Showing posts with label full price. Show all posts
Showing posts with label full price. Show all posts

Saturday, 25 January 2014

This Gun For Hire (1942)

Lover without a heart...killer without a conscience!

Incredibly efficient opening, establishing Alan Ladd’s character, Philip Raven, as a probable hired killer about to set off on a mission. Within the first few minutes, the boundaries of his character's moral code, and his natural sympathies, are defined by the choices he makes, in a rapid succession of encounters with a kitten, a woman who is mean to the kitten, Raven's intended victim, the attractive young female companion of his intended victim, and a little handicapped girl. Who or what will he kill, hurt or treat well? (Raven's relationship with the kitten is reminiscent of the character-defining opening scene in Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye, with Elliott Gould’s modern Philip Marlowe.)

Although a youthful Veronika Lake, playing stage performer Ellen Graham, rightly has top billing as the central protagonist (in itself quite amazing in a male dominated genre), the "male gaze" is very much on view here. Certainly, with her slim figure, long wavy white blonde hair (happily without the later trademark curtain over one eye) and exquisite facial features, Lake is a great beauty worthy of our gaze, but her character is much more. In a stunning entrance, she shows that beyond her good looks, she is an expert magician, a smart comedienne and a gifted singer (in reality dubbed by Martha Mears) - a real professional. Like a prototype Sydney Bristow (Jennifer Garner in TV spy series Alias - Google it!), she is well regarded enough to be recruited by the government for espionage work. She is clearly no dumb blonde, and principled and courageous enough to put herself in danger working undercover to sniff out a traitor selling state secrets.

How ironic it is then that her boyfriend, Michael Crane (Robert Preston), a Californian police detective, puts to her a marriage proposal couched in terms essentially indistinguishable from an offer of domestic slavery, and protests against her intention to do one last job, as her role from now on will be to put all her efforts into staying at home, serving and caring for him. This underlines Keith Hopper's theory (lecture at St Clare's, Oxford, 2014) that the key subtext of film noir is one of gender, of a tension between the former domestic role of women and the new reality of independent workers who had staffed the work places while men were abroad during the Second World War.

Interestingly, at least initially, Raven does not turn his "male" gaze upon Lake; we have already seen what turns him on! Although Lake is top billed, it is Ladd's character who has the film's key developmental arc, and really, it is his character and his character's relationship with Lake's character, that is of greatest interest, though Laird Gregar is excellent as Raven's cowardly employer, Willard Gates. (Would his childhood friends have called him "Bill Gates"?) This very credible and ultimately sympathetic performance really is a stunning debut by Ladd. In supporting roles, Tully Marshall and Marc Lawrence are also very good.

N.B. Is Ladd's portrayal of Raven the prototype for Alain Delon’s assassin in Le Samurai? I have to confess that I found that film disappointingly dull. Ladd, by contrast, sizzles in this, apparently his first starring role. Frank Tuttle (director) and Ladd show how it is done. [Trivia: Isn’t Frank Tuttle the heroic plumber character played by Robert DeNiro in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil?]

Compared to the excessively lengthy productions of today (think of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, dividing a single book into three 3-hour films), in a masterclass of economy of story-telling, the total running time of This Gun For Hire is 80 minutes!


  • Director: Frank Tuttle
  • Writers: Albert Maltz and W. R. Burnett, based on This Gun for Sale by Graham Greene
  • Starring: Veronika Lake, Alan Ladd, Laird Gregar, Robert Preston, Tully Marshall, Marc Lawrence

Written in My Writing app, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Sunday, 22 July 2012

Appaloosa (2008)

Feelings get you killed.

This is a very fine adaptation of the western novel Appaloosa (2005) by the late great Robert B. Parker, famed for his tough smart modern day private detectives (Spenser and Randall) and lawman (Stone).

In this story, professional gunmen Virgil Cole (Ed Harris) and Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen), who have been working as a team for a decade, are hired to bring order to the lawless town of Appaloosa. The town is being terrorised by local rancher Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons), who murdered the previous marshall and deputies.

The deal Cole makes with the city council is straightforward. As City Marshall, Cole lays down the law; people comply or are arrested; if they resist arrest, he shoots them or Hitch shoots them. Cole embodies the law; effectively, he IS the law. Beyond their obvious expertise with weapons, Cole and Hitch maintain the law by their public willingness to put their lives on the line. Facing a large group of armed men attempting to break a prisoner out of jail, for instance, Cole's stated readiness to die and to kill while dying breaks the resolve of the gang leaders.

Cole and Hitch are extraordinarily tough, pragmatic, straight-talking straight-shooting guys, laconic in the extreme, living according to strict codes of honour; supermen in a man's world. But into this world comes now a glamorous seductive flirty femme fatale, a beautiful piano-playing widow, Mrs Allie French (Renée Zellweger). Hitch spots her first, but she sets her cap at uber-male Cole. Hitch withdraws, but the stage is set for a difficult triangle, resting on one big question: what moral code, if any, does this woman live by, and will it be sufficient to keep her out of trouble?

I have read the source novel, and as far as I recall, the film sticks pretty close to plot of the book, and ably catches the distinctive unhurried pace and the flavour of the iconic characters of the main protagonists. The book is very filmic anyway, in the spare style Parker uses, with little description, mainly action and dialogue. "Stoic" is the word RottenTomatoes gives to the main characters, and that's right. That also means their actions are all very restrained, and their dilemmas are played out in a very understated low-key way, by inference, bizarrely, rather like a restrained social drama such as "Remains of the Day" (Merchant & Ivory, 1993).

Ed Harris is perfectly cast in the central role of Virgil Cole, believably tough and laconic, embarrassed at his limited vocabulary, which he constantly attempts to improve by reading books. Mortensen is very good as Harris's sidekick and Jeremy Irons is excellent in the role of the murderous rancher Bragg.

Unlike Ebert who says, 'Zellweger is powerfully fetching in this role,' the main fly in the ointment for me is Zellweger in the role of Allie French, the woman who takes up with Ed Harris' character. The quality of her acting is not in question, it's just that she seems miscast as a femme fatale. The role requires a woman able to bewitch and enthral men. I'm sorry to be ungallant, but in this particular film she simply isn't attractive enough, certainly not as attractive as the character in the book. In every respect she fits the part, except for her face, which inexplicably looks abnormally swollen.


  • Director: Ed Harris
  • Writers: Robert Knott and Ed Harris (screenplay), Robert B Parker (novel, 2005)
  • Starring: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Spall, Lance Henriksen, Luce Rains, Tom Bower, Girard Swan, Ariadna Gil

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Sunday, 15 July 2012

Barton Fink (1991)

Between Heaven and Hell There's Always Hollywood!

What a strange unsettling film, in tone, like a Mervyn Peake gothic fantasy novel, full of strange, compelling, appalling, disgusting details.

