Showing posts with label thriller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thriller. 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

Saturday, 28 July 2012

Stalag 17 (1953)

Hilarious, heart-tugging! You'll laugh... you'll cry... you'll cheer William Holden in his great Academy Award role!

This incisive black comic drama by the great Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity - 1944, Sunset Boulevard - 1950, Some Like It Hot - 1959, The Apartment - 1960) is set in Stalag 17, a German prison-of-war camp in the winter of 1943, two years before the end of World War II.

The action opens in one of the prison huts, Barracks Four, little more than two lines of rough bunkbeds. A group of US airmen, all of equal military rank (sergeant), are helping two of their number, Manfredi and Johnson, to attempt an escape, using a tunnel that the men have helped construct under the perimeter fence. Almost as soon as the two escapees have left the hut, one prisoner, Sefton (William Holden), countering the general mood of optimism amongst the prisoners, argues that the escape attempt is unlikely to succeed and challenges the men to back their opinions by betting against him. Outraged (enraged?), most of the prisoners go ahead and place bets in support of the escapees but soon shots are heard and Sefton collects his not inconsiderable winnings.

An idea begins to seed itself through the minds of the prisoners, spreading like a modern viral meme. The Germans knew the exact time and place of the escape so they must somehow have learned details of the actual escape plan. Ruling out other options (uniformed German warders overhearing, mechanical listening devices) would leave only one logical explanation: a spy amongst their ranks, inside this very barrack, a hidden informer pretending to be one of them, feeding the Germans their most precious secrets. As the least popular person in the barrack, and as the person who profited most from the two escapees' deaths, the loaded barrel of guilt begins to turn towards J.J. Sefton.

At the centre of the film, the question of whether or not there is a hidden spy within the barrack, and if that spy is Sefton, creates an inherent tension driving the plot forward, and in its examination of what people are prepared to do to each other when the stakes are high, cleverly licences the film to explore to some very dark places. And in this case, with people's lives very much in the balance (and with a tip of the hat to Filmspotting's Adam Kempenaar, who loves a high stake), the stakes couldn't be much higher. What's more, according to Wikipedia, because of extensive re-writing of the script by Wilder and Blum, and the fact that, contrary to normal practice, the film was shot in chronological order, behind the scenes, even the cast members themselves "did not know the identity of the informant until the last three days of shooting", possibly adding to the tension on screen.

The film is by no means unremitting doom and gloom. Along the way, there are lighter moments. Among the supporting characters, the ongoing comic double act of the two barrack clowns, "Animal" Kasava (Robert Strauss) and Harry "Sugar Lips" Shapiro (Harvey Lembeck), who played the same roles in the stage play on which the film is based, are brilliantly written and impeccably played. Their repartee includes a ritualised, codified rhythmic use of language, developing localised echoic catch phrases, both English and German ("Raus! Raus! Raus!" and "At ease! At ease!", that strongly reminds me of the kind of thing my son, Matthew, and his friends amuse themselves with, riffing endlessly on phrases like "It's nacho cheese, I say it's nacho cheese. It's my cheese, my nacho cheese, bro, not yours, nacho cheese, no way, not your cheese. It's mine, not yours, nacho cheese." Clearly, Kasava and Shapiro's clowning around is not meaningless fun, but on the contrary, the only way they know of coping with the desperate situation they are in.

The cameraderie of Kasava and Shapiro even extends to the German warder, Sergeant Johann Sebastian Schulz (beautifully played by Sig Ruman), with whom at times they are very familiar, not to say dangerously cheeky. How meaningful, how deep, is this prisoner/warder cameraderie? Is Schulz an example of "the good German" of popular legend, subjugated, like the American prisoners, by Nazi cultists in high positions?

Another trope of prison tales, the question of sex (lack of) and enforced periods of same sex internment, is touched on cleverly and subtly. The Hollywood star, Betty Grable, she of the legendary legs, appears as an icon of female desirability. Along the way (without giving away specific plot spoilers), we see men dancing with men, and a distressingly graphic externalisation of desire, probably inspired by a key scene in Charlie Chaplin's The Goldrush (1925).

Turning away from a literal examination of the story to a kind of subtextual interpretation provides an interesting perspective on the United States of America, with the prison-of-war camp standing microscopically for the nation. If each barrack is like a state in the Union, an analogue of federal government support can be seen in the person of Marko the Mailman (William Pierson) who comes round to share bulletins, as well as in the egalitarian practice of time-sharing with the camp's only radio, the only source of outside news and music. There is even a system of sanctions against groups that transgress, by withholding or truncating time with the radio. Provision of a safety net of care for the severely disadvantaged can be seen in the way the character of Joey (Robinson Stone), the catastrophically shell-shocked unfortunate, is looked after by the men in various ways without thought of recompense or personal advantage.

