Get Out

Get Out is the debut feature from Jordan Peele and could easily be an episode of Black Mirror. Get Out contains one hell of a premise. Photographer Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) is nervous about an upcoming trip to meet the parents of his preppy girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams). He seems up for it but questions if they know if it is an interracial relationship. However, when they arrive and get settled, all seems fine. Well, outside of some awkward, but well meaning, comments from Rose’s father (Bradley Whitford) (he would have voted Obama for a third term if he could). But things begin to sour as Chris notices some strange occurrences in the neighbourhood, as the other black residents act very creepily and as if sedated. His suspicions are further abated by a bizarre evening with Rose’s mother, (Catherine Keener) who tries to hypnotise him and convince him to stop smoking. As his Rear Window-esque investigation begins (armed with his long-lense camera, a la James Stewart), Chris soon discovers a much darker secret that his girlfriend’s family is keeping.  

Peele has noted the influence of The Stepford Wives on Get Out with the added racial angle, morphing into what the director calls a “social thriller”. Horror has always had a political and social element but this is one of Get Out’s most lauded attributes. In my opinion, I think horror is the best genre to reflect societal fears and contemporary concerns. I originally wrote a lengthy paragraph about this, briefly looking through the history of horror, as the opening paragraph to this review but I have decided to save it for a full article. The metaphorical nature of horror, as opposed to a dry, realistic drama, can create scenarios and rich thematic material for an unforgettable experience (which I will elaborate on in my full article). Get Out understands this to a tee but instead puts its social issues at the forefront. What better way to show the damage of racism than through the horror genre (film ultimately cannot get to the terrible reality of the issue but it can certainly try to reflect and comment). 

Get Out tries to touch upon the effects of casual racism and liberal ignorance. Not the hillbillies of the South or the alt-right Neo Nazis of Green Room but rich, white, liberal Americans are the villains here. Chris smiles and grits his teeth as the neighbourhood make racist assumptions about his interests and physical traits. Even worse, Rose’s father keeps two black servants, Walter (Marcus Henderson) and Georgina (Betty Gabriel). He admits how bad it looks but states that he couldn't bare to part with them after his parents’ death after they looked after them. But after a few choice encounters and conversations reveal there is something far more sinister at work here. The film very effectively builds up Chris’ paranoia, especially when he starts joining the dots to reach his ultimate conclusion. Probably my favourite section of the film is where Chris is awkwardly introduced to all the various family members and friends, the framing and editing reflecting the bombardment of cliches and assumptions. Daniel Karluuya is excellent as Chris, willing to accept the awkwardness at first before diving into a much darker part of his sub-conscious and looking for a way out. Surprisingly, the film is very funny considering its serious material. It's not quite Black Sheep or You're Next (a personal fav) levels but it does help to reinforce the human nature of the characters. Sometimes, you just can't help but laugh. Most of the laughs are supplied by Lil Rey Howery in a great performance as Chris’ best friend Rod. He gives him advice and tips and actually plays a very active part in the story. 

Get Out is a visceral ride and you'll barely notice its running time. due to its great pacing. The direction is incredibly assured and the social satire is dead one. There is a key twist in the middle of the film which fortunately has been ruined too much by the internet and the trailers, so I want to keep this review brief as it is just best experienced with as little knowledge as possible. Get Out serves as a great launchpad for a discussion about racism but it's also a great horror film. The success of Get Out pleases me greatly – it shows a desire for a more intelligent kind of horror film and how socially conscious the genre has always been. 

Rating: 9/10 

Beauty & The Beast

Spoilers throughout

Two things to discuss before the review. 1) The original 1992 Disney film Beauty & The Beast is an animated masterpiece. Based on … a tale as old as time (groan), the film has been the cornerstone of any child who grew up in the 90s. In fact, those who grew up with it in the 1990s are probably old enough to have children of their own now and the film’s legacy continues with each new generation. And 2) Disney’s recent crusade of remaking their classic films in live-action (starting with Cinderella and The Jungle Book). The focus is now shifting to the films from their much touted 1990s Renaissance. With live-action versions of Mulan, The Little Mermaid and The Lion King (?) on the way, it seems Disney intends to milk nostalgia for as long as possible. And the first one out of the word works is Beauty & The Beast, designed for a new generation – read as: nostalgic comfort food for adults who likely grew up with the original and a chance to share the story with a new generation of children. So, with Beauty & The Beast, can Emma Watson and co. hope to match what is, in my opinion, a perfect film already? Strap on your seat-belts because I'm diving in.