In 1941, a New York playwright, the eponymous Barton Fink (John Turturro), following his first major theatrical success, goes to Hollywood to begin writing under contract "for the pictures". He moves into a room at a downbeat hotel, Hotel Earle, and, in the sweltering heat, sets up his typewriter. He is asked to write "a simple wrestling picture" vehicle for the actor Wallace Beery (a real actor of the time, who we understandably never see) but appearing to have virtually no knowledge or experience of the movies, suffers from writer's block, and struggles to get past the opening paragraph.

He becomes distracted by noises from other rooms, including that of his immediate neighbour, travelling insurance salesman Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), a cheery if slightly troubled character, and features within his room, including the wallpaper, and a photo of a girl in a bikini, with her back to us, on a beach. Essentially, he seems to fall into a trance in which details of people, objects and events take on a hallucinogenically mesmerising intensity, which the Coen brothers brilliantly convey.

Apart from his neighbour, and a permanently quizzical hotel employee, Chet (Steve Buscemi), he meets a handful of strange Hollywood executives including his employer, the larger-than-life head of Capitol Pictures, Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner) and his grovelling assistant, Lou Breeze (Jon Polito), and the film's producer, Ben Geisler (Tony Shalhoub), who sends him for advice to a legendary but aggressively alcoholic older writer, W.P. "Bill" Mayhew (John Mahoney), and his alluring secretary, Audrey Taylor (Judy Davis), who, along with Fink's neighbour, Charlie, pass for the nearest thing to normal in this distorted world.

Fink is an odd but sympathetic character, clearly driven by good intentions. He waxes lyrical in defence of "the common man", but more in the abstract than in the flesh, ironically but endearingly turning a deaf ear to the travails of actual working class people such as his neighbour, Charlie.

As distractions mount and deadlines loom, the fulcrum on which this story turns is the question of whether or not Fink will be able to meet his contractual duties and come up with an acceptable script.

The film is not comfortable viewing but compelling. There are stretches where the action drags a bit, but there are also some very dramatic stretches. Overall, it is a fine externalisation of the internal landscape of psychosis or mental breakdown, roughly parable in theme and scope to 2011's "Take Shelter", where Michael Shannon's protagonist wrestles with a similar rupture in the barrier separating fantasy from reality.

The cast is uniformly excellent, notably Turturro in the central role (two years later shining in a quite different supporting role in the Coen brothers' The Big Lebowski, 1993), Goodman as the good-naturedly supportive if troubled "regular guy", and Lerner as the archetypal Hollywood executive.

Not one of my favourite Coen brothers' films, but on repeat viewing, a very creditable work.


  • Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
  • Writers: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
  • Starring: John Turturro, John Goodman, Michael Lerner, Judy Davis, John Mahoney, Steve Buscemi, Tony Shalhoub, Jon Polito, Steve Buscemi

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Sunday, 8 July 2012

The Ramen Girl (2008)

In food as in life, sometimes the missing ingredient is love.

In this sweet comic drama of personal discovery, Abby (Brittany Murphy), a young American woman, moves to Tokyo, Japan, in order to join her itchy-footed boyfriend, Ethan (Gabriel Mann). She gets an undemanding office job and moves in with him. All seems well, but a couple of weeks later, she emerges from the shower to find him abruptly packing his bags to take up a job offer in another Japanese city, Osaka, and a new life that does not include her. Within minutes, he is on his way to the airport, leaving her on the pavement in her towel shouting angrily at the departing taxi, virtually friendless in a big foreign city.

Later, Abby, regretting her harsh words, tries to make up with Ethan by phone. While waiting for him to call back, she is drawn to the welcoming lights of a nearby family "ramen" (fast-cooking noodle broth) restaurant, where she weeps into a bowl of delicious ramen and has a mysterious but pleasant hallucination involving a china cat. On a second visit, with a different ramen dish, Abby's tears are somehow, almost magically, turned to laughter. Although Abby can't speak more than a word or two of Japanese, and the chef, Maezumi (Toshiyuki Nishida), and his wife, Reiko (Kimiko Yo), can't speak any English, Abby begins to frequent the restaurant and takes to helping out by serving dishes to the customers. When the chef tries to eject her, she declares that she wants him to teach her how to be a ramen chef.

I thought this was a really sweet funny film, not a rom-com as such, because although there is a little romance, that is by no means the main focus of the story. It really is a story of personal discovery, of finding a passion in life, and the journey to finding fulfilment along that path. Abby's story is contrasted with that of a young corporate Japanese man, Toshi (Sohee Park), whose personal ambitions are in conflict with his culture's work ethics, and also the story of her friend Gretchen (Tammy Blanchard) and Gretchen's drinking companion, Charlie (Daniel Evans), who show the seamier, more dissolute fate of those who give up their dreams and resort to sensual thrills and mind-numbing intoxicants. The emotional content of magic realism has as great an impact on me as on anyone else, so although from a rational perspective the spiritual element brought to the cooking process is mere wishful thinking, I was able to turn a blind eye.

As for the quality of acting, Murphy (excellent also in Sin City, 2005) projects endearing qualities of sweetness, uncalculated exuberance and vulnerability that make her perfect in the lead role. Nishida is brilliant as the grumpy tyrannical ramen chef, and Yo (so good in Yōjirō Takita's Oscar-winning Departures, 2008) is equally good as the supportive wife. The little coterie of local Japanese women customers in the ramen restaurant is also excellently played, and I was happy to see the great Tsutomu Yamazaki, so good in Departures, cameo as the master ramen chef.

According to Wikipedia, film critic Don Willmott describes The Ramen Girl as "a vacuous but atmospheric analysis of the redemptive power of a good bowl of noodles" in which "The Karate Kid meets Tampopo meets Babette's Feast." I haven't yet caught up with either Tampopo or Babette's Feast, but the comparison with The Karate Kid is apt and complimentary, especially the recent 2010 version with Jackie Chan. I didn't find the film vacuous at all, quite the reverse really, as it is about someone finding fulfilment in life through a demanding vocation, rather than simply through a relationship with another person, as would be the case in a rom-com. Abby's character, who, through passion for a chosen field (cooking), teaches herself self-discipline and a personal work ethic, is surely not a bad role model for anyone. It certainly reflects my path in life.


  • Director: Robert Allan Ackerman
  • Writer: Becca Topol
  • Starring: Brittany Murphy, Sohee Park, Toshiyuki Nishida, Tammy Blanchard, Kimiko Yo, Renji Ishibashi, Tsutomu Yamazaki

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Thursday, 28 June 2012

The Grey (2012)

Live or Die on This Day

Seven survivors of a plane wreck somewhere between an isolated oil refinery in Alaska and civilisation find themselves in a desolate freezing snowy windswept landscape, with no hope of rescue, and under threat from a large pack of ferocious wolves. Luckily, wolf-expert and salaried protector of the oil workers from dangerous animals, John Otway (Liam Neeson), who we have seen shoot an attacking wolf at the start of the film, is among the survivors.