I love the way that, through the conflict between Sefton and the other prisoners, Wilder manages to juxtapose the two key survival strategies available to the imprisoned US sergeants in Barrack Four, and metaphorically, to participants in the socio-political union of the USA itself. Sefton's strategy, essentially individualistic in nature, aims to maximise personal comforts wherever possible, using wealth (in the absence of money, taking the form mainly of cigarettes, the most common currency of barter in the camp) acquired from fellow prisoners via bets and other revenue-accruing activities. This wealth can then be used to gain special privileges from the German overseers, such as turning a blind eye to black market trading, and to gain material advantages such as bottles of alcohol, cigars and good quality food. Of course, acquiring wealth and privilege at the other prisoners' expense does not necessarily bring popularity. Sefton epitomises the selfish face of capitalism, profiteering, cynically exploiting the misfortunes of others for his own benefit. While Sefton is disliked and mistrusted, at the same time, his character provides much of the entertainment and comforts for the rest: speed races with gambling, a liquor bar, a girlie peep show. Could it be that Sefton stands for the entertainment industry, Hollywood, Wilder himself?

As Wilder re-worked the adultery theme of The Seven Year Itch (1955) to great effect in The Apartment (1960), so Stalag 17 (1953) is a second take on the theme of the flip side of the American ideal of rugged individualism: merciless self-interest, initiated in Ace in the Hole (1951), with Sefton a brother in spirit to Kirk Douglas's cynical newspaper hound, ruthlessly exploiting others to advance his own career.

The contrasting strategy, employed by almost all the other men in the barrack, is a kind of cooperative altruism, in its way, a collective socialism, mainly exemplified in their united efforts to support escape attempts and more generally in mutual protection from punishment by their captors, and in care for less abled people in their group. Interestingly, the cooperative approach taken by the majority, which I would imagine most if not all of us will perceive as the best and most moral approach, essentially aligns itself with socialist principles, and exposes the despicable hidden face of unbridled capitalism. This makes Wilder a highly subversive social commentator, causing American cinema-goers in the 1950s to side emotionally with a socio-political stance (socialism) that many would have (misguidedly, I would suggest) hated and feared, and in the main, continue to hate and fear. Respect for this achievement, Mr Wilder. You rock! (I'll bet Michael Moore loves this film, too.)

To conclude, love it or hate it, this is very much a Billy Wilder film: he co-wrote it, directed and produced. As for William Holden, although in other films I have often not really appreciated him, in this film he is really very good, so good that he got a well-deserved Best Actor Oscar.


  • Director: Billy Wilder
  • Writers: Screenplay by Edwin Blum and Billy Wilder, Original theatrical play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski
  • Starring: William Holden, Don Taylor, Otto Preminger, Robert Strauss, Peter Graves, Neville Brand, Harvey Lembeck

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

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Fast Five / Fast and Furious 5: Rio Heist (2011)

This is the best of the franchise so far. Within its genre, this film achieves all its goals fantastically well: Great non-CG special effects. Great action set pieces. Good characters with clear strong stakes. Good "Mission Impossible" style story-line. Actors with the chutzpah to carry it all off. The suspense of waiting to see if / when the two alpha males on each side of the law, car thief Vin Diesel and DEA agent Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, will face off. What's not to like?

As Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times Film Critic, enviably quipped, "Who knew that the best place to put Vin Diesel would be between the Rock and a hard place?"

The film kicks off where number 4 left off, on a deserted US highway, with the rescue of Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel), sentenced to life imprisonment without hope of parole, by rolling the prison transport coach off one end of Brian O'Conner's (Paul Walker's) car, in a mind-boggling display of timing and bravery.

The action shifts to Rio, Brazil, where Dom's sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster), and Brian and Dom agree to take part in an equally amazing theft of several hot-rod cars from a moving train. Again, the pure mechanics and logistics of the equipment and techniques used to pull of the crime are in themselves fascinating and thrilling. Throw in the human drama that emerges as a double-cross is revealed and lives are put in peril, and the result is pure cinematic joy.

The aftermath is that the trio are blamed for the deaths of three US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officers, and a team of DEA DS officers, led by legendary Captain Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), arrives with an arsenal of weaponry and a mission to arrest Dom, Brian and Mia, and enlists the assistance of local rookie cop, Elena Neves (Elsa Pataky), as an interpreter.

