Trance (2013) Reviews

• Aims for complexity but is unnecessarily confusing – end result isn't "oh wow" but "oh for f's sake"

  bob the moo2013-11-20

  I was quite looking forward to Trance; I had heard a critic say that it was a real effort by Danny Boyle to get out from under the "national treasure" status he had obtained by how well he opened the Olympics in 2012 and that as a result Trance was very much against that image. He was correct because this is a very graphic film in many ways but before that we get to the plot. The plot is simple – an art robbery goes wrong for some reason, with the painting lost when the inside man hides it but forgets where he hid it due to damage inflicted during the robbery. The gang go to a hypnotherapist to try to get it out of him and from here it only gets messy. I can see what the plot was trying to do because it is constantly twisting and turning as minds are messed with; actions may or may not be programmed; events may or may not be happening and those who appear in control may or may not actually be in control and, even if they are (or aren't), they soon won't be (or will be) because everything will change in a minute. I guess the aim is that the film was aiming for a narrative similar to that of Inception or Usual Suspects, where the story the audience is being told may not be the real story at all. At the end of both these films the effect is to be impressed by how well it did it and I'm sure for many like myself there was the desire to watch it again to be able to see the film in the new context you have. With Trance I did not have this feeling, when things did fall into place I only felt that it was such a messy pile that it had fallen into and I had not enjoyed or been engaged in the manner in which it got there or indeed where it got me at all. You can sense it wants to be smarter and more thrilling that it is, but where Usual Suspects is slick and stylish on its journey, this really just bumbles and blasts it way to the finish hoping it can carry you with it by force alone. This force comes in the style of Boyle's direction and mostly it is good from this point of view – it is a good looking film but it does really feel like he is forcing the excess for the sake of it rather than it being part of the film. So the very extreme scenes of gore felt like the complexity of the story – there for the sake of being there. Of course this is not to say that I didn't appreciate the extreme (almost "no holds barred") nudity from Rosario Dawson, but again even for the teenage boy in my head, it felt forced and unnatural (the use of her nude – not her as a nude). The cast go along with it the best they can. McAvoy is good while Cassel always has a mean presence. Support cast is decent but I am really not sure about Dawson. It is not that she herself is not good, it is just that the film asks too much of her character and it is clear that Dawson doesn't always know who she is be – in any one scene she can be what is required, but in terms of making it one whole character or making links between these scenes, she cannot do it. I do not think the fault is all her – I guess the relationship with Boyle didn't help with this aspect, but for sure her performance seems unsure and a bit erratic. Trance will try to bluster and bully you into thinking you're watching something really smart and well structured, but this is not the case. The film is confusing for the sake of it, excessive for the sake of it and ultimately tries to ride this to a satisfying conclusion but in the end you will not be left with feeling that you immediately want to see it again but rather the lingering doubt as to whether you should have bothered in the first place.

• Danny Boyle continues on his campaign to never repeat genres - Trance falls just short of greatness

  thejoshl2013-04-11

  Danny Boyle continues on his campaign to never repeat genres by giving us a stunning psychological thriller that crosses so many boundaries I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable even using the word thriller - the only thing for certain is that it is definitely psychological. Borrowing elements of film noir this exhilarating ride is just short of greatness. Just as you could imagine from the title; Trance is a visual, aural and intellectual dream-like experience. Trance stars James McAvoy as Simon, an auctioneer who gets mixed up with the wrong group of thieves. Simon's auction house is selling a painting £27 million (Roughly $41 million) when a thief by the name of Franck (Vincent Cassel) breaks in and attempts to steal it. Before Franck can do so he and his crew notice the painting has gone missing and Simon is the only person that knows where it is. Unfortunately for Franck, Simon suffers a serious blow to the head during all the chaos and cannot remember where it is. After trying to divulge the location from him proves unsuccessful they turn to a hypnotist (Rosario Dawson) who can unbury any memory and that's where the audience joins in this psychological trip to find the painting. This film will leave you as hypnotized as any member of the cast was I assure you. Dawson and McAvoy deliver excellent performances; they handle their roles with such control that every little subtle facial movement reveals more than it should, especially within Dawson's character. Vincent Cassel alongside them brings the story to full force and together with Danny Boyle they all bring Joe Aherne's gracefully twitchy screenplay to life. Boyle interestingly enough stuck to his 18A rating not willing to dilute his story so he could hit a broader audience; the man isn't afraid to have graphic imagery in his film like other directors who have attempted the genre in a similar way (i.e. Chris Nolan, Inception). The cinematography is - as always with Boyle – beautiful and in fact rather charming in its own sense. He handles the camera with such precision it's impossible to question his cinematic choices. The coolest aspect of the film being his declaration of war on the senses with a chaotic soundtrack and fast paced editing. The film however is not without flaws. The film so heavily relies on tricking the audience that it's actually very easy to get lost and unfortunately lose interest in the film. While I didn't particularly feel this way I can see why others would have. While I've always been fascinated by the idea of an unreliable narrator to tell your story, when you're switching between three perspectives trying to decide which one is reliable it can sometimes take too much focus away from your plot. Besides that Trance is an intellectual delight with enough twists and turns to keep the majority of people interested. Its performances, style and tremendous attention to detail is enough make a very balanced film. If you love movies similar to Memento this is definitely something to check out. 7.5/10 Be sure to check out my review site: thejoshlreviews.com, and my video review of this film here http://youtu.be/xpCWBi5N6ew

