The BFG

Steven Spielberg’s The BFG is the film adaptation of one of Roald Dahl’s most beloved children’s books. The story follows a little girl called Sophie as a Big Friendly Giant kidnaps her – a giant who, unlike his much larger ilk, refuses to eat “human beans”. But wait… if the BFG is the smallest of the giants then why is he called the Big Friendly Gian-- never mind! Given its source material, the audience going into this film will have a certain idea of what its feel should be.

Before going into the review itself, there is a brief tangent its writer would like to mention, however trivial it may be. The opening title graphics in the film are a cheap 2-D font with a blue-and-yellow gradient. This seems unimpressive when they have perfectly pretty CGI title graphics in the trailer. It didn’t need great attention drawn to it like musical accompaniment or anything, at least not for the film itself. It’s a shame it wasn’t used.

Character designs are accurate to the designs in the book or its illustrations, specifically for Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) and the BFG (Mark Rylance). To Barnhill’s credit she tries to emote with her expressions of surprise and wide eyes, but the expressions mostly blend together and there is room for improvement in her physical or vocal deliveries given some more direction. Rylance’s portrayal of the loveable gobblefunk-speaking character is on point, with his vocal deliveries denoting a kindly yet simple creature. Jamaine Clement plays the voice of the Fleshlumpeater, the largest of the antagonistic giants, whose scowling face and smooth regional accent really paints the character as a kind of bully. None of the giants have booming voices to very much of an extent, which is not bad in terms of mood but it may not be what some would realistically expect. The third act sees Penelope Wilton as Queen Elizabeth II – it seems rather fitting that the actor who played the Prime Minister in Doctor Who should play the Queen in this. Rafe Spall portrays Mr. Tibbs, the royal butler, who funnily enough conveys in soft whispers just like in the book.

The visuals are quite lovely. The design of the giants including that of the BFG have smoothness and the computer-generated images moves fluidly. The environment of Giant Country is simple but imaginative and the design of Dream Country, while not monochrome like in the book, looks and feels magical. The film does have some flatulence, which is often seen as lowbrow humour, but it is excusable seeing as whizzpopping, as it is called, was part of the book and is done in an endearing way. The film’s narrative climax is a little more challenging or dangerous to the heroes than that of the book, which is an improvement, especially since it doesn’t resort to some big epic battle like in many other contemporary fantasy remakes. One may recognise the music is similar to that of Hook (1991), another Spielberg film. In fact, the music is composed by John Williams, the same musician who composed the music for Hook and Jaws (1975). Unfortunately the music often doesn’t match with situations, which is extremely disappointing seeing how Spielberg and William’s collaborative process revolves around matching music to situation.

A big flaw in this film is the drama and the pacing. Not enough is devoted at the beginning in introducing the characters to each other. In fact Sophie and the BFG don’t even ask each other’s names until midway into the movie. Some may remember this was also a significant flaw in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender (2010) – among many others – but the most fascinating similarity in this comparison is that both Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender and Spielberg’s The BFG both have the same producers: Frank Marshall and Sam Mercer. Perhaps there is a connection between at least one of these producers and this flaw in storytelling that has appeared at least twice in their movies. The film also introduces a tragic backstory that was not part of the book, and honestly it is unnecessary.

While the script uses many familiar quotes from the book, it is not especially well written, at least in terms of how it rearranges what lines go where. The book is much better in how, where and when it places the subjects discussed in the dialogue. Instead of simply condensing it, the script rearranges what scenes certain dialogue is put into, and as a result these conversations can become out of place depending on when they are and what is happening. There is, for instance, a point in the film where the BFG drives the other giants out of his cave to conceal Sophie. It is a big moment for the BFG’s character and as an experience for the audience, but then Sophie follows it up by talking about words and the way the BFG talks. It’s like they don’t have a sense of urgency after what just happened!

The film has its share of directorial, visual and story errors in its own right. For example, when Sarah jumps into bed because the BFG spots her, she recites the rules about not getting up after dark. It seems strange that this would be her reaction, and besides, the loudness of her voice should wake up some of the other children in the orphanage and even more human beans would spot the giant. And there’s the shot of the nine antagonist giants standing outside the BFG’s cave at night, possibly walking towards it, and yet they don’t enter in that scene, so…were they just standing outside looking at the BFG’s house all night? On the subject of giants, if they don’t like water in this version, why don’t they all have a cave for when it rains? Why is the “runt” of the group the only one who has shelter? Also, if the BFG can hear so well that he can enjoy music coming from the stars, how does he not hear Sophie scurrying and sneaking on his windowsill when he first brings her to his cave? The film establishes Sarah has insomnia, yet this never comes into play. In fact, she falls asleep almost immediately after because the BFG starts reading aloud only a few sentences from a book. And even forgetting that the BFG in this version gives Sophie a nightmare (which is really out of character when you think about it) instead of simply explaining the rules of being a human in Giant Country, how does Sophie immediately know it was him who did it? She knows he collects dreams but she doesn’t know he manipulates them at the time.