So here's the thing. Disney remaking their classic films is fine - unless they can't present a unique spin on them. While I’m not the biggest fan of the critically acclaimed Jungle Book, it at least tried to do things differently by sticking closer in tone to Rudyard Kipling’s tales. In fact, the more out of place elements were the call backs to the original film. Beauty & The Beast, on the other hand, follows the same structure as the original film, it just does things … well, not as good…It does everything in its power to justify its existence, with some mildly successfully elements and a lot of not so successful…The story is one everyone knows: a young girl named Belle (Emma Watson) lives in a small provincial town in rural olden times France. She is bored of her life and seeks adventure, being somewhat of an oddball in the town (*gasps* she reads). After an accident, her father Maurice (Kevin Kline) becomes prisoner of the mysterious titular Beast (Dan Stevens) in a dark imposing castle. Belle agrees to swap places and must remain inside the castle. Once a handsome prince, Belle learns that the Beast shunned an enchantress disguised as an old crone and had a curse placed upon him. The curse is linked to a magical rose – if the Beast can't find love and be loved in return by the time the final petal falls, he will remain a Beast forever. Through initial misunderstandings, the two do begin to fall in love, with some help from the castle’s enchanted talking furniture and cutlery (another side-effect of the curse). However, a wedge is driven between them by schemes of town “hero” Gaston (Luke Evans), who wants to marry Belle, and his bumbling side-kick Le Fou (Josh Gad).

Remaking Beauty & The Beauty (as based on the animated version) presents an interesting task. As many have pointed out in the years since the original’s release, the script has some holes in it. There's the timeline of proceedings (just how long does Belle’s dad spend wandering in those snowy woods?), the reasoning for imprisoning Belle’s father in the first place (he now steals a rose because … symbolism?), why the castle residents are cursed along with the Beast, why the Beast is able to turn back to being human and still not die from his fatal wounding by Gaston, and, of course, the infamous “Stockholm syndrome” theory (which I'm so sick of hearing as this can be easily dismissed by watching the film again – Belle only stays when the Beast starts acting nice towards her and when she sees her father in trouble, she runs). My reasoning is that it works on fairy tale logic. Yes, they are plot holes but the extreme details are not necessarily needed as the emotional storyline makes perfect sense. The character’s motives are clear and is beautifully played out in the film. My rule of thumb is this – if you don't mention it, your audience is likely not to think of it (an element I’ll discuss in further detail in my Get Out review).  Yet this remake is intent on filling these plot holes as modus operandi- its reason to exist.

I want to get a couple of things out of the way before I dive into an analysis of the characters as presented in the remake. Visually, the film is fine. The interior set design of the Beast’s castle and costumes are great – the art department clearly wanted to evoke that 18th century Marie Antoinette look, to make it feel more like a by-gone France. For the most part, I like it. It distinguishes it from the original whilst remaining familiar. It's a good balance. However, whenever we venture into blurry CGI land for the exteriors it doesn't look like as good. This is where is becomes apparent that the set-ups and editing of the shots aren’t great. They don't communicate in the way film language should and end up being a bit dull. That said, the songs sequences are great- the framing and editing does not always suit but these are still great songs and the staging is generally well-executed. These are just classic songs and it's fun hearing them in the cinema. There are a couple of pleasant new songs which try to add a new angle to the story. I would call these distractions as again they don't add much but … they sure are nice!