Meanwhile, the trio discovers that the brains behind the double-cross is Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), a drug-running local crime lord / politician in virtual control of all the favellas (slum areas) in Rio. Dom decides to take on this crime lord, and assembles a team of specialists, very much in the style of a classic heist or modern Mission Impossible scenario.

To come is a great chase sequence across the roofs of the favellas; a well-orchestrated unarmed combat sequence between two of the principals; a very well staged and bloody fire-fight in the suburbs, and last but not least, a brilliant breath-taking extended chase sequence through the streets of Rio following the heist.

The heist elements are cleverly written, with more than one unexpected turn. The car chases are brilliantly filmed, partly using a very effective rig that allows the director to shoot cars driving head on into the path of the camera, as is explained in a DVD extra documentary short.

The principals are very sympathetic. Dom is a career criminal with a strong ethical code in which loyalty to family and workmates is paramount. Brian, in previous films as an undercover cop torn between his sworn duties and his love of Mia and his liking for Dom, is now an out-and-out renegade cop on the run from the law. Dom's sister, Mia, once again in a relationship with Brian, as we have seen in previous films in the series, is clearly a "good" girl. Hobbs is given no back story but has a strong onscreen presence. His police interpreter, Neves, is given enough screen time and back story to make her sympathetic. The villains, Reyes and his lieutenant, Zizi (Michael Irby), are given just enough character and show of villainy to make the audience welcome their come-uppances. The characters of the heist team that is assembled, including Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, Tyrese Gibson and Sung Kang, are much more perfunctorily sketched in, and are little more than one-note performances. High full price.


  • Director: Justin Lin
  • Writers: Chris Morgan (based on characters by Gary Scott Thompson)
  • Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Gal Gadot, Matt Schulze, Tego Calderon and Don Omar

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

Chocolate (Chokgohlaet) (2008)

Taste the fury.

A Thai martial arts action thriller, where an autistic young teenage girl, Zen (JeeJa Yanin), learns to fight by copying moves used in martial arts classes next door and from TV shows and movies. It is a B-movie graced by a series of beautifully staged fight scenes between the girl and different groups of gangsters.

As for the plot, I was not entirely clear about people's roles or relationships but, in essence, Zin (Ammara Siripong), her Thai mother, and Masashi (Hiroshi Abe), her Japanese father, were mixed up in the world of organised crime, and her father had to return to Japan before she was born. She grows up autistic, becomes transfixed by people doing martial arts training, takes to working out herself.

Her only friend is Moom (Taphon Phopwandee), a much-bullied fat kid, who discovers she is able to catch anything thrown at her from whatever direction, and uses this as a money-making scheme, getting her to perform in public for donations. When somebody throws a knife at her and she catches it, he realises he has something special, and when a gang of teens attack them, her fighting ability is triggered.

Then Zin, the girl's mother, falls ill with cancer, and they desperately need large amounts of money for treatment and medicine. The boy finds a debt book amongst the mother's possessions, with names of local debtors and the sums that they owe, presumably as protection money to a gangster organisation. The boy realises that this money would pay for the mother's treatment, and he takes the girl with him to start collecting the debts...

Compared to Kill Bill 1, for example, for me, this is preferable. This is grittier, more authentic in setting and feel. The boy Moom is a believable and interesting character, and in the lead role of Zen, JeeJa Yani is very sympathetically portrayed and has amazing athleticism. The stunts are very well staged, and the end credits includes, Jackie Chan like, a series of injury clips, showing how arduous the stunts were, and how they were done in real life, not with digital effects, The villains, however, crime boss Number 8 (Pongpat Wachirabunjong) and his henchwoman, Priscilla (Sirimongkol Iamthuam), are completely two dimensional, with little plausible motivation, and a laughably foolish set of henchmen and henchwomen, who insist on throwing themselves into the fight despite the piles of bodies of their colleagues already littering the floor.

The very definition of a well done genre movie.


  • Director: Prachya Pinkaew, martial arts choreography by Panna Rittikrai
  • Writers: Chookiat Sakveerakul, Napalee
  • Starring: JeeJa Yanin, Hiroshi Abe, Pongpat Wachirabunjong, Taphon Phopwandee, Yanin Vismitananda

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



Sunday, 31 July 2011

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A Tale of Murder, Lust, Greed, Revenge, and Seafood.

This is a very funny and generally entertaining film, the last great swan-song of brilliant creative humour (at least till now) of the legendary ex-Python, John Cleese, the writer, star and co-director. In the aftermath of a flawed jewel heist, compromised by witness identification of the gang leader, greed and distrust turn the four robbers against each other.

