Movie Review: Rebecca (2020)

Rebecca (2020) directed by Ben Wheatley

This lavish remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic (based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier) follows the plot--a young lady's assistant (Lily James) is traveling with a boorish older rich woman in France when they run into Maxim de Winter (Armie Hammer). Max is fabulously wealthy with an English seaside estate called Manderley. He's also a widower, his wife Rebecca having died in a horrible accident at sea two years earlier. Max and the young lady hit it off and he proposes to her. After a whirlwind marriage and honeymoon, they move back to Manderley. Manderley is run by Mrs. Danvers (Kristin Scott Thomas), the lady's assistant of Rebecca and now the manager of the house. She is quite frigid towards the new Mrs. de Winter, who is already having trouble adjusting to her new, much higher social status. A lot of tension builds as her life at Manderley is haunted by the continuing presence of Rebecca.

The movie faithfully follows the story-beats of the drama. The start seems more like a romantic drama than a psychological thriller like previous versions. James and Thomas are adequate in their roles but Hammer is very flat as Maxim, who is supposed to be temperamental. I didn't find any performances emotionally engaging. This movie is a bit more frank about Rebecca being an awful person who manipulated others for her own pleasure and does a good job of showing Mrs. Danvers obsession with Rebecca. The transition of the new Mrs. de Winter from mousy and withdrawn to self-assured and self-assertive is not quite believable and is played out in a very superficial (and unattractive) way in the last couple of minutes of the film. Rebecca is a great story but this is not a great retelling.

Not recommended--the BBC 1990s version or the Hitchcock film are so much better.

Movie Review: Free Fire (2017)

Free Fire (2017) co-written and directed by Ben Wheatley

Some Irishmen meet up with a South African arms dealer at a warehouse in Boston during the 1970s. Naturally there's some tension since money and weapons are exchanged. At least, that's what's supposed to happen. One of the low-level guys on the Irish side had a run in the night before with one of the low level guys on the arms dealer side. The higher ups try to make them patch up their differences but it doesn't work. Soon enough everyone is shooting at everyone else and crawling around the floor trying not to get shot. The movie has about twenty minutes before the bullets start flying, then the rest is the extended shootout--your standard "arms deal gone wrong" premise limited to one location and playing out in real time.

Director Wheatley gives the action more realism than is typical for an action film. There's no slow motion or people flying through the air. But it isn't too realistic. A lot of people get shot in the shoulder or arm or leg, keep moving around, and later on get shot in the same spot. The injuries at first look convincing but they get more unbelievable as the story goes on, even though they don't get particularly gorier or more outrageous (the only exceptions being the guy whose head is run over and the guy who winds up on fire). The semi-realistic violence doesn't quite work though it does make for a tonally lighter action drama.

The realism and grit are also lightened a bit by comedic elements. At one point, one character says, "I can't remember whose side I'm on." The plot is a bit messy, as if having the cool gun fight was more important than having a coherent story. The comedic elements are fun but they don't help the story or make the characters more appealing (except for the gun dealer played by Sharlto Copley, who, as an actor, tries hard to go over the top in this film).

The weak story could have been okay--a typical action film runs on a minimal plot and the appeal of the characters (which sometimes is just the appeal of the actors). This film taps into the appeal of the cast (Cillian Murphy, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, and Sharlto Copley) but their characters aren't solid enough to make them sympathetic enough. By the last third, I didn't care who would come out on top.

I can't recommend this film. It wasn't anything terrible, but it tried to go for something different and just didn't find anything particularly interesting to show viewers.

Movie Review: High-Rise (2015)

High-Rise (2015) directed by Ben Wheatley

Dr. Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) moves into a new and futuristic high-rise on the outskirts of London in 1975. His apartment is on the twenty-fifth of forty floors. The very top is occupied by Mr. Royal (Jeremy Irons), the architect and owner of the building. He's also constructing four others in the vicinity with a lake planned in the middle. The building has an indoor pool and a grocery store that is used by everybody. The one quirk of the building is that all the poorer, lower-class people live on the lower floors while richer, higher-class people live higher up. Royal's intention is to create a catalyst for interaction and change. While he intends improvement, things actually start to fall apart. Living in the lower floors is Mr. Wilder. He is upset at various injustices and slights he sees--power outages that take longer to resolve down below or the pool being reserved for rich people while children (most all of whom live in the lower half of the building) can't use it. He stirs up trouble. Naturally, Laing is caught in the middle, literally and figuratively.

The movie is based on a novel by J. G. Ballard published in the 1970s as a satire of the coming economic disparity he assumed would happen under Margaret Thatcher. Laing is a bachelor and a doctor of physiology. He keeps himself in great shape and is interested in participating in all the parties both above and below him, as well as the occasional sexual encounter (it is the 1970s, after all). He's a new-comer so he gives the viewer a chance to discover things about the building. The rich people make fun of him though Royal takes a liking to Laing and shares his intentions and desires with Laing. Royal is a figurehead for the rich just as Wilder is for the poor.

Wilder is a social climber who can't get anywhere and resents it. He's a TV documentarian who has been out of work. His very pregnant wife is befriended by Laing (who winds up just taking advantage of her). Meanwhile, the building descends into chaos as the grocery store is cleaned out and the pool becomes a place for the poor people to wash clothes. Power is intermittent throughout the building; water comes and goes as well. The clash between the rich and the poor gets violent several times and conditions get so bad people wind up eating pet food from the store, and eventually the pets themselves.

As satires go, this is very unsatisfying. In spite of the claims that rich and poor are different, they both are cruel and thoughtless to each other and even to themselves. The movie tries to be realistic about the social interactions but the situation becomes so absurd that the realism is at odds with the satire. Why don't people just leave? Why aren't other authorities brought in? If the point of the film is to show how a small but isolated and stratified society will implode why are these questions brought up within the film? The film makers don't understand the role of exaggeration in satire. The satire looks really weak in comparison to movies like Brazil or A Clockwork Orange (which is clearly an inspiration and source for the movie makers). Or even Idiocracy. The ridiculous elements of the story are taken too seriously, leaving the film empty and unconvincing.

I didn't find this movie enjoyable and wouldn't recommend it.