 

A few of the new elements actually do work. The townsfolk have had their memories erased, as part of The Enchantress’ curse, so they can't remember the Prince or the denizens of the castle. This makes some sense, as the castle residents presumably do have families in the town as previously no one questioned their disappearance. To make matters worse for Lumiere and co., the curse has an added nasty element for them – if the curse cannot be broken by the time the last petal falls they will remain inanimate objects forever. I'm not sure if this is in the original or if it's a small part but this new emphasis does add a more tragic backdrop to the proceedings. The Beast is not only trying to save himself but also his loyal servants. These are legit good changes and add a ticking time-bomb element to the story. Honestly, when approaching a remake, expanding the side-characters is a good angle to take. The re-imagining of Lumiere (Ewen McGregor), Cogsworth (Ian McKellen), Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson) and Chip (Nathan Mack) as characters are generally good but the designs do not match the imagination of the original (something you can get away with in animation is a talking teapot – which does not translate well in live-action, as it's just plain creepy). The voice-acting though is uniformly excellent – Ewen McGregor does a pretty fun exaggerated French accent and Ian McKellen is fine as the stuffy Cogsworth, emphasising a more old British sergeant type. Another element I enjoyed was the re imagining of Belle’s dad. Kevin Kline turns in a fine performance, turning Belle’s father from a bumbling fool into a kind, caring and intelligent character, who has several tender moments with Belle. Their relationship feels real and the few moments of affection between them are the acting highlights of the film. The duo of Gaston and Le Fou is also surprisingly endearing. Josh Gad does imbue a lot of new personality in Le Fou and Luke Evans does his best to give Gaston the weight and gravitas his character did in the original. You could argue that the dominance and size of the character is lost from the animated version but overall it is a fun performance.

However, the other elements, to almost excuse the original, simply don't work and actively undermine the story. It adds too many elements when our main focus, Belle and the Beast, end up being a bit lost in the proceedings. The 90 minute original has been stretched to a near two-and-a-half hour run time. The additions actively work to bloat the story and don't amount to much as we are still following the exact same narrative arc. We don't need to know why the Beast is so angry all the time and where this comes. His pain and anguish is made pretty clear in the original through excellent animation and subtle voice-acting. We discover that the Beast has daddy issues but this does not add anything to his character arc. We don't need to know why Belle is living in the village. She lives there with her crack-pot father and is the village oddball. Now we have extended backstory for Belle which again adds nothing to her character arc. And this is where the biggest crime of all occurs – there is zero chemistry between Belle and The Beast. Emma Watson turns in a fine, if slightly wooden, performance as Belle. She captures the eager book-worm and intelligence Belle had in the original but clearly struggles with the more comedic scenes. Dan Stevens does convey the Beast’s emotions well through the motion capture and offers a … unique vocal take on the character, which emphasises the bratty prince within as opposed to roaring monster of the original. The commanding presence the Beast once had is gone and is replaced by…well, a blander version. I think the intention was that they learn things about each other and this brings them closer together. Which is fine, don't get me wrong but this is not successfully weaved into the narrative and the lack of chemistry makes these scenes a bit of a bore. If you went into this with no knowledge of the original imagine how weird and forced the progress of their relationship comes across.

I'll admit that Belle's arc is not perfect in the original - it is not as strong as the Beast’s and she does fall into that old cliché of wanting *looks distantly out of the window*more. However, this is made up for by a strong personality and individualism. Belle is a great character through her words and actions. The studio’s attempt to apply a feminist take on Belle is admirable but ultimately doesn't amount to much (I also feel the same way about the LGBTQ element, which again doesn't add anything outside of advertising). There is an old debate amongst feminist writers about whether a character actively needs to just be a good character or needs to be actively fighting against the patriarchy to be considered a feminist character. I would argue that Belle is a great feminist character, if you even want to apply that reading. She is strongly independent, is keenly happy in her own world, she has conversations and interests outside of the main male character and voices her own opinion and has clear agency in the story. She is simply a great character, even if her arc is not as satisfying as the Beast’s. The filmmaker’s intent on adding a feminist angle on Belle, as per the press-releases, never really works. Sure, she makes a washing machine using her ingenuity and she teaches a young girl how to read. But this raises more questions – if you are doing a feminist reinterpretation of Belle, then why isn't she questioning why she has to do the laundry in the first place. Outside of this, they follow beat for beat the original character arc, which already touched upon concepts of patriarchy and sexism. Just have great female and LGBTQ characters – Disney seems fine of not making a big deal about this in its animated films. So if you went in expecting a great feminist take on Belle or a strong LGTBQ character who is part of the mix (for a better example, see Mitch from Paranorman, who is revealed to have a boyfriend at the end of the film meaning we have been judging him purely based on his character as opposed to his sexuality) then you've been punked.