The film starts very succinctly by introducing the gang members, two American and two British, each with a passion, an idiosyncrasy, an Achilles' heel. Wanda, the glamorous and quick-thinking American girlfriend of the gang leader, George, is strongly aroused by the sound of foreign languages, a foible used to good comic effect. Otto, a dim-witted weapons expert, also American, and Wanda's secret lover, believing himself to be an intellectual, has a passion for the works of the philosopher, Nietzsche, though only limited comprehension. Ken, the getaway driver, a British man with a severe speech impediment, a stutter, and a tank full of tropical fish, ironically, given later developments, is a keen animal-lover. Only the leader, George, has no real identifiable passion, unless it be for diamonds. The only chinks in his armour are his trust in Wanda, shown from the outset to be double-timing him with Otto, and his identification by an elderly pedestrian at or near the scene of the robbery.

The plot develops briskly, alternating between the story-lines of defence barrister, Archie Leach (Cleese), and the robbers, and then showing how these initially parallel story-lines converge, in satisfyingly unexpected ways.

The use of American actors is brilliant casting, as it allowed the filmmakers to market the film in the USA as an American film starring American actors (Kline and Curtis) in a story set in England, and to market the film in the UK as a British film starring the much-loved ex-Python comedians, Cleese and Palin, with the bonus of glamorous American guest stars. (Kline was awarded an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.)

The character and portrayal of Archie's wife, Wendy, by Maria Aitken, is superb. She absolutely nails the kind of highly educated, sharp-tongued, sharp-minded, upper-middle class English woman who can deflate a fool with words in less than a minute, and who will fearlessly attack those who wrong her.

The sub-text is perhaps that of hidebound British cultural norms contrasted with the apparent freedoms of the American way of life and the desirability of the exoticism of overseas cultures. This is explicitly bemoaned both by John Cleese's character, George's barrister (lawyer), Archie Leech, who is delighted by the refreshing directness of the American style of social interaction, and also by Otto, who despises English stereotypical reserve and diffidence as unmasculine. A lovely example is the contrast between the dull, middle-class bedtime ritual of Archie and his wife, Wendy, and the extravagant passionate foreplay of Otto and Wanda.

Another strand is that of the use of language. There is Ken, with his communication-impeding stutter, Otto, with his cod-Italian and his catch-phrases ("Asshole!" "What was the middle thing?" "Don't ever call me stupid."), Wanda, with her apparent ability to be sexually aroused by the sound of a foreign language, George, with his creative use of bad language, and Archie, whose job it is to speak in defence of criminals.

The only bum note, to my mind, is a moment, near the end, where Archie, the very English barrister, talking to Otto, impersonates in voice and mannerisms a larger-than-life character from the southern USA, thereby stretching audience credulity and surreptitiously breaking the fourth wall, allowing Cleese himself to break through with a little advertisement for the versatility of his own acting skills.

Apparently, according to Wikipedia, there is a reported case of somebody in a cinema actually dying of laughter while watching A Fish Called Wanda.

References


  • Director: Charles Crichton, John Cleese
  • Writers: John Cleese, Charles Crichton
  • Starring: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin, Tom Georgeson, Maria Aitken, Patricia Hayes, Geoffrey Palmer

Posted from my MacBook Pro with the assistance of TextWrangler



Friday, 20 May 2011

Mother (Madeo) (2009)

She'll stop at nothing.

"Mother" is an unusual character-based murder mystery set in modern day South Korea and featuring a superb performance by Kim Hye-ja, the actress playing the title character, a single mother of a mentally backward, memory-impaired, young man of 28 years of age accused of killing a local school girl. Finding precious little support from the law, Hye-ja, desperate to identify the real perpetrator, is herself forced to turn amateur detective.

The story begins with the son, Do-joon (Won Bin), being led into a needlessly violent confrontation with a group of elderly people by his best friend, Jin-tae (Ku Jin). Later, at the police station, facing a sizeable fine for criminal damage, Jin-tae exploits Do-joon's foggy recollection of the event to trick him into taking the rap. Of course, it is Do-joon's mother, Hye-ja (Kim Hye-ja), who will have to try to find the money to pay the fine from her meagre income as a herb seller and unlicensed acupuncturist. Later, when the body of the school girl is found, and the finger of suspicion points to Do-joon, based on circumstantial evidence (possibly planted by Jin-tae), Hye-ja begins a solitary struggle on behalf of her son.