This is a fine film, about endeavour and courage and tenacity and despair, and about accepting death and letting go of life, and about the puniness of humans lost in a wilderness when pitted against the terrible overwhelming forces of nature, as exemplified here by the wolves, as at least one critic said.

As Neeson's character says at the outset, the group is made up of outcasts and renegades and no-hopers, without much immediate charm. Some of the characters are overtly annoying or unsympathetic. Somehow, though, we come to care about the fate of each of them.

There is a clever use of wallets as almost spiritual icons standing for the characters, and providing glimpses of the inner man.

Very effective use of flashbacks / daydreams, where people are brutally wrenched back from idyllic reveries into the nightmarish present.

Neeson does an excellent job as a man without hope and of uncertain faith who nevertheless finds himself the group's main hope of survival.

My wife commented that the technology used to portray the wolves was not quite as invisible and so convincing as it might have been, but in my opinion, the strength of the script and the quality of the acting and the stunning location work easily make up for any failings in the realisation of the "monsters".

There are tears along the way.


  • Director: Joe Carnahan
  • Writers: Joe Carnahan, Ian MacKenzie Jeffers
  • Starring: Liam Neeson, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Dallas Roberts, Joe Anderson, Nonso Anozie, James Badge Dale

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Attack the Block (2011)

Urban city vs outer space

This British comic science-fiction thriller kicks off with an exciting opening scene. Young nurse, Sam (Jodie Whittaker), walking home alone along dark inner city streets, is menaced, then mugged by a gang of masked teenage "hoodies" from a big tower block, a crime interrupted by the nearby crash-landing of an extra-terrestrial. While investigating the crash, the gang leader, Moses, is attacked and slightly injured, and in the resulting hubbub, the nurse escapes. After triumphing over the extra-terrestrial, the gang return to their tower block, little realising that this is only the beginning of their troubles.

The tower block scenario is very well chosen: as civilian combatants in an alien invasion story, members of an inner city teenage gang are hard to better. They will already be battle-ready and will be able to lay their hands on weapons of some kind. They will also be used to handling challenges themselves, rather than calling on police and other officials. The rationale behind the invasion is very well thought out and credible, and the way informed exposition is brought in is clever. The script is admirably lean, with a running time of only 84 minutes.

The character arc for the main protagonist, Moses (John Boyega), is great. The nurse, Sam (Jodie Whittaker), functions in part as an avatar for the audience's developing point of view of these teenage gangsters.

Fast-paced, funny, quite frightening, this film succeeds as a window into the world of teenage gangs, and as a comic science-fiction action thriller.


  • Director: Joe Cornish
  • Writer: Joe Cornish
  • Starring: John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, Alex Esmail, Franz Drameh, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard, Luke Treadaway, Jumayn Hunter, Nick Frost, Danielle Vitalis, Paige Meade, Michael Ajao

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Sunday, 21 August 2011

My Life Without Me (2003)

On receipt of news of terminal illness, there are perhaps four key choices that any of us would have to make:

  1. On receipt of such news, in the short term, how would we choose to respond, say, by going to pieces or by remaining calm?
  2. Who, if anyone, would we choose to share the news with? Family? Friends?
  3. How would we choose to spend our remaining days? Would we spend our time putting our affairs in order or, exploiting a release from future consequences, throw caution to the wind and fill our time with wild debauchery?
  4. Where would we choose to die?

"My Life Without Me" is the story of Ann (Sarah Polley), a young Canadian mother of two living in straitened circumstances in a mobile trailer home in her mother's (Deborah Harry) back yard, who goes to the doctor with symptoms of early pregnancy (nausea, stomach cramps and so on) only to learn that she has an inoperable tumour and has at most two or three months left to live. If this sounds like the premise of a traditional weepy, a sentimental drama "based on a true story", well, certainly for Ann the stakes could not be any higher. There is strong emotional content in the film, but the emotions are true emotions, and muted more often than amplified, and the high quality of the acting and direction lifts the story above clichéd dramatics to a level of apparent realism and authenticity.

In response to the news of her imminent death, rather than going all to pieces, Ann responds in an admirably level-headed way. Seeking to maximise the time she has left, she makes out a list of things to do before she dies. It is the nature of this "To Do" list, and the other choices she makes in response to the news that make this story compelling, particularly given the particular circumstances of her life, which emerge during the course of the film.

The lynchpin of the film is the performance of Polley, and she is totally believable in the role, portraying a young woman of intelligence, courage, determination and heart. She is so good with the girls who play her daughters (Jessica Amlee, Kenya Jo Kennedy) that it's hard to believe she is not their mother in real life. The supporting cast is uniformly good: Julian Richings as the doctor, Scott Speedman and especially Mark Ruffalo, respectively, Ann's husband and Ann's admirer, Deborah Harry and Alfred Molina as Ann's parents, Amanda Plummer, Leonor Watling, and Maria de Medeiros as Ann's friends, neighbours, co-workers, acquaintances.

The script is intelligent and the direction is unostentatious. The story is based on the book "Pretending the Bed Is a Raft" by Nanci Kincaid, and the scene where Anne acts out with the girls on the bed being on a raft, beset by dangers of different kinds, is a wonderful scene, one that as a parent I envy, like the scene in Crash (2004) where the admirably resourceful Daniel (Michael Peña) calms his daughter's fears of neighbourhood drive-by shootings with the invention of an invisible bullet-proof fairy cloak.

References


  • Director: Isabel Coixet
  • Writers: Isabel Coixet, Nanci Kincaid
  • Starring: Sarah Polley, Scott Speedman, Mark Ruffalo, Deborah Harry, Amanda Plummer, Leonor Watling, Maria de Medeiros, Julian Richings, Alfred Molina

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro



Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Evolution Becomes Revolution

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a very well-realised and thrilling prequel to the stories of the well-known "Planet of the Apes" science fiction film series of the late 1960s / early 70s, featuring a compelling performance by the lead actor (Andy Serkis), through the magic of "motion-capture" digital replacement technology, as Caesar, a chimpanzee with increased intelligence.

Any film presents its makers with a number of challenges, most commonly, to develop a compelling story peopled with interesting credible characters played by actors of talent and skill. In this prequel to the first film in the original series, Planet of the Apes (1968), the filmmakers had a number of special challenges. One was to come up with a credible scenario laying the groundwork for the tale of a lost astronaut, George Taylor (Charlton Heston), who discovers an upside-down world dominated by intelligent, talking apes, where humanoids exist as low status low intelligence non-speaking animals. Another challenge was to find a suitable alternative to the hairy costumes, clumsy facial prosthetics, and stooped postures of the human actors playing the apes in the original series of films, which at the time were good enough to garner an honorary Oscar for special make-up, but which to modern eyes, used to hyper-realistic computer-generated effects, would be hopelessly inadequate at suspending disbelief. [On the issue of make-up, despite the ground-breaking portrayals of apemen by talented mime actors in Stanley Kubrik's superior "2001: A Space Odyssey", released the same year, their achievement got no Oscar nomination for make-up, possibly because, as writer Arthur C Clarke speculated, the Academy members didn't realise the performers were not real apes.] A final challenge was to develop a wider theme, subtext or moral, without which any story is only an locally significant event.