To cap it all, the emotional finishing point is completely undermined by the film’s tireless attempts to cover up all the plot holes. The How It Should Have Ended Series? is fun and often very clever at pointing out plot holes in films. In fact their Beauty & The Beast one is very funny and highlights how the Beast would not be able to survive the fatal wounding by Gaston. However, I’m sure they would be first to say (along with the makers of Everything Wrong With…) that plot holes do not always matter and should not be a judging point for a work of art. Every story has plot holes. As long as it does not actively undermine the motives and emotions of our characters and narrative, then they’re fine. However, Beauty & The Beast’s reactionary approach at covering the holes in the script actively ruins the ending. Let me set the scene from the original. The Beast has been fatally wounded by Gaston’s arrow. He is knocking on heaven’s door. In this moment, Belle realises she loves the Beast. In a powerful moment, when all hope seems lost as the final petal falls, the spell is suddenly lifted. The Beast transforms back into being a human and the two live happily ever after. The important thing is that it's Belle and the Beast’s mutual love for each other that breaks the spell. They accomplish the goal together. In the new film, the same set up happens, only this time the Enchantress turns up out of no-where. Seeing Belle mumbling to herself and crying, the Enchantress decides now is the time to lift the curse and heal the Beast’s wounds. It is The Enchantress’ choice to the break the curse. The goal is not accomplished by the couple. She doesn't know how genuine Belle is (at least, as interpreted by Emma Watson’s performance). It's like if at the end of The Lion King, Simba fought Scar but it's Rafiki who kicked the villain off Pride Rock. The emotional arc is undermined completely. And this is where Beauty & The Beast really fails.

Honestly, I could go on and on about all the nit picky elements that I didn't enjoy (the sub-plot with Gaston and Maurice, Le Fou’s incredibly forced turn to good, the non-sensical re-design of Lumiere’s girlfriend etc.) but this review/analysis is long enough as it is and it's the important character development, technique and undermining of the narrative I wanted to highlight. I would love to one day compare scenes from the original to the remake and illustrate the power of film language. For the original used all the tricks in the book to tell a larger than life story through brilliant mise-en-scene, great atmosphere, background art, now iconic music and wonderful animation. Think of the shadows, danger and suspense of creeping around the corridors in the original or the emotional climax on the rooftop in the pouring rain. Now compare those same scenes in the remake and the power is lost. This is where the original’s economic filmmaking versus the remake’s stale and uninteresting look becomes apparent. Some might say it's not fair comparing the remake to the original so much but honestly I think it is in this instance. The film so closely mirrors the original, almost shot for shot, line by line at times that comparison is fair. Beauty & The Beast adds nothing new to the story and bloats it into an unsatisfying film. Call it nostalgia but the original is an excellent film. I would be up for reimagining, a different take on a classic story, but all the new elements added to the remake can't shake how reverent it is to the original. It simply don't justify its existence and actively undermines the story.

I'm done. Sorry if I've offended any childhoods or nostalgic trips to the cinema. The film is fine. Children and general audiences will probably enjoy it ok. It just infuriated me.    


Rating: 5/10

As a side note, I watched this in 3D. We had our evening scheduled to fit this in before a late night screening of the new social horror film Get Out not realising until moments before it was in 3D. My usual complaints about 3D stand: blurry image, little imagination in the 3D photography and a dimmed picture. There were a couple moments that stood out in Beauty & The Beast but nothing spectacular. Stick to the 2D one if you can. Or just watch the original one at home.  

