Captain America: Civil War, Demolition, Son of Saul The Film Review


Captain America: Civil War, Demolition, Son of Saul

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Captain America: Civil War, Demolition, Son of Saul. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Snooker in Sheffield and Formula 1, that is all in Sports day at 6:30pm.

:00:00.:00:00.

Now, it is time for The Film Review. Hello and welcome to

:00:00.:00:20.

The Film Review on BBC News. To take us through this week's

:00:21.:00:24.

cinema releases is Mark Kermode. Well, we have Captain America: Civil

:00:25.:00:36.

War, which is the latest superhero blockbuster. We have Demolition,

:00:37.:00:48.

then you film by director Jean-Marc Vallee, and Son of Saul, a powerful

:00:49.:00:52.

and harrowing Oscar winner. -- the new film. Let's begin with the

:00:53.:00:56.

superhero blockbuster? The weight thing about Captain America: Civil

:00:57.:00:59.

War is that it shares the basic setup with Batman versus Superman, I

:01:00.:01:03.

know that you are a huge fan of that. It proved divisive, but

:01:04.:01:09.

audience turned out in huge numbers. The film also features a conflict

:01:10.:01:13.

between two heroic types who should basically be on the same side. The

:01:14.:01:17.

conflict is set in motion by the fallout from collateral damage the

:01:18.:01:21.

previous instalments. In the wake of one catastrophe to many, the

:01:22.:01:28.

enhanced people, the Adventures, they are told they have to be

:01:29.:01:31.

brought under the control of an authority. Iron Man thinks it is a

:01:32.:01:33.

good idea, Captain America doesn't. Let's have a look.

:01:34.:01:39.

Someone dies on your watch, are you giving up? This document shift the

:01:40.:01:48.

blame. Sorry, that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations

:01:49.:01:53.

we are talking about. But the word security council, not Shield, or

:01:54.:01:58.

hydro... It is run by people with agendas, and they change. Shut it

:01:59.:02:06.

down, stop it. You chose to do that. If we sign it, we surrender the

:02:07.:02:10.

right to choose. What if the panel sends us somewhere we don't think

:02:11.:02:13.

that we should go. What if we need to go somewhere and they don't let

:02:14.:02:18.

us? We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are ours. If we don't

:02:19.:02:22.

do it now, it will be done to us later. You get the feeling from that

:02:23.:02:27.

that what it may be is something deeply political, and weighing it up

:02:28.:02:32.

carefully there? That was a brief moment of responsibility. But what

:02:33.:02:37.

it is is a lot of fun. After Batman versus Superman, it is colourful, it

:02:38.:02:42.

is a film that asks you to enjoy rather than endure it. There are

:02:43.:02:47.

moments when we had so many heroes on the set at one time, it begins to

:02:48.:02:52.

resemble a fancy dress cost play marathon. With people in various

:02:53.:02:56.

capes and leotards running this way and that way. The thing that saves

:02:57.:03:04.

it, I think it shares with Batman versus Superman that it is too long

:03:05.:03:09.

for its own good. It is a movie where longevity is not its strength.

:03:10.:03:12.

The entire way to really get the strength it is made with affection,

:03:13.:03:19.

enjoyment, and made to engage the audience in a way that is positive.

:03:20.:03:23.

It is interesting, having seen it after Snyder's film, it was so tied

:03:24.:03:28.

up in its own edginess, and downbeat quality. What it forgot,

:03:29.:03:34.

unfortunately, that what the film ought to do is make you enjoy them.

:03:35.:03:41.

There is definitely the sense that 2.5 hours, it is 30 minutes too

:03:42.:03:46.

long, but it has enough that is upbeat and lively and fun. And

:03:47.:03:51.

intelligent, to actually see it through. It is celebrating its own

:03:52.:03:55.

Jon Ryan? It is, and doing so rather well. What of Demolition? It is the

:03:56.:04:01.

latest from Jean-Marc Vallee, I am a fan of this director and Dallas

:04:02.:04:06.

buyers club. Jake Gyllenhaal is an investment banker, he is widowed. He

:04:07.:04:11.

begins to write letters to a vending company complaining about a bad

:04:12.:04:14.

bending experience, they quickly turn into confessional letters,

:04:15.:04:18.

where he tells them about all of his inner problems. They are read by

:04:19.:04:22.

Naomi Watts in customer services. She goes to his house and meet him,

:04:23.:04:27.

she develops a relationship with him and his offbeat son. They discover

:04:28.:04:31.

everything is a metaphor, in this scene they are smashing up his

:04:32.:04:38.

house, a metaphor for him attempting to deal with other problems of his

:04:39.:04:41.

life. My problem with the film is that it has strong performances, and

:04:42.:04:44.