Though as a film Spielberg’s The BFG is not a well-written one, it does capture the tone and spirit of the source material as one might expect the tone to be, though without some of the more gruesome imagery suggested in the book. Despite all our negative feedback it is enjoyable to sit through. However, behind the magically whimsical feel, music, visuals and character/actor charms, it is not well made in terms of plot or dramatic pacing. The changes the film makes, for the most part, don’t strengthen the story like they should. It is laden with plot holes, dramatic urgency and necessity are ignored, and the flow of emotional realism is skewed. Maybe a decent and colourful spectacle to take your kids to see, but to those who love the book and love the story Roald Dahl told, this adaptation is a huge disappointment.

The Neon Demon

Nicolas Winding Refn’s The Neon Demon is an artistic and daring film. The story follows young model Jesse (Elle Fanning), a newcomer who rises to success on the wings of her natural conventional beauty, gaining the admiration of makeup artist Ruby (Jena Malone) and the competitive distain of models Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and Sarah (Abbey Lee), as her mind is affected by those who control her identity. It is a story vanity and envy and portrays the modeling industry as a fickle and mean entity. The film contains explicit nudity and flashing images.

The premise is similar to that of other psychological thrillers or horrors like Satoshi Kon’s Perfect Blue (1997) or Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan (2010), where a woman falls into insanity while following a certain performing art, such as singing, acting, ballet, and in this case modeling. One can compare the themes of these films, such as how the female protagonist is made to exploit or allow others to exploit her sexuality in order to succeed. The Neon Demon is not so much about how the protagonist is plagued and horrified by her hallucinations so much as her mind and possibly soul is corrupted by the shallow and biased attitudes of the industry. The film puts heavy emphasis on themes regarding societal conventions of beauty.

A lot of influence is taken from Stanley Kubrick’s work, particularly A Clockwork Orange (1971). The slow electronic music is very similar, the use of neon lights in some of the sets is quite familiar to Kubrick’s imagining of a cyberpunk world, if more often exaggerated, and the background of the opening titles are made in a way that somewhat resembles the end credits from A Clockwork Orange.

The cinematography is excellent, and the editing helps create an uncomfortable tone with suspenseful scenes throughout. The visuals are stylistic, often using neon lights or bright lighting with darkened backgrounds to create contrast, occasionally with the use of flashing lens flares, and otherwise slightly low colour saturation on less glamorous environments. Makeup is noticeably good – not only the specialist makeup on modeling characters, but also the more subtle uses of makeup on others, like Ruby for example, giving the looks of people who mostly care about their, well, looks.

The performances are also quite good, from Elle Fanning as the timid and minimalistic Jesse and Jena Malone’s portrayal of Ruby’s sexuality, to Heathcote and Lee’s conveyance of Gigi and Sarah as experienced but struggling models overshadowed and reaching their breaking points. Karl Glusman plays Jesse’s boyfriend Dean, a sentimentalist whose ideals are considered naïve by the industry Jesse becomes a part of. Keanu Reeves plays as the motel manager Hank, who is truly written as contemptible through relentless rudeness. One should take note of the characters Roberta (Christina Hendricks), the piece-of-work agent who promises Jesse fame, Desmond Harrington as the photographer Jack, who gives a creepily stone-faced performance with a seriously uncomfortable feel to it, and Alessandro Nivola as the Fashion Designer, a sociopath with particular ideas of beauty and a slightly sophisticated demeanor. The three are central to the manipulation of Jesse and the progression of her corruption.

Upon a basic dissection the film, one may come to the conclusion that it is symbolic of how the modeling industry consumes the innocent, but there is much more to analyse. As one other such example, the glowing symbol of the three triangles creating the impression of a fourth, as seen the hallucinogenic runway sequence, could symbolise Ruby, Gigi and Sarah (or perhaps more accurately Roberta, Jack and the Fashion Designer) shaping and surrounding Jesse’s identity. One may argue that the behavior of certain characters towards the end defies emotional realism when compared to the first and second acts, though this is excusable as the film is supposed to be surrealist piece as there are a few scenes in the first and second acts that meet this intention.

In the opinion expressed in this review, The Neon Demon is one of the best fictional films of the year thus far, not least for its visually interesting and artistic edge, clever storytelling (including great uses of foreshadowing), and gorgeous cinematography and editing. The parts are performed well and characters are functional to the story and its underlying message, though the surreal elements of the third act could arguably be considered abrupt. Refn draws influence from quality cinema, and it shows. It is a thought-provoking film with a plot and symbolism begging to be dissected – definitely worth viewership for those interested in cinema.

Independence Day: Resurgence

Roland Emmerich’s Independence Day: Resurgence is the sequel to his memorable 1996 science fiction film Independence Day, released and taking place twenty years after said movie and its events. Humankind, united in their common interests, pools their resources to combine human and alien technology in preparation for possible future invasions – but the aliens have advanced also. This seems like a logical concept for a sequel. Most of the main cast reprises their roles, save unfortunately for Will Smith, one of the coolest acting personalities of the time and one of the best parts of the first film, while more characters are added as part of this 20-years-later scenario.