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Mild Spoilers 

So I’ve come to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild from a slightly odd angle. Whilst most reviewers are enjoying it on Nintendo’s brand spanking new system, the Switch, I picked my copy for the long struggling Wii U. The Wii U’s shortcomings have been listed by dozens of articles in the past couple of years, so I won't be getting into them here. Because Zelda is much better than arguments about the pros and cons of  a console. For Zelda always seems to transcend the trend of modern gaming and is quite happy to remain in its own unique groove. So with Breath of the Wild, Nintendo is going out of its comfort zone slightly by taking influence from Western RPGs, such as Skyrim and The Witcher 3 to produce the first truly open-world Zelda game since arguably the original. Does this mix work? 

(As a side note, I have been playing the game with a Pro Controller).

I would describe Breath of the Wild as the oddest 3D console Zelda game. It's not odd in the sense of, say, Majora’s Mask (my all-time favourite game by-the-by), which is thematically and tonally odd. Breath of the Wild is odd in that it's the first one to really shake that Link To The Past/Ocarina of Time structure away that has clung to the series for decades. Now, I love the traditional Zelda structure – for me, it's the way Nintendo presents each entry visually and how they use the structure in different ways that makes the series one of my favourites. But I would be lying if I said I wasn't up for a change in the formula. Breath of the Wild takes away many familiar elements and re-jigs them into an incredibly satisfying game that, while I have a few niggles, manages to evoke that childlike sense of wonder and exploration. You'll be doing the traditional Zelda things but the new structure will get you thinking about the untapped possibilities of the series. 

From the start of the game, we are thrown off balance. Link is awakened by a mysterious voice in a strange pool bed. Link is awarded a Sheikah Tablet, a futuristic device in which the player can view the map, keep track of missions and maintain the inventory. Soon we venture outside to take in Hyrule, a vast vista of green grass and old ruins in full HD glory, with both Hyrule Castle and Death Mountain looming ominously in the background. And we are immediately thrust into the adventure. You are free to explore this vast environment and you soon begin to discover the key differences with this Zelda game. I would argue Breath of the Wild has the best tutorial section in any game I have played, in that it lets you discover the rules and objectives of the game without major prompts. Zelda games are often held back by their lengthy tutorials (Twilight Princess being the number one culprit). Here, Breath of the Wild lets you discover the rules and the story. For Link has awoken 100 years into the future after an evil being known as Calamity Ganon successfully defeated the Hylian kingdom and now looms menacingly as a corporal form around Hyrule Castle. The only thing holding him in place is the continued efforts of the elusive Princess Zelda, trapped in a century long struggle to control the evil from spreading further. Before the defeat of Hyrule, the kingdom was at the height of its technological prowess having invented mechanical beings known as Guardians, who are now scattered across the landscape either defeated with growing moss surrounding them, or as corrupted agents of Ganon. The world is now a unique blend of medieval Japan and Europe style with some sci-fi elements. Think Shadow of the Colossus meets Laputa: Castle In The Sky. For that former game’s sense of loneliness is beautifully evoked in the opening hours of the game before we venture into what is left of Hyrule’s population. Hyrule feels like a real, breathing place for really first time in the series (where it once was a hub to connect the different areas together). Upon completion of the excellent tutorial section, the map opens to us and we are encouraged to go where we want. There are markers and mission objectives (like in Skyrim) but how we go about it is our choice. There is no Navi equivalent in this game! The ultimate goal is awaken the four mythical beasts to help the player in defeating Ganon and freeing Zelda. The order these objectives can be completed in is up to you.  

As you begin to fight enemies, you learn that they drop their weapons upon being defeated (similar to The Wind Waker). Soon you have an arsenal of varied weapons to take on Ganon’s minions. This includes one-handed swords, broadswords, lances, spears, Soul Calibur-esque mega-swords, Guardian weaponry and a bow (which is awarded very early on for a Zelda game). The controls can be a bit tricky at first but swapping and changing between melee weapons and the bow becomes very natural. However, after several fights, weapons can (and will) break. Weapon durability becomes a big part of your strategising and adds an interesting new tactical (and sometimes frustrating) element to the game. This is one of the only elements of the game I have mixed feelings about. While I understand that later game weapons get stronger and stronger, as better weapons are afforded to us (with the Master Sword apparently being unbreakable, naturally), that sense of progression, often key to an RPG, is taken away slightly. It's hard to know when to use your best weapons in battles for fear of them breaking. There are repair elements to the game but this comes later on. Now that aside, the satisfaction of Link wielding multiple different weapons gives a new sense to each battle. While the battle system has been simplified somewhat from the complex motion controls of Skyward Sword, Breath of the Wild makes up for it in the variety of different encounters and styles of battle.