The first challenge is well met, with a scenario involving the use of apes as experimental subjects in a search for a cure for Alzheimer's disease, a brain disease that progressively strips away the memories and thinking abilities of its victims. Dr Will Rodman (James Franco), is a scientist at a commercial medical research laboratory in San Francisco, California, trialling a genetic therapy to cure Alzheimer's, delivered by modified viruses, with a personal interest in the results, as his father, Charles (John Lithgow), under nursing care at home, is in an advanced stage of the disease. When one of the test subjects, a female chimpanzee, apparently suffers violent side-effects from the treatment, Will's boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) stops funding for that research line and orders all the test subjects destroyed. Will and his assistant, Franklin (Tyler Labine), cannot bring themselves to kill a baby chimpanzee, delivered covertly by the primary test subject. Will makes the fateful decision to rear the cute little infant in secret at home, despite warnings from his girlfriend, veterinarian Caroline (Freida Pinto), that after they grow up, chimpanzees are too dangerous to keep as pets.

The second challenge, of finding a way to portray the apes, is also very well met, using "motion capture" ("mo-cap") technology, where actors, wearing special suits and facial makeup, act the parts as normal, and then are digitally replaced by artificial substitutes, in this case, apes. Andy Serkis, notable for his performances as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings series (2001-2003) and King Kong in the Peter Jackson remake (2005), plays Caesar, the chimpanzee Will takes home from the lab, both as a child and as an adult. This is in fact the lead role of the film and brilliantly played in an Oscar nomination-worthy performance (giving the Academy an opportunity to redeem itself for (controversially) previously omitting Serkis from acting nominations because of the total replacement of his body by a computer-generated animated character). To be honest, for the first half hour or so, I was not entirely convinced by the digital rendering of the apes shown, but subsequently, as I got to know the characters, either the computer graphics got better or I grew more accepting, because I lost that feeling and became totally caught up in the stories of the apes. The issue I think is primarily with regard to the rendering of faces. Our critical faculties are so strongly developed that the tiniest deviation from absolute authenticity in the rendering of a face is punished by causing our minds to "jump the shark". Apes are not human, but ape faces, particularly chimpanzee faces, are complex enough or human-like enough to betray slight inaccuracies or infidelities. James Cameron's Avatar (2009) did a little better, I think, in its portrayal of human-like faces, fooling my brain from the very first meeting with the Na'vi aliens. In any case, this "mo-cap" technology is astounding in potential. It looks like, in the near future, filmmakers will have sufficient resources to create computer-generated human beings that are absolutely indistinguishable from real human beings, though whether that will be a good or bad thing is another question. Will we see digitally cloned James Deans and Marilyn Monroes in multi-film franchised sequels, e.g. Rebel Without A Cause or Some Like It Hot, part 2?

The final challenge for the filmmakers was one of theme, subtext, moral. The original Planet of the Apes had a strong racial metaphor, reflecting conflicts within American society between different ethnic groups. It also had the concept of reversing roles between humans and (some) animals, showing people in cages, so allowing the audience to consider animal welfare from the point of view of the animals. Ape society was largely indifferent to human rights, and the "good apes" were two research scientists, who were especially kind and considerate towards humans. Science and scientists are the allies of the human protagonist, against the formalised ethnic stratifications, and the fossilised faith systems, of ape society.

In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the moral is the more familiar trope of the dangers of science, the Frankenstein theme: science is a powerful but dangerous tool. Typically, scientists, attempting to improve our world by conquering death or extending life, accidentally create the conditions to unleash a disaster or produce life-threatening monsters. Terry Gilliam explored similar animal rights / medical research themes in "Twelve Monkeys" (1995) and Splice (2007) has scientists secretly raising an experimental subject at home.

On reflection, I would say that the true underlying genre of Rise of the Planet of the Apes is that of the prison movie, though of course in this case the prison inmates are not people but apes. As in any prison movie, we see how and why our central character, Caesar, came to be imprisoned. Though a gifted individual with a loving family, he is an orphan from a very different ethnic background, and as he grew older, his home life became more troubled, and there were quarrels with the neighbours and episodes of rage and violent behaviour. During the incarceration phase of the movie, the audience's feelings of identification with the central character may be increased by injustice, such as sub-standard accommodation or food, maltreatment by authority figures, and difficulties with other inmates, including the issues of social hierarchy (pecking order) and cliques (gangs). If he is lucky, there will be a special supportive friend and visits by close family. Much free time is spent remembering past idylls, and holding on in expectation of future release from incarceration, though if that dream is dashed, other avenues may need to be explored. Milos Forman's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" (1975), for instance, has quite a similar story arc.

Amendments:

Changed the phrase 'the heroes were two research scientists' to 'the "good apes" were two research scientists'.

References


  • Director: Rupert Wyatt
  • Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver (premise from La planète des singes by Pierre Boulle)
  • Starring: Andy Serkis, James Franco, John Lithgow, Freida Pinto, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, David Oyelowo, Tyler Labine, David Hewlett, Jamie Harris

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro

Saturday, 13 August 2011

The Wrong Man (1956)

An innocent man has nothing to fear.

The Wrong Man (1956) is an interesting split-genre film, in which a procedural crime mystery morphs into a psychological drama, like a trial run for Psycho (1960).

This film, according to Wikipedia, based very closely on a true story, is a study how of an ordinary working family man in New York City, accused of being a hold-up robber, becomes deeply embroiled in the US legal system.

The title, The Wrong Man, suggests a case of mistaken identity, but the opening scenes, in which we meet the protagonist, Manny (Henry Fonda) introduce small fragments of doubt. Manny is shown to be a quiet sober man with a steady job as a musician in a nightclub, a loving husband and beloved father to two young boys. Manny's wife, Rose (Vera Miles), needing expensive dental treatment, despairs of their constant struggle to make ends meet, but Manny reminds her of all the good things in their life, and reassures her that, in the short term, they can borrow money on her life insurance policy, like they did before on his life insurance policy, and that, in the long term, things will somehow work out all right.

So far so good: Manny seems to be satisfied with his lot. But when he opens his evening paper, his eyes are drawn to advertisements for luxury products, well beyond his means, promoted aspirationally as improving the quality of family life, and he turns from these to the horse racing form pages where he starts making notes in the margins, in the way that nowadays in the UK many working people with dreams of sudden wealth turn to the lottery or scratch cards. Could Manny be less honest than he seems? Could he have a secret vice? Where is he going to get the money for Rose's operation?

That afternoon, at the insurance office, Manny, with his wife's insurance policy in his pocket, dressed like almost all the men in this film in dark suit and tie, overcoat and hat, enters and is "recognised" as the man who held up the office the previous month.