• And it had such a potential...

  jovanroland2013-07-16

  Before you think or say anything, no. I am not a fan of 'flying-cars- and-huge-explosions' movies. I love movies for the story they tell, and this is exactly why I ended up not liking this movie. The way I see it, this movie is a failed try of copying 'Inception' or whatever, but it utterly failed in producing the same charm 'Inception' had. The story had such great potential, and I liked the whole hypnosis thing, it was actually a really fresh idea. Halfway through the movie, though, I became confused. Until the end of the movie, I didn't know what was real, what wasn't, who wanted what, who was plotting with whom and against whom. And in the end, they revealed one of the worst plot twists ever. To summarize: *MAJOR SPOILER ALERT* A man slaps a woman, so she decides to be a total b**ch about it, and hypnotize the man into forgetting her (but not really?), gambling, getting indebted, ruining his life completely and stealing a bloody valuable painting for her, which she would later not sell, hang it up on the wall of her living room instead, and show it to the main bad guy over a Tablet, and say a few irrational sentences, which makes for a completely confusing ending, and you end up not knowing why she wanted the painting at all, and why she would get in touch with a man who would want the painting for himself. If a man hits you, you put a damn restraining order on him, woman, not cause a criminal calamity just so you could get back at him. *END OF SPOILERS* All in all, it's a failed attempt of a movie that tries so hard to have a complicated, mysterious and intriguing story. And don't tell me that's what makes the movie 'charming'. It doesn't. The 'confusion' element is just not well implemented. At all. It's awful.

• Boyle Sending Audiences Into A Trance

  gregwetherall2013-03-26

  2012 was the year that Danny Boyle became a national hero for many in his domestic Britain after masterminding a stunning opening ceremony of the Olympics. Seemingly able to satisfy even the sternest of sceptics with a rabid display of flair and flamboyance, he became elevated to a hallowed level of reverence. In the weeks that followed, he seemed to acquire an approval rating that most politicians would have gawped at, green eyed with envy. He stands tall as an icon of the every man, with an unaffected regional accent and amiable demeanour, with a dose of easy going charm. Beneath this genial appearance is a voracious talent that is testament to many years of hard work alongside any natural ingenuity. Lauded with plaudits and success, it would appear he can do no wrong. Or can he? Returning to his day job, Boyle re-enters the film arena with Trance, a London-based psychological thriller that rushes around with about as much calm and patience as an ADHD sufferer. He has said that he was finishing this project whilst he was working on the Olympic opening ceremony, and that this should be viewed as its 'dark, evil cousin'. Starring Vincent Cassel, James McAvoy and Rosario Dawson, Trance undertakes a card shuffling roll call of sympathy and understanding. Early on, McAvoy's Simon misplaces a valuable painting. Under the persuasive encouragement of Cassel's band of criminals, he ends up seeking the counsel and help of hypnotist, Elizabeth (Dawson), to retrace his steps. Although the backdrop for the film is that of a common theme; a heist, it is merely window dressing for what is an indeed dark and, heck, schizophrenic joyride into the mind. With a nodded cap to the disorientating freewheeling narrative of Nolan's Memento, this film glides along a bumpy path. It takes pleasure in scrutinising the tricks and tics of memory. Boyle plays chess with the players and moves them around with the devilish glee of a ringmaster induced with the cruel egomaniacal urge of a cartoon villain. You can almost hear the grind of his hands rubbing together as he plots each skittish twist and turn. This is aided, helpfully, by Joe Aherne's source material and the screenplay's joyfully itchy nature. The film also has echoes of Inception. But with added sex. Daring to make this an adult film and not dilute it in order to make it accessible for a wider and broader audience, he does not eschew from graphic and explicit depictions. He performs with the cinematic frisson of a British Tarantino, but without Quentin's fondness for a baggy screenplay. Having said that, and although such comparisons make for neat phrases for critics to write, Danny Boyle is very much his own man. His films are all underpinned by his stylistic stamps of authorship. In fact, as it tends to be a defining quality of all of Boyle's films, this one does not disappoint in its assault on the senses. The thumping soundtrack plays havoc on the ears and the fast cuts fix into the eyes with the precision of a laser beam. Not everything is welcomed wholeheartedly and with open arms, however. As much as the virtues of Trance are easy to spot and identify, it is also somewhat flawed. So much emphasis seems to be placed on tripping the audience (in every possible sense) that the film renders itself a little distant to the sense of touch. The characters are slippery and the consequence of such skillful toying with the assumed integrity (or lack thereof) of the protagonists leads inevitably to an arms space from empathy. In addition to this, the relentlessly florid displays of directorial showmanship makes the pacing a little too one-sided. So persistent is the pace that the runtime feels a little longer than the 101 minutes that it forms and you may well emerge exhausted as the lights come up. Maybe the frenetic nature of Trance is a deliberate counterpoint to the relative stasis of 127 Hours. As it stands, this film zips along at a speed that would make even Usain Bolt baulk and cower with fear. Any quibbles mentioned do not deviate the bottom line verdict. This film is, on balance, a mighty success. It may not be as charming and lovable as the Oscar garnering Slumdog Millionaire, but it is a relentlessly entertaining thrill ride. It stands as an hour and forty minutes at a cinematic equivalent of the best theme park you could name. Hold on tight and buckle in.