As we begin to venture into the cold high mountains or into smouldering hot locations in search of the next objective, Link begins to suffer from the extreme drops or rise in temperature. Clearly, we need something to assist Link here. This is where the game’s infinitely deep cooking system comes into play. By collecting plants, meat and monster parts, Link can concoct meals that restore health and temporarily improve stats and elixirs that give special status effects (again temporarily) that include resistance to heat, cold and improve speed. The game actively encourages you to seek out as many ingredients as possible and experiment with the cooking mechanic. These stat boosts are often essential for when you are trying to traverse difficult areas. This adds a brilliant one layer to exploration and offers a genuine risk. The best thing the game does is give you the tools needed to complete the game upfront – it will be challenging but possible. 

Nintendo always seem immune to the trends of modern game design (for good or bad) so it is odd to see them use Ubisoft towers as a key component. The towers are dotted around Hyrule as key vantage points. They are slightly tedious to traverse but upon reaching the top they serve as another check point (as in, a place to fast travel to) and a chance to “download” a new section of the map. More interesting are the shrines. There are dozens of these dotted across the immense map. Inside each shrine is a mini-dungeon, which might contain a puzzle or a combat challenge. Very early in the game through the power of the Shekiah Tablet (clearly designed to evoke the Wii U gamepad and the Switch), Link is awarded with various special powers. These include the ability to stop time, summon bombs, magnetise objects and take photos. With these tools in place, Link can traverse these mini-dungeons which range from simple challenges to complex puzzles that require thinking outside the box using the abilities awarded. The invention and technique involved in designing these challenges is pure Nintendo wizardry. These are tiny chunk of Zelda magic. The reward at the end of each shrine is a new way point (a massive help in traversing the overworld) and Spirit Orbs, which can be exchanged for either more health (no hidden heart containers in this one) or stamina.  

The art design of Breath of the Wild is unparalleled. The game is further proof that good art design always wins. The once-hated, now-loved cel-shade style is back and arguably better than ever. The bright colours and dark hues are rendered beautifully in HD. Everything is rendered in extreme detail, from the small flowers in the fields to the variety of different weapons Link can wield to the dusty buildings of old villages to the excellent weather system that truly emphasises both the danger and beauty of exploration. The vastness and detail of the game is overwhelming. Alongside the main quest, the world is filled with dozens of side quest and collectibles to keep you playing long after the credits have rolled  That said, the game does suffer from frame rate issues (both on the Wii U and the Switch). This mostly seems to happen when fire is involved or, oddly, in the opening areas. Now this is quite rare and is only mildly distracting when it occurs.  

With a few niggles aside, Breath of the Wild is a stunning game. While Nintendo might struggle to stay relevant in the modern gaming industry, it does know how to make great games. It's a beautiful blend of excellent controls, gorgeous art design and smart structuring. Nintendo has managed to bring a sense of awe back to the series with its surprising turns and great sense of discovery. Some technical issues can take you out briefly but the overall experience is not to be missed. This entry is the closest in spirit to the original game. With little prompts, the secret weapon of Zelda’s success is at the forefront – exploration. Breath of the Wild, whether you play it on the Wii U or on the Switch, is unmissable. Whether you’re soaring over Hyrule with your paraglider or rushing across the wilderness astride your trusty stead or taking it one step at a time, Breath of the Wild takes the best elements of all previously Zelda games and puts an addictive new spin on the formula that emphasises freedom and exploration. The game design brilliantly weaves this in from the opening minutes. A brilliant swansong for the ailing Wii U and a shining beacon of hope for the Switch. 

Where can the series go from here? 

Rating: 9/10