Most of the rest of the film is a Kafkaesque nightmare (Kafka's The Trial, 1925, is the ultimate fictional legal conundrum, where the protagonist, K, can't even determine what crime he is being charged with) in which Manny is led through a judicial process where the labyrinthine progress of the legal machinery is so inexorable and inflexible and inhuman that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to point the finger of guilt and protestations of innocence are routine, making a mockery of the film's tagline, "An innocent man has nothing to fear".

Arrested outside his house, Manny is interviewed by detectives, then subjected to a series of witness and other types of identity tests, each of which seems to be technically flawed in some way, then formally charged and inducted into the US legal system. The filmmakers take care to show in precise detail the steps in the process, and how clinically de-humanising the process is. With an array of witnesses and other evidence positioned against him, as the detectives point out, it all looks very bad for Manny. If he cannot find cast-iron alibis, it seems that he will be found guilty.

I imagine Hitchcock was attracted to this true story partly because of its Kafkaesque aspect, but mainly because of the other, more overtly psychological, aspect, which comes in the final reel, in which the prospect of a physical prison gives way to the horror of a metaphorical mental prison, a prison of ideas, a theme which will be explored more thrillingly in the film Psycho.

Fonda, with his back catalogue of likeable honest characters, e.g. Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath (1940), is brilliantly cast in a role calling for a person audiences of the time would have assumed was innocent. His performance is very understated, like a blank that the audience can project themselves into. Interesting to read in his Wikipedia entry that, unlike daughter Jane, schooled in the Stanislavski / Strasberg Method, he was an intuitive actor without conscious technique. As for age, as is so common in the old Hollywood contract system, he was a good deal older than his character, a 51-year old playing 38. Vera Miles handles her role very well, nicely underplaying the dramatic challenges.


References


  • Director: Alfred Hitchcock
  • Writers: Maxwell Anderson, Angus MacPhail
  • Starring: Henry Fonda, Vera Miles, Anthony Quayle, Harold Stone, Charles Cooper

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using TextWrangler and HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro



Thursday, 4 August 2011

Creation (2009)

How he saw the world changed it forever

Creation (2009) may not have done very well at the box office, and had mixed reviews, but I found it extremely moving. The importance of the theory of evolution of species through natural selection is hugely important in our modern world, and the story of the man who travelled the world in his youth, and then spent 20 years developing the theory into a well-substantiated, carefully-articulated explanation of the story of life is of great interest.

According to Wikipedia, the story is factually based, being an adaptation of the book "Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution" by Darwin's great-great grandson, Randal Keynes. The title of the book gives the key to this film's interpretation, the story hinging on Darwin's relationship with his daughter, Annie, who died young.

The plot zig-zags between two key periods in Darwin's life: the course of the illness of Darwin's oldest and much beloved child, Annie, and a later period of time, when Darwin's work should have been reaching fruition, but finds him paralysed by a number of things, effectively stifling his scientific output. During this period Darwin's suffered chronic ill health, and was in conflict with his wife, Emma, a devout Christian, about the direction of his work. He was also wracked with guilt about the death of his child, Annie. Annie appears to him, as a kind of ghostly companion, with whom he converses. As Darwin listens to animal breeders, who speak knowledgeably about the frequent casualties incurred when mating closely related animals together in order to select desired inheritable characteristics, he comes to realise that Annie's illness may not have been random in origin, but may have its roots in the very nature of his and Emma's family closeness: being first cousins before marriage.

As the two story-lines develop, Darwin comes under increasing pressure from outside, and also, internally, shown partly through sleeping and waking dreams and visions, particularly of Annie, whose life-like presence becomes increasingly harder for Darwin to tolerate. Others may have disliked the device of Darwin interacting with Annie's ghost, but I thought it worked on many levels. For him to fully reject Christianity would mean necessarily losing the last vestige of her, her spirit. We also see the loving relationship Darwin enjoyed in former times with his wife, Emma, contrasted with the frosty alienation in the later period.

The performances by Bettany and Connelly (real life husband and wife) are superb, perfectly embodying the conflict and crisis in the Darwin family. Bettany brilliantly portrays the pain of conflict of a man whose intellectual discoveries bring him increasingly into conflict with local community life and his family's religious traditions and beliefs. Connelly personifies a devout woman bitterly at odds with her husband's beliefs. Nice performances too from Martha West (Annie), the talented Benedict Cumberbatch and Toby Jones (Darwin's scientific colleagues, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Thomas Huxley), Jeremy Northam (Reverend John Brodie-Innes, the local vicar).

Interesting how the content of the film is ostensibly about one key scientific domain, the theory of evolution, but how the real subject is one of psychology: how Darwin is being paralysed and made physically ill by his own subconscious (an entity he himself sneeringly dismisses) and the subconscious guilt he feels for the death of his daughter, Annie, and how the film's climax takes the form of a psychological release relating to the expiation of guilt, and voicing of subconscious or largely unspoken fears between he and his wife.

As a coda, in connection with the publication of Darwin's book (On the Origin of Species, 1859), one has to wonder at the casualness of the postal service of the day, and remark how, with a single catastrophic jolt from a stone under the wheel of a post cart, our understanding of the living world around us, and ourselves, might have been terribly impoverished.

According to Wikipedia, Darwin's theory of evolution is still so controversial in the USA, outside the intellectual strongholds of the West and East coasts, that it took months of lobbying to find a distributor. Quote from Wikipedia: "According to producer Jeremy Thomas, the United States was one of the last countries to find a distributor due to the prominence of the Creation-evolution controversy. Thomas said: "It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He [God] made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and Los Angeles, religion rules."

I think one stumbling block is that many people take the word "theory" to mean untested "hypothesis" or notion, something that still very much that needs to be verified. But in science, a theory is a much stronger entity. It is an explanation that has to fit in with verifiable facts, and has to be framed so that it can be shown to be false. But though many have argued against Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, nobody has been able to falsify it on genuine evidence-based scientific rational grounds, only on religious grounds. Of course, it is a work in progress, but subsequent evidence of carbon-dating and discoveries in genetics, including the role of DNA in the cells as biological blueprints, all support Darwin's great idea. To date, addressing the question of life on Earth, and taking into account huge mountains of evidence, it is the best explanation we have.


References


  • Director: Jon Amiel
  • Writers: John Collee (based on the book "Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution" by Darwin's great-great grandson, Randal Keynes)
  • Starring: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bill Paterson, Jim Carter

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using TextWrangler and HyperEdit, posted from my MacBook Pro



Woman of the Year (1942)

The picture of the year!

Woman of the Year (1942) is the first pairing of the legendary on-screen romcom couple, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. The film poses the question, still relevant today, of how the busy modern woman can manage to combine a career with a happy marriage and home life, and, winning the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, it packs quite a punch.

The story wastes little time in throwing together Sam Craig (Tracy), a hard-headed sports reporter and all-round regular American, and Tess Hardy (Hepburn), a high society sophisticate and international charity worker, fluent in various languages, who writes a column for the same newspaper. Their little literary spat develops into a series of start-stop dates, driven by mutual attraction, but frequently delayed or interrupted by Tess's hectic schedule.