I like Jean-Marc Vallee as a director. He is generous and gives

:04:45.:04:50.

actors space to do their best work. But, the script is trite and

:04:51.:04:54.

contrived. It drifts into an area which I always have a problem with,

:04:55.:04:59.

it is self-consciously quirky. It is the whole idea that I am writing

:05:00.:05:03.

letters to a vending comedy because of my bad experience but I'm telling

:05:04.:05:08.

you the inner depth of my tragedy... It never comes together. I went in

:05:09.:05:12.

with a lot of goodwill because I like the cast and director, it isn't

:05:13.:05:16.

terrible but not as good as it ought to be or, more problematic, as good

:05:17.:05:23.

as it thinks it is. The next one, you mentioned at the start, it has

:05:24.:05:27.

won awards. It is clearly very harrowing. It is an extraordinary

:05:28.:05:33.

film, Son of Saul, it won the award for foreign language film.

:05:34.:05:37.

Unbelievably harrowing, set in Auschwitz, 1944. It centres on Saul,

:05:38.:05:41.

a Hungarian Jewish prisoner, forced to work in the gas chambers, the

:05:42.:05:47.

environment is pure evil. The expression on which we focus for a

:05:48.:05:51.

lot of the film is one of mortified catatonia, until he decides to try

:05:52.:05:55.

to arrange a proper burial for one of the victims, a young boy who he

:05:56.:05:58.

took to be his own. This is a clip. The subject is overwhelming, and the

:05:59.:07:18.

film is, at times, almost unwatchable, I think it should be.

:07:19.:07:21.

It also confronts the problem of what you may or may not show when

:07:22.:07:25.

dealing with a subject like this. As you saw in the last image, the

:07:26.:07:29.

camera focuses on Saul's phase, for a great deal of the drama all you

:07:30.:07:35.

see is his face. -- face. His shoulders and head from behind. The

:07:36.:07:39.

film has a narrow frame in which basically you are seeing atrocities

:07:40.:07:45.

reflected in his face, the face of the actor. What it means is that

:07:46.:07:49.

essentially it is dealing with the problem of what you can and cannot

:07:50.:07:54.

betray, and somehow by narrowing the visual scope it broadens the impact

:07:55.:08:00.

of the film -- portray. The soundtrack adds to that overwhelming

:08:01.:08:04.

sense of horror. I cannot remember the last time a film affected me so

:08:05.:08:09.

profoundly. I think it is a film that is, as I said before, harrowing

:08:10.:08:14.

and, at times, almost unwatchable. I think it is a film of real moral

:08:15.:08:19.

purpose. It has been put together by somebody who is dealing with this

:08:20.:08:23.

very, very difficult subject with restraint and dignity, and trying to

:08:24.:08:28.

find anaesthetic language which fits the subject matter. I cannot stress

:08:29.:08:35.

how much it is, as I said, an overpowering film, but it is one of

:08:36.:08:40.

serious intent, and really quite overwhelming. We get a clear sense

:08:41.:08:49.

from you all about that. Let me move on to others that are already out

:08:50.:08:54.

that you rate maybe not as highly as that but highly nonetheless. What

:08:55.:08:59.

would you pick? You know that The Jungle Book is doing fantastically

:09:00.:09:02.

well and there is a reason for it. It works as a piece of family

:09:03.:09:05.

entertainment, people were nervous when it was coming out about whether

:09:06.:09:09.

or not you could revisit this much loved classic. I think that they

:09:10.:09:14.

have done. They've done so in a way that is visually arresting and

:09:15.:09:17.

manages to blend elements of the Disney film with elements of the

:09:18.:09:21.

Rudyard Kipling book. It is no surprise and it is doing so well and

:09:22.:09:25.

I am cheered it is. I went into it thinking, how can you revisit it?

:09:26.:09:30.

They do it really well. That is The Jungle Book. What are we selecting

:09:31.:09:37.

if we are going to sit at home and watch something? Ran, we are in the

:09:38.:09:44.

Shakespeare anniversary, it is a take on King Lear, transposing the

:09:45.:09:49.

story to Japan, the story of the broken arrows. It first came out, I

:09:50.:09:53.

think it was the most expensive film to have been made in Japan at the

:09:54.:09:58.

time. It had a brief theatrical reissue where they did a Falque

:09:59.:10:04.

restoration of it. Watching it again now, you talk about films having a

:10:05.:10:13.

visual language, it is pure cinema. It is a fine piece of work that has

:10:14.:10:16.

stood the test of time, it is breathtaking, with other things

:10:17.:10:19.

going on with Shakespeare adaptations at the moment, it is one

:10:20.:10:23.

that nails it for me. It is available on Blu-ray. The lovely

:10:24.:10:28.

thing about that is that you get pin sharp resolution. It has to be seen

:10:29.:10:33.

in the best possible circumstances. Ran, on Blu-ray, it is also on DVD,

:10:34.:10:38.

but for me, Blu-ray. Mark, thank you, as ever.

:10:39.:10:41.

A quick reminder before we go that you'll find more film news

:10:42.:10:44.

and reviews from across the BBC online.

:10:45.:10:46.

And you can catch up with our previous shows on iPlayer.

:10:47.:10:53.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS