Free Fire

Cast: Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer, Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Jack Reynor, Babou Ceesay, Enzo Cilenti, Sam Riley, Michael Smiley, Noah Taylor

Director: Ben Wheatley

Writer: Amy Jump, Ben Wheatley


When it comes to action films, there is often a certain detached quality that can make them somewhat unfulfilling to watch. As much as I enjoy, say, watching James Bond take on a sinister villain or a dozen henchmen, it can get a little disaffecting when Bond is able to shrug off every blow he’s dealt, every car crash he’s in and every injury he suffers from an elaborate, deadly gadget like it’s nothing. Sometimes it’s just more fun when people get hurt. Wheatley takes this to an extreme with Free Fire, a movie where the injuries suffered are altogether smaller in scale than the atypical Hollywood blockbuster (single bullet wounds, falling rocks, shards of broken glass, etc.) but are still painful enough to affect the outcome of this haphazard gunfight. Not only is it more authentic, it’s funny as well because many of these injuries like banging your fingers or falling over and spraining your leg are the kinds of things that we can relate to. To see these kinds of things happen in a setting such as this makes for a thoroughly enjoyable farce.

The film is set in 1970s Boston and starts off when Stevo (Sam Riley) and Bernie (Enzo Cilente) set out to meet two IRA members, Chris (Cillian Murphy) and Frank (Michael Smiley) for a weapons deal. They meet outside a warehouse and wait there for Christine (Brie Larson), an intermediary, and Ord (Armie Hammer), a representative for the arms dealer they are all meeting. They are led inside and are introduced to Vernon (Sharlto Copley), the arms dealer, and his associates Martin (Babou Ceesday), Harry (Jack Reynor) and Gordon (Noah Taylor). As the weapons deal proceeds, a series of tensions, grudges and misunderstandings between the gangsters emerge and intensify until they finally erupt violently. Once the shooting begins, everyone in the room scatters and takes cover and must then work out how to escape with either the money, the weapons, or even just their lives.

In terms of plot, Free Fire is essentially a 90-minute gunfight (kind of like how Mad Max: Fury Road was essentially a two-hour car chase). The fun comes in how the gunfight unfolds and how the characters interact with one another. Wheatley has a masterful command of both the geography and the continuity with a keen, continuous awareness of where each character is and what kind of injury they’ve suffered. The whole act unfolds much like a game of chess. Whenever any of the pieces make their moves, Wheatley knows exactly what the outcome will be depending on the other pieces’ positions on the board and acts accordingly. He knows who is in whose sights, he knows which characters are incapacitated or handicapped by which injuries, and he knows where each character wants to go or who/what it is they want to reach. Throw in some external elements like the rubble or the arrival of some extra shooters to add a little chaos into the mixture and what we get is 90-minutes of wonderfully directed anarchy.

The wounds suffered here are largely minor, most of them being inflicted on such parts as the hands, ankles and ears, but are still so painful that, once each character has suffered one injury or another, the bungling shootout finds itself at a stalemate. There’s a lot of ducking and crouching involved as at least half of these characters are unable to even remain upright. The cinematography follows suit, making use of low angles and slow crawls to covey this sense of being pinned down. The film also take place in real time, or at least feels like it does, making us appreciate the agony and anxiety overcoming these goons with each and every painstaking second. The longer the impasse is drawn out, the more desperate and wrathful they become, and so the more intense the fight becomes.

Free Fire is a crazy film and so it allows its cast to have a bit of fun, dressing them up in flamboyant costumes and letting all of them, especially Copley, chew up all the scenery they like. It’s funny enough watching a whole bunch of incompetent criminals trying to kill each other, but it’s even funnier when some of them are thoroughly loathsome and unlikeable people who probably deserve to be shot. The clash in personalities is awesome and the actors are all having the time of their lives playing them. The film has drawn many comparisons to Reservoir Dogs and, like Tarantino, Wheatley has found that delicate balance where we are drawn in enough that the violence feels real but are detached enough that it we can still recognise it as movie violence. That’s why we can wince at all the bloody, fiery, head-crushing moments and yet still laugh at them. This film is neither Wheatley’s nor Jump’s most ambitious or surprising film, but it does what it does very well and makes for good watching from beginning to end.

★★★★

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Cast: Lily James, Sam Riley, Jack Huston, Bella Heathcote, Douglas Booth, Matt Smith, Charles Dance, Lena Headey

Director: Burr Steers

Writer: Burr Steers


The film’s gimmick is a simple one. It’s Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice… with zombies. Such a bizarre, outwardly and clearly comical idea requires a clash in tones in order to work. On the one hand the film needs to capture the spirit of Austen’s tale of love, marriage and manners through its setting, characters, plot and use of language. On the other there needs to be a clear satirical element at play where the zombies can be employed for comic effect. It is often the case however that the film instead tries to amplify the action and gore to provide its audience with thrills and tension. While this isn’t necessarily a bad way to go about making this film, the clash does not end up working. Steers seems unsure about how far he ought to take the comedy, action and romance and ends up botching the balance between all three. It is a film that jumps erratically between parody and thriller and I found that the more seriously it tried to take itself, the more my interest waned.

In 19th century England the country has been overrun by zombies and so the practice of combatting them has been ingrained into the culture. Mr. Bennett (Charles Dance) has therefore seen to it that his five daughters have all been trained in the arts of civility, manners and zombie slaying. The Bennett sisters, Elizabeth (Lily James), Jane (Bella Heathcote), Kitty (Suki Waterhouse), Lydia (Ellie Bamber) and Mary (Millie Brady), must face the pressures of marriage and scandal whilst also dispatching of the living dead. While Jane finds an ideal suitor in the form of the dashing Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth), Elizabeth is uninterested in the very idea of marriage. Mr. Darcy (Sam Riley), an equally adept zombie slayer, is also opposed to the idea of marriage but finds himself reluctantly smitten with Elizabeth upon witnessing her performance in battle. As Elizabeth and Darcy confront their feelings towards each other they discover that England might be in greater danger than they feared.

For me the most enjoyable parts of the film were the more comedic bits. I liked the idea of how marriage proposals and costume balls were still considered important in a world ravaged by apocalypse, I liked how the Bennett sisters would prepare for such occasions by concealing knives in their stockings and garters and I liked how over the top such characters as Lena Headey’s Lady Catherine de Bourgh were. There are however too many instances where the film, in spite of its absurd premise, tries to be taken seriously. Instead of satirising Elizabeth and Darcy’s relationship, it tries to convey a genuine romantic bond between them. Instead of utilising the zombies for laughs, it tries to make them intimidating and the combat scenes exciting. A more skilful and clever method might have enabled this approach to work, but it instead comes across as weak. The attempts at creating tension rely more on jump scares than on atmosphere, the combat scenes are shot nonsensically and the character interactions lack substance.

This film is absolutely packed with strong actors who deliver far more than the material warranted. Lily James in particular brings incredible energy to the role of Elizabeth and, between this film, Cinderella, Downton Abbey and War and Peace, looks set to be the new ‘it girl’ of costume dramas. Her performance shows a better blend of comedy and drama than most of her co-stars. Riley, for instance, has made a stronger attempt to play his character for laughs, emphasising Darcy’s stiffness and dourness. Simply put his performance works for the funny parts of the film but not the dramatic parts. The funniest performance by far is provided by Matt Smith as the hapless Parson Collins. The rest of the cast members do what they can but can only bring so much to their roles without a clear idea of the tone or direction required.

I would have liked to simply sit back and enjoy a fun comedy about zombies in Victorian England bringing death and destruction to a world of class, etiquette and romance. Unfortunately when a film such as this tries to take itself seriously, I must in turn take it seriously as a response. As a romance this film is flat in spite of the strong performance provided by James. As a thriller it is messy and unexciting. As a comedy it kind of works, but only in brief intervals. It seems to me that Steers didn’t know how to approach this material, perhaps because he didn’t know which audience to aim for. Those watching the film for the zombies are going to expect blood, gore and violence in spades. Those looking for a satirical take on Austen will be more interested in the humour and social mores. The failure to execute a balance between the two will likely leave both parties unsatisfied. This film will have its fans I’m sure, but it won’t find an audience or a following.

★★