• Utterly ridiculous

  shelkara-603-6844562013-04-21

  I have been a fan of every other Danny Boyle movie up until last night, when I saw Trance. In its way it is riveting. The pace is unrelenting, and the soundtrack does its job admirably, creating a tense atmosphere and general air of sexiness. The acting for the most part was skilled, but I'm sorry to say James McAvoy (whom I have loved in numerous other movies) didn't play this particular character on the right note. Briefly, the plot involves (Note: POSSIBLE SPOILERS) a priceless Goya painting that goes missing during a botched heist at an auction. James McAvoy plays Simon, an employee of the auction house, and he seemingly tries to get the painting to safety, out of the thieves' hands. In the process, the main thief, Franck (played by Vincent Cassel), hits Simon on the head, causing serious injury, and steals the bag containing the painting. But Franck then discovers that the painting is not in the bag, and when Simon finally recovers from his injuries, he has amnesia and cannot remember where he hid the painting. SPOILER: It becomes clear he was working in cahoots with the thieves, and he goes to see a hypnotherapist in the hope that the therapy will jog his memory. It becomes clear very early on from that point that there is more to the therapist, Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), than is immediately apparent. Insidious games are afoot. Where this film lost me is in the wild inconsistency of the character Simon. Yes, because of his memory loss he is an unreliable narrator. What was clear to me is that here is a character whose torment is deeply buried, but is brought back to the surface by a blow to the head. In my opinion, James McAvoy treated it too lightly. He has shown intensity in other roles, but it seemed to me that he didn't bring that intensity to bear here. The character is supposed to be deeply confused, but it comes off as mere puzzlement instead. But getting back to unreliability, even in the flashbacks, it was clear to me that the impact of hypnotherapy on the character's actions was applied only when it served to further the plot. If you were following a logical path, (SPOILER) hypnotherapy could've solved all of Simon's (not to mention Elizabeth's) dilemmas. I mean, if you can control someone via hypnotherapy, how far does that control extend? The film blatantly skips over this, leaving a gaping plot hole. In the latter half, the film starts to descend into absurdity...without getting too spoilery, all I'll say is: shaving scene. After the movie was over, just thinking back on this scene made me hoot with laughter. Another note: Vincent Cassel had a thankless role in Franck. Here is an actor who can really dig his teeth into complex characters, and Franck is merely a plot device. Cassel is wasted in this role. This film also features what is a particular pet peeve of mine, which I realize is entirely subjective: all of the main characters are more or less amoral. A movie without a moral center is a rudderless one for me. You could argue that (SPOILER) Elizabeth's motives have a moral origin, but her subsequent actions negate this for me. However, it could be in keeping with an early observation put forward in this film about greed -- maybe this film is just an exercise in a portrayal of our capacity for greed (and our supposed willingness to excuse ourselves our sins) and that is all. In the end, however, it all rang hollow for me.