The gulf between their lifestyles is underlined. Sam takes Tess to a baseball game, something which she knows nothing of, but quite enjoys. Tess invites Sam to an evening party at her apartment, but has little time to talk to him. After failing to bond with groups of non-English speaking refugees and diplomats, he slips out early. He travels to sporting events, and hangs out in bars. She travels to conferences and holds open house in the evenings in her uptown apartment. Eventually, they kiss, confess their love for each other, he proposes, she accepts. Cue a happy ending...

But the story does not end there. It goes on, beyond the honeymoon period, itself not without its issues, to examine subsequent married life for such a loving but busy modern couple. It also, very cleverly, examines the issue of the quality of care for very young children in such a setup. So, the question remains till quite late in the story: can they make it work? And will they be able to meet in the middle, or will one have to make unequal compromises?

One has to appreciate the generally modern, progressive view of the sexes, evidenced by the script in the characters of Sam and Tess throughout most of the story. To my mind, the dilemma faced by Tess is never really satisfactorily resolved, but, along the way, Hepburn gets to do a revealingly inept extended comic kitchen routine.

There is real chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn. They both have impeccable comic timing. Tracy is very likeable, so that the male can identify with him, and Hepburn is a fine woman with stunning looks and personality, an aristocrat in the best sense of the word.


  • Director: George Stevens
  • Writers: Ring Lardner Jr., Michael Kanin, John Lee Mahin, Garson Kanin
  • Starring: Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Fay Bainter, Reginald Owen, Minor Watson, William Bendix, Gladys Blake

Written in WriteRoom, formatted using TextWrangler, posted from my MacBook Pro

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)

A fascinating adventure into the unknown!

There is a simplicity and rigour to this story, from the novel by the great Richard Matheson, that makes it a classic of "What if?" science fiction, in this case, what if you found out your body was shrinking, that you were getting progressively smaller?

The script is very tight, swiftly introducing the young businessman at the centre of the tale, Scott Carey (Grant Williams) and his wife, Louise (April Kent), sunning themselves on the deck of a borrowed motorboat, apparently without a care in the world. No sooner does Louise go below decks than a strange metallic cloud envelopes Scott, at the time to no apparent ill effect. Later, however, Scott begins to physically shrink in size, maintaining all his relative proportions, but getting smaller.

The scripting for this is very nicely done, as the principals struggle with the symptoms of the phenomenon. At first, everyone tries to find natural explanations: Scott blames his clothes, Louise focusses on his reduced appetite, and their doctor suggests that previous records were wrong or that it's just an extreme case of the height reduction we all experience over the course of our day, as gravity compresses our vertebrae. When the change becomes so significant that acceptance becomes unavoidable, the medical experts are brought in and a battery of tests done, trying to find an explanation, and a cure.

Along the way, most of the key questions that come to mind in such a scenario are touched upon, if not always resolved. As a man got progressively smaller, would he be able do his job, and even if he could, would he be allowed to keep it? Without a job, how could he pay his bills? As he got smaller and smaller, what would he do for clothes? Would he be able to maintain independence in a world full of devices designed for full-sized people? Speaking of large people, what kind of relations would he be able to maintain with his normally-sized wife? Would he perhaps fit in better with the kind of people who never grew tall?

For a film made over half a century ago, the special effects are really pretty good. As Scott gets smaller, his size becomes determined relative to his surroundings. It's amazing how something as simple as using oversized furniture and household objects can provide sufficient visual cues. Likewise, his hold on existence becomes more precarious, and the dangers inherent in his surroundings become more apparent. Increasingly, his world becomes a battlefield, with disasters that to people of normal size are nothing more than minor nuisances, but to him are dangerous puzzles to solve, and life-or-death challenges to overcome, including duels to the death with ferocious household pests. My wife, who suffers from arachnophobia, had to leave the room during the final reel.

The two special effect giveaways are the rather obvious back projection during the duels with animals, and, despite good tonal matching, the tell-tale lack of a shadow for Scott.

The theme, like that of "I Am Legend", Richard Matheson's 1954 novel of the last man on Earth battling alone against a world of zombies, is essentially one of alienation and loneliness, with Scott being removed progressively from normal human interaction, involving loss of relations with professional colleagues, loss of relations with all normal-sized people, loss of status as a civilised human being resulting through a series of accidents in him being thrown back into a primeval life-or-death survival mode, like a miniature caveman beset by privations, natural disasters and monstrous predators. Even with a group of social outsiders like circus midgets, he can find no lasting refuge. The story can be seen as a parable of alienation. The novel, according to Wikipedia, investigates his relations with other people with a much harsher, less forgiving view of society.

The performances are fine. In the title role, Williams is well up to the physical exertions of the part. He could be said to lack the charisma of a more major actor, but in a way his very anonymity helps to increase the credibility of the performance. The supporting actors are good. But all in all, the story and the script are the most important elements, and they are top notch.


  • Director: Jack Arnold
  • Writers: Richard Matheson, Richard Alan Simmons, based on the novel by Richard Matheson
  • Starring: Grant Williams, Randy Stuart, April Kent, Paul Langton, Billy Curtis

Written in WriteRoom, Formatted using TextWrangler, posted from my MacBook Pro



Sunday, 8 May 2011

Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)

Audrey Hepburn plays Holly Golightly, the craziest heroine who ever crept between the pages of a best-selling novel!

Breakfast at Tiffany's, based on the novella (1958) by Truman Capote, is a romantic comedy drama with a very dark heart about identity, self-delusion and ambition in New York City, featuring a mesmerising central performance by Audrey Hepburn.

Holly Golightly (Hepburn) is a bubbly kooky glamorous fun-loving girl whose life seems to be constant swirl of nightclubs, late night parties and men. A handsome young author, Paul Varjak (George Peppard), moves into an apartment above, and is willingly drawn into the carousel of Holly's chaotic existence.

The stage is set for romance, or would be but for one small hurdle. Varjak has long-term writer's block and seems to subsist on handouts from a wealthy patroness, Emily Eustace Failenson (Patricia Neal), while Holly has set her sights on marrying a man rich enough to validate her current life-style, a millionaire, and puts a kind of magic ring-fence around Varjak, nicknaming him "Fred" after her older brother.

The two leads are likeable characters, and we wish them well. Will the fixedness of Holly's ambitions prevent her from finding true happiness? Will Varjak ever find sufficient lead for his pencil (actually ribbon for his typewriter)? As the story unfolds, the happy-go-lucky world of Holly Golightly begins to develop serious fault-lines, as the world-conquering self-image that she has created for herself becomes increasingly difficult to maintain against the intrusion of inconvenient prosaic realities from her present and past lives.