The first thing one might notice (besides the futuristic setting) is the painfully on-the-nose dialogue. The establishment of the new characters is far too obvious and unnatural, joking one-liners are inserted in scenes that would otherwise be devastating, and the new characters themselves are lazily created. Liam Hemsworth plays a clichéd reckless rebel who realistically would not be employed in international planetary defense. Jessie T. Usher plays the now grown-up son of Will Smith’s character from the first film, an accomplished pilot following in the footsteps of his late father – and that’s it. The film gives a brief backstory on Hemsworth and Usher’s characters as an excuse as to why the two don’t like each other, but the audience learns nothing about him because there’s nothing else to know! One would think that Jeff Goldblum and the son of Will Smith from the first film would be the protagonists together, but young Hiller is played like a side character at best. In typical contemporary fashion, the film has Usher quote some of Smith’s lines from the first film, but in such a bland and serious way – what can one say but ‘Will Smith he ain’t’? And then there are the roles of Travis Tope and Angelababy, which only exist to insert a romance subplot into the film with no development whatsoever between the two.

The worst character that keeps popping up is Nicolas Wright as Floyd. This character is persistently annoying and contributes nothing to the plot to the point where even the characters tell him he’s useless. And the kicker? Wright is also credited as one of five screenwriters on this project, including the director and James Vanderbilt, who wrote the much better Emmerich film White House Down (2013), but is unfortunately also credited among the screenwriters of the betrayal that is Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man films. The only characters through which the audience can have any enjoyment are those of actors reprising their roles – Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch and Brent Spiner – mostly because they are memorable from the first film, and at least this film presents them as consistent continuations. However, the sheer multitude of characters can leave the audience confused and the lack of focus on these characters, especially the ones who are supposed to be important, begs the argument that the film would have benefitted from a smaller cast.

As a sequel to a disaster movie, the action and effects are a central convention to the genre. While the destruction of buildings used practical effects and alien ships used CGI, the destruction of places like London is entirely computer-generated. Now, one could argue that these are simply updated effects for a new decade, and that’s a fair argument. However, while CGI was relatively new and popular at the time, CGI like this has become common, although one can appreciate the attention to detail. It is an inventive scene where the alien ship, so large that it covers a fraction of the Earth and has its own gravity, rips the city from its foundations and lets it fall to the ground in a fiery cataclysm, raising the level of threat from its predecessor, as a sequel should do. The action scenes have some form of tension, and it’s nice to see the heroes fight the aliens on the ground as well as in the air, even if the aliens aren’t made through practical effects or costumes. The problem is when the characters start making light of disaster situations, like with Goldblum’s line “They like to get the landmarks” when London is being destroyed; this is extremely out of place when the audience is made aware of how many millions of people are dying all over the world in that scene. They also make somewhat of a joke during this part in reference to the nearly iconic destruction of the White House in the first film; the alien ship looks like it’s going to bulldoze the building, but all it does is knock Old Glory off the roof. The tone is imbalanced.

The story has elements and even potential plot holes that weaken it. For example, America has many aliens imprisoned from the last ship; why would they not remove their biomechanical armour that enhances their strength, durability and gives them mind control tentacles? Why does the alien queen have a mouth and vocal chords with which she roars, when the species is established to have neither of those things? Oh yes, there are alien queens now, because the aliens’ telepathy is now made to mean a hive mind, which this film translates to comparability to ants and bees like in James Cameron’s Aliens (1986). The queen even resembles that of the Xenomorphs underneath her armour, at least in the shadows. Not only that, but they establish that killing the queen will win the day Phantom Menace-style. At least in the first film hacking the mothership released a virus into all the other ships as to lead to their downfall. One would think the aliens would have a chain of command to continue their invasion in the event that their queen died. And then there’s the introduction of another alien species that just seems out of place in a film like this, becoming a deus ex machina by the end of the film. And of course, if the studio can exploit the nostalgia of ‘90s children to get them to see this film, surely they can hint at another sequel despite the lack of demand for this one after so much time.

On the surface, the initial premise of Independence Day: Resurgence is not a bad one. However, even if the first film had its flaws, overall the sequel jumps the shark. The editing is really no better than any other movie, though one might notice some incoherencies in the cut from time to time. Its character creation is weak and horribly clichéd, and considering the main characters of the first film were basically a collection of stereotypes, that’s saying a lot. The new characters that the audiences are supposed to care about have no development, too much focus is given to useless side characters or inconsequential subplots, and the new things revealed about the aliens make them uninspired. Independence Day was not a great film, but at least its characters, performances and creativity made it memorable enough to leave an impact. Yes it looks familiar, but this film is badly written, unoriginal, unfocused, and exhibits the laziness of contemporary films that exploit and prey on the nostalgia of their audiences. Disappointing.