring. 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

I love a good mystery novel/film and over the past year, I read a lot of Agatha Christie's novels. Murder on the Orient Express, with its mindblowing ending, was one of my favourites which is why I was very excited about Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express mainly because of its stellar cast. I eventually skipped it because of the not-so-pleasing reviews. I finally decided to give it a chance and it isn't that bad. It isn't that good either though.

The storyline, everybody knows it. The famous detective Hercules Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is vacationing in Istanbul and soon finds himself on the Orient Express on a trip to Calais, sharing the train with an eclectic assortment of travellers. Of course, a murder is committed and, as the train gets stopped by an avalanche and the passengers find themselves trapped in the train, Poirot must solve the crime before the train starts working again.

With the plot comes the first problem. It is convoluted, messy and sluggish. Some key plot points are left out and we are never given any clue to find out on our own who the murderer is, as the novel did (I haven't seen Sidney Lumet's 1974 film so I can't make the comparison). To that, add the fact that Kenneth Branagh's director completely failed to build and deliver tension and suspense. In spite of that and the fact that I already knew who the murderer was, the film was surprisingly gripping and it managed to hold my attention for most of its running time. 

The characters are also quite a mess. Their introduction is such a mess, I doubt anyone who hasn't either read the novel or seen one of the many adaptations could understand who they were. It confused me, for heaven's sake! Also, the characterization and development are basically non-existent. 

20th Century Fox

Murder on the Orient Express also has many action sequences that are dull and tedious, they look absolutely ridiculous and really had nothing to the story or film. Also, Poirot engaging in action sequences? I don't think I've ever seen something so out-of-character. What's even more annoying is that they add absolutely anything, not even a little excitement.

The acting, on the other hand, is decent, if not good. While he did a mediocre to say the least job directing the film, Kenneth Branagh actually did a good job portraying the famous detective. I was a bit worried, to be honest, because I'm used to David Suchet's great Poirot so much, but Branagh really did well. He captures the character's gestures and expressions very well. And the accent is pretty good too (I have a French cousin, I know what I'm talking about). Johnny Depp does a decent job as Ratchett. There's still a little resemblance, but this time around he's not playing the drunk pirate. And Michelle Pfeiffer gives a very captivating performance.

The cinematography is also quite beautiful --not Oscar beautiful though -- and so are costumes and designs. And the makeup isn't bad.

Fahrenheit 451 (2018)

I read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 last year and to say that I loved it is a little reductive. I'm not the only one who feels that way about Bradbury's novel and therefore turning it into a good movie was not easy. That said, I had high expectations for HBO's Fahrenheit 451 because of the network's resources and the cast, especially the cast. Unfortunately, it's a misfire.

Set in a distant future, when books are banned and firefighters, in order to destroy them, start fires instead of putting them out, the film follows Guy Montag (Michael B. Jordan), a young fireman who does his job without questioning believing that's the right thing to do. One day, while on his job, Guy witnesses something terrible and begins to question his task. 

While the basic plot points from Bradbury's novel are here, there are many changes --that Hollywood ending, seriously?!-- and some parts were completely left out which gives the film a feeling of incompleteness. In spite of that, the film was off to a good start. In fact, the first part is pretty engaging and enjoyable but eventually, the lazy writing took over and the story no longer interested me, it only bored me.

I did like, however, the filmmakers decided to make the story more suitable to our times by incorporating modern technologies, especially live streaming.  Still, I'm not sure having the internet in a story like this makes a lot of sense. And it also made it look like a Black Mirror episode. 

The characters are another problem as they completely lack development. Guy Montag's motives are not clear at all. Also, the filmmakers left out Montag's wife and replaced her with an uninteresting love interest which took away from the character a layer of depth --and it would have been much appreciated here. 

HBO

In spite of that, Michael B. Jordan still manages to carry the film and give a pretty good performance as the leading character. Michael Shannon's performance, on the other hand, is much greater. He once again gives an excellent performance as he truly captures the character of Captain Beatty and delivers the character's evil, satanic presence. 

In addition to Jordan and Shannon's strong performances, Fahrenheit 451 has quite beautiful visuals. It does feel like they were trying to replicate Blade Runner 2049 but the dark and gritty cinematography and the futuristic neon aesthetics are very beautiful to look at.