There are strong parallels between the two lead characters, relating to their sources of income, indicated early on in the story. In the small hours in the apartment building one night, escaping from an insistent drunken date, angry that the $50 "restroom attendant tip" he gave her has got him nothing in return, Holly slips up the fire escape to Varjak's window and sees Failenson inside, adjusting her clothes and leaving a $300 gift on the bedside table before exiting. Holly's main income, it can be inferred, is in the form of "gifts", money or otherwise, from men at clubs, where she presumably serves as some sort of escort or companion. Wikipedia's entry for Capote's novella states: "Holly Golightly (age 18-19) is a country girl turned New York café society girl, who makes her living as a companion to society's most prominent men." Varjak has had a book of short stories published, but nothing else recently, so it seems very doubtful that he could be getting sufficient royalties to pay for an apartment in Manhattan. Judging by the decor, it seems more likely that the apartment is provided for him by Failenson.

While watching, I suspected that Holly Golightly was a stand-in for Truman Capote himself, casting himself, metaphorically as an aspirational "media whore". Wikipedia, however, draws parallels between Golightly and Capote's mother, who carved out a new life for herself in New York City in a similar way to Golightly: "both left the husbands they married as teenagers and abandoned relatives they loved and were responsible for in order to make their way to New York City, and both achieved Cafe Society status through relationships with wealthier men".

The best thing about the film is the character of Holly Golightly, the glamorous tart rejecting her heart, and Hepburn's wonderful portrayal of her. Wikipedia says that Hepburn herself "regarded it as one of her most challenging roles, since she was an introvert required to play an extrovert", and also that Marilyn Monroe was first choice for the role, which would have been different, but also probably very effective. The great song "Moon River" by Henry Mancini was apparently written specially for the "limited vocal range" of Audrey Hepburn, whose singing of it, according to Wikipedia "helped composer Henry Mancini and lyricist Johnny Mercer win an Oscar for Best Song."

Peppard, by contrast, 33 years old at the time, was surely too old for the role. (Hepburn was 42 32, but always looked young for her age.) Admittedly, he does have the intelligence and sensitivity for the role, but to attract a rich sugar mummy, surely his character would need to be a slimmer, more handsome, more waifish younger man, a young Warren Beatty or Anthony Perkins, for instance, not this stolid buttoned-up suit-wearing type.

Sources:


  • Director: Blake Edwards
  • Writers: George Axelrod (screenplay), Truman Capote (novella)
  • Starring: Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard, Martin Balsam, Patricia Neal, Buddy Ebsen, Mickey Rooney, John McGiver, José Luis de Villalonga

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: Following good comment from @anonymous, deleted "more waifish" from description of the young Warren Beatty. Added ranking image. Following comment by Wanderer, struck through the whole of last paragraph, which has been pretty much blown out of the water.



True Grit (1969)

The strangest trio ever to track a killer.

A very enjoyable character-based western, directed by Henry Hathaway, and notable for the remarkable strength of will and general audaciousness of its female protagonist, teenager Mattie Ross (Kim Darby), who propels herself into a brutal male-dominated world of violence and death. As in the Coen brothers' 2010 remake, Mattie embarks on a quest to bring her father's murderer to justice with the help of two very different law enforcers, a grizzled hard-drinking US Marshall, Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne), and a charismatic young Texas ranger, La Boeuf (Glen Campbell).

This 1969 film has more back story than the Coen brothers' remake, introducing Mattie and her father, Frank Ross (John Pickard), at home, and showing the context of the murder and the murder itself. From then on the plot follows fairly similar paths, driven by Mattie and her mission. Finding that the local sheriff has no jurisdiction in the Indian Territory to which the murderer, Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey), has fled, Mattie, on her own initiative, hires the meanest licensed federal law officer she can find, Cogburn. La Boeuf also turns out also to be in pursuit of Chaney, for an earlier crime, and in fairly short order, Mattie, Cogburn and La Boeuf enter Indian Territory all bent on the same goal.

As in the Coen brothers' version, the main delight of the film is Mattie Ross herself: the way she interacts with the range of people she encounters and the character of her responses to events. She is an amazing person, only 14 years old but clever and audacious, whose personal courage and readiness to engage in violent action, as the story develops, is tested to the extreme. Perhaps in those days (1880 according to Wikipedia, not that long ago really, around the time my father's grandfather was running around in short trousers), children were less sheltered. Near the start of the film, the filmmakers deliberately show how public executions were treated by many townspeople as a fun day out, with snacks for sale, and small children apparently free to mingle with the watching crowds, and even, from their playground swings opposite the town square, getting the best views.

Hathaway permits his young protagonist more emotion than the Coen brothers do. He shows, from the outset, how Mattie is taken with La Boeuf and briefly shows her crying (privately) over her late father's possessions. Possibly related to this, but less satisfactorily, is the use of the musical score, which to modern ears seems rather unsubtle at times.

Another delight, of course, is the debauched but doughty character of Cogburn and the great performance of Wayne (despite being 20 years or so older than the character in the book, he received an Academy Award for Best Actor), contrasting strongly with the characters of the strictly brought up Mattie and straight-arrow La Boeuf. According to Wikipedia, Wayne did his own stunts, including the final jump.

There's so much fun to be had, especially, in the first reel, in Mattie's interactions with other characters. When she comes into conflict with La Boeuf, their brief flirting turns to verbal sparring, and she stands up to him just fine, as she does with everyone else. Her dealings with the horse dealer, Col. G. Stonehill (an outstanding performance by Strother Martin), show her to be a wonderfully feisty resourceful person.

Speaking of supporting characters, others of note include Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper, who play their roles relatively sympathetically, showing that criminals are more than simple monsters.

My only criticism is that Glen Campbell, hand-picked by Wayne, according to Wikipedia, seemed too old for the role (he was 33), or not quite vulnerable and good-looking enough for Mattie to take a shine to him, or maybe just not an expressive enough actor. I never felt there was any chemistry between the two of them.

Sources:


  • Director: Henry Hathaway
  • Writers: Marguerite Roberts (screenplay), Charles Portis (novel)
  • Starring: John Wayne, Kim Darby, Glen Campbell, Robert Duvall, Jeff Corey, Dennis Hopper, Strother Martin, John Fiedler

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: corrected some links. Added ranking image.



Thursday, 21 April 2011

Source Code (2011)

Make Every Second Count.

Source Code is an intelligent suspenseful science fiction thriller with a clever script and excellent performances.

The premise of the story, like an updated version of Groundhog Day (1993) for the attention deficit generation, repeatedly casts the central protagonist (Jake Gyllenhaal) back into a single 8-minute period of time on a speeding train. Groundhog Day's weatherman Phil Connors' comparatively leisurely 24 hours are compressed into the high pressure intensity of Gyllenhaal's character's situation, and the minor misadventures and personal tragedies punctuating small town life in Punxutawney are upgraded to kick-ass action sequences and life-threatening explosions.

