Short Term 12 (2013)

Whenever someone on Twitter says that Brie Larson can't act there's always someone that brings up Short Term 12 to prove the contrary. Now I love Brie Larson as, to me, she's always proven she can act, but since I had never seen the film, I checked it out. 

The story mainly focuses on Grace (Brie Larson), the young supervisor of a group home for troubled teenagers called Short Term 12, who lives with her long-term boyfriend and coworker, Mason (John Gallagher Jr.). While facing personal issues as she finds out she's pregnant, she has to deal with two difficult kids at the home, Marcus (Lakeith Stanfield), a quiet kid who is about to turn eighteen but doesn't want to leave the facility as he's not ready to face the world out there, and Jayden (Kaitlyn Dever), a troubled teenage girl who seems to be deeply scarred. 

As you can probably tell, Short Term 12 is not a plot-heavy film. It's instead a film that tells a simple and yet complicated, complex story about real people, facing real problems, and that deals with themes such as mental health, domestic abuse, self-harm, depression, and emotional trauma with sensitivity and without being judgemental. This is when it really shows that director and writer Destin Cretton lived this situation — he had a two-year experience in a similar caregiving facility — and he makes great use of his personal experience. 

Unfortunately, the characters aren't nearly as complex nor as developed as one would expect from a film relying on its characters so much as Short Term 12 does. While they are not shallow, the characters could have used more characterization and development — they feel incomplete and their development is quite disappointing as there isn't much progression in their lives. Also, the main character, Grace, never seems challenged as she always seems more capable of handling the problems she faces. 

Cinedigm

Despite the not-too-strong screenplay, the cast does a pretty good job. While the role is somewhat predictable, Brie Larson does a great job as Grace, the caring young woman who tries to help others but can't help herself and keeps her problems away from everyone else. She adds so much soul to the character and portrays both Grace's fragility and toughness very well. As for the supporting cast, Lakeith Stanfield delivers quite a powerful performance as Marcus, Kaitlyn Dever gives a solid performance as Jayden, and John Gallagher Jr. is effective as Grace's boyfriend. 

The cinematography, although not particularly beautiful, gets the job done as the shaky camera helps set the tone for these people's world and makes the film, the story feel more real. 

This, however, is not enough to make of Short Term 12 a throughout compelling and engaging film. Actually, it never really involved me as I felt barely any emotion or empathy toward the characters. 

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

Although I love many of their songs, I wouldn't call myself a Queen fan as I barely know a thing about the band other than Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS. That's the reason I wanted to see Bohemian Rhapsody, to learn more about them. But Bryan Singer happened to direct it and, having no intention of giving that "man" money, I skipped the theatrical release and waited for it to be online. And I'm glad I did that because I'd rather burn my money than pay to see this. 

Anyways, as you probably guessed, the film tells the story of the legendary British rock band Queen, from their very rapid rise through their revolutionary sound and songs that were destined to become classics to the band's struggles to find a way to keep the band together as Freddy Mercury's (Rami Malek) wild lifestyle starts to spiral out of control.

As I mentioned above, I don't know much about Queen's story so I can't really say whether the film is accurate or not —although many reviews I've read online suggest that it's not, that it depicts the events not chronologically but to fit the narrative the filmmakers went for. I can judge the storytelling though, and Bohemian Rhapsody has one of the worst storytellings of 2018 as it's uninteresting, uncompelling, and tremendously boring.

The film could have got away with that though with strong characters. Of course, Bohemian Rhapsody and strong cannot co-exist in the same sentence as the characters in here are thin, uninteresting and unlikeable. It's therefore hard, if not impossible to develop any kind of emotional connection with them. 

As for the acting, I have a question for the Acamedy: what acting? Because Rami Malek sure isn't portraying Freddie Mercury in here, all he does he reproducing several peculiarities of Mercury and it feels like watching a caricature, a parody almost, rather than the real artist. He really looks like the real thing but he just doesn't feel like him. Also, I wouldn't put my money on it, but I'm pretty sure Malek does not the singing unless he nailed Mercury's voice and by nailed I mean sounds exactly like him. Hence the question, why award such a mediocre performance?

20th Century Fox

As for the technical aspect, I have another question for the Academy: where's the Oscar-worthy editing? The editing in the stadium scene couldn't look any more unprofessional than that. It's not like the rest of the editing is any better though as it is sloppy and inconsistent. The cinematography, while it isn't dreadful, is barely mediocre and there's absolutely nothing captivating about it. The only redeeming aspect of Bohemian Rhapsody? The songs, the only thing the filmmakers had no power on.

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.