Like Gyllenhaal's character, the audience is thrown right from the very start of the film into a very confusing situation, and a large part of the fun for the audience is working out, in parallel with him, why he is there and what the heck is going on. Like Groundhog Day, more fun is then had exploring the parameters of the situation, introducing permutations, and learning how to "game" or otherwise exploit the situation.

Without dropping any specific plot spoilers, and without getting into questions of strict scientific legitimacy, I can say that for me the story develops and concludes very satisfyingly. Geeky types like me, familiar with the standard tropes of time travel fiction, will probably see a key plot revelation coming quite a long way off, but the difficulty of avoiding a degree of predictability is a problem common to all popular genres and not a major criticism.

If there is anything that doesn't work so well for me, it is a recurring story thread of a person Gyllenhaal's character needs to contact. Somehow, this seemed tacked on, not intrinsic but as if it was intended to manipulate the audience's sympathies.

As for the performances, the film stands or falls primarily on the performance of Jake Gyllenhaal, and he carries the role with ease, combining a character of intelligence and sensitivity with a believable potential for physical action and even violence. Vera Farmiga also impresses as Goodwin, ably intimating her character's internal conflict between personal empathy and strict by-the-book professional competence. Within a narrow range of rather repetitive dialogue, as Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson pointed out in their review, Michelle Monaghan keeps her performance fresh and apparently spontaneous.

I don't mean to make too much of the similarities with Groundhog Day, as this is quite a different film, in a way more similar to Tony Scott's fun but somewhat less compelling Deja Vu (2006). Beyond the confines of the story itself, looking at the character arc, and even the morals of the stories, one has to say that Groundhog Day has far more to give and far more to say than either Source Code or Deja Vu.

Groundhog Day stands the test of repeated viewings, remaining delightful. If Source Code can achieve that, it will have done very well.

Sources:

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendment: Added ranking image.

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

The Karate Kid (2010)

A Challenge He Never Imagined. A Teacher He Never Expected.

Long, but very good. The new film keeps to the same general plotline of the old film, with neat twists to the iconic moments. What's great about the storyline is that the main characters' stakes are strong and clear from the outset (except of course for the mystery about why Kung Fu master Chan is content to work as a handyman). There's a similar story arc, as I think the Spill Crew or maybe the Filmspotting guys said, as Rocky (1976): boy loses respect of peers, boy trains hard, boy gains respect of peers by excelling in competition. Or is it, more generally, boy is taken over by fear, boy trains to battle fear, boy battles and conquers fear.

In any case, the stakes are high: Smith must cope with bullies who have no mercy and can't be avoided.

Jackie Chan, in particular, is excellent, with real gravitas, a little like Beat Takeshi. Jaden Smith, in the lead role, also does very well; the girl, WenWen Han, is very cute, and the romantic sub-plot is well handled; the rest of the cast is good.

The action sequences are very well handled. As Mark Kermode (if I remember right) pointed out, however, the violence to Smith in the first and final reels is pretty extreme, and the script writer's have to stretch credulity to allow Chan and Smith's mother to permit Smith to fight on despite very serious injury.

In the end, does it matter if the martial art is not karate, but kung fu?

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: "As Mark Kermode (if remember right)" corrected to "As Mark Kermode (if I remember right)". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Inception (2010)

Your mind is the scene of the crime.

Some controversy about this film, some saying it's brilliant, others that the plot is too confusing or the overall emotional impact is lacking, that it's emotionally cold.

I would say it's very good in the SF action/thriller genre, like Total Recall (1990) or The Matrix (1999): a lot of action, chase scenes, fight scenes and special effects, structured with a clever dream-within-dream story-line, nicely written, including some great action scenes, especially the brilliant fight scenes with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, which I've heard were done pretty much "in camera". Other special effects were good, but not that mind-blowing, given the precedence of The Matrix, etc. Michael Bonner remarks on: "zero gravity fights in a hotel corridor, an assault on an artic fortress and a car chase through a dreamed city".

I was apprehensive about Inception because of the director's previous film, The Dark Knight (2008), which I took a real dislike to: a film with lots of cool machines, speed, action, but without heart, a perfect film for Top Gear-loving lads. I would say that Inception is an emotionally cold film: plot, not character-driven. The stakes, as others have pointed out, are not very personal: corporate espionage, for God's sake!

For all the hype about Inception being an intelligent blockbuster that doesn't dumb down a challenging plot to accommodate lazy audiences, in the end, for science fiction fans, it wasn't that challenging at all. The tropes were fairly standard in the genre of science fiction; I didn't have trouble following the plot, and I saw the final end twist coming a long way off. In toto, although it's true that the film does feel fresh, in reality, it follows the standard action thriller template, with quieter scenes alternating with noisy kick-ass action sequences.

The characters were pretty standard too: fine, but not very memorable. De Caprio was good, as was Cillian Murphy and Ken Watanabe (the latter superb in Letters from Iwo Jima, 2006). Not quite sure why Ellen Page was used, she was fantastic in Juno (2007), but seemed a bit out of place here. Shame Lukas Haas, very effective in Brick (2005), was not used more.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: Added label for actor Lukas Haas. Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Delicatessen (1991)

A futuristic comic feast

Surreal expressionistic vision, as in The City Of Lost Children (1995), surprising and interesting in its fantastic story and weird visuals; enjoyably so. The Radio Times compares the vision to that of David Lynch or Terry Gilliam.

The protagonist, Louison (Dominique Pinon), is an unlikely but engaging and endearing character. The other characters are amusingly grotesque.

There are some very funny moments, such as when the butcher and wife's love-making is echoed by everyone in the building; also, when the protagonist and the butcher's wife test the bedsprings in a synchronised rhythmic dance-like sequence, echoing the previous love-making sequence; and when Louison comes to tea with the butcher's short-sighted daughter, Julie, who decides not to wear her glasses.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Army of Shadows (L'armée des ombres) (1969)

Jean-Pierre Melville's script, adapted from Joseph Kessel's novel, is extraordinary, providing a sophisticated view of the terribly negative impact on themselves of the necessary actions of the French Resistance fighters during WWII. The film seems very modern in this regard, also in the manner of story-telling, which is extremely oblique as to plot; quite often we don't know who is who, how they relate to each other, or what's going on. We see what's happening, but not the big picture. Presumably, this would have been a common experience for the protagonists, too, as speaking openly of things, or trusting unfamiliar people, would have been dangerous. So, it makes the viewer pay attention to non-verbal cues. Interesting use of first person monologue, shifting between protagonists, adding to mood.

At times the action drags, as tension builds, punctuated with harrowing or explosive scenes of violence, or rather, the build up to violence, and the portrayal of the aftermaths of violence. Melville doesn't dwell on depictions of violence, though violence is the threat running throughout the film. The execution of the first traitorous comrade is extremely harrowing, as Melville puts us there in the house with the executioners, as they work through the unexpected logistical obstacles and show the emotional cost.

Given the soul-destroying actions the Resistance fighters have had to take, the final shot of the Arc d'Triomphe is ironic in the extreme. Was it worth it?

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.