Stripped to its essence, and in the hands of lesser filmmakers, perhaps, this would be just another stock genre murder mystery with an amateur sleuth. But the sly way the story is set up by director, Bong Joon-ho, and screenplay writer, Park Eun-kyo, edging the mother unexpectedly into the role of investigator, is so fresh and clever in its execution that it seems quite novel.

The script is brilliant, with the plot taking various surprising turns. People are not always what they seem at first, and there are some unsettling reveals. Along the way, a harsh light is shone on the investigative powers of the police and the moral fibre of the legal representatives, not to mention the cruel world of Korean schoolchildren, and there are episodes of strong suspense and violence. An intriguing secondary mystery clouds the nature of the relationship between two important characters. Is the one still a small child in the eyes of the other, or is something less savoury involved? Perhaps I missed some vital clues, but in my mind this puzzle was only satisfactorily resolved days after watching the film.

The script is great, but best of all is the outstanding performance by Kim Hye-Ja as the mother, a master class in method acting, her incredibly expressive face able to communicate a range of conflicting emotions within a matter of seconds. The enigmatic temporal bookends in which she features linger in the memory. Very good performances as well by Jin Goo and Won Bin as the two young men.


  • Director: Bong Joon-ho
  • Writers: Bong Joon-ho, Park Eun-kyo
  • Starring: Kim Hye-ja, Bin Won, Ku Jin, Yoon Jae-Moon, Mi-sun Jun, Young-Suck Lee, Sae-Beauk Song, Mun-hee Na, Woo-hee Chun, Byoung-Soon Kim

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro



Saturday, 30 April 2011

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

My private life is my own affair

In The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, an original story by Billy Wilder and co-writer, I. A. L. Diamond, the filmmakers slyly play with the familiar tropes of the great fictional detective and audience expectations, fashioning a tale at once classical in plot and characters but contemporary in vision.

The film kicks off with a very smart temporal bookend, set in a bank vault 50 years after the main action, in which a dust-covered, bound, sealed chest of Sherlock Holmes memorabilia belonging to Dr Watson is opened and, piece by piece, the contents revealed. First, the audience is reminded of the familiar elements of Sherlock Holmes' life - the deerstalker hat, the meerschaum pipe, the magnifying glass, the door number 221B, and so on. Second, a tantalising puzzle of novel or less familiar elements is introduced: a musical score entitled "for Ilse van H. Sherlock Holmes, comp.", a gold pocket watch containing the photograph of an attractive young woman, a ring fronted with the initials "SH" hiding a miniature magnetic compass, a medical syringe, a snow globe featuring a bust of Queen Victoria, and a sheaf of papers entitled "To my heirs", from which a ghostly Dr Watson narrates. After mentioning the 60 or so published accounts of Sherlock Holmes' cases, he continues, "But there were other adventures which, for reasons of discretion, I have decided to withhold from the public until this much later date. They involve matters of a delicate and sometimes scandalous nature, as will shortly become apparent…".

The story switches back 50 years to Holmes (Robert Stephens) and Watson (Colin Blakely) returning to their shared Baker Street flat, and to an immediate puncturing of some less modern aspects (the habit of wearing a cloak and deerstalker hat) of the familiar Sherlock Holmes stereotype, and the reinforcing of some other ostensibly more modernistic elements (the interest in music, the use of recreational drugs), with Holmes waxing irate at the public's inaccurate image of him, foisted on him by Watson's use of poetic licence when reporting his "simple exercises in logic" and the publisher's erroneous illustrations. Holmes also protests that Watson has falsely characterised him as a misogynist - he does not dislike women, merely mistrusts them - thereby introducing another of the more modernistic themes of the film: Holmes's sexuality.

Nowadays, if two unmarried men share a flat and one writes consistently glowing reports of the other's exploits, people might reasonably wonder about the nature of their personal relationship. Wikipedia reports that "Holmes is not known to have had any relations with women" whereas Watson was married in some stories. In a minor plot thread involving an ageing Russian prima ballerina (Tamara Toumanova) on the point of retirement, the script writers have some fun playing with the notion that Holmes might have been gay. Holmes is summoned to the side of the ballerina, and only manages to avoid a proposal to father her first child, in exchange for a precious Stradivarius violin, by pretending to be in a relationship with Dr Watson. Watson's conventional panic about what people will think of him highlights Holmes' amused and urbane response, adding to his status as a man socially, as well as intellectually, ahead of his time.

Now into the film comes a damsel in distress, Gabrielle Valladon (Geneviève Page), a beautiful woman with a foreign accent and a missing husband, and the story takes on more of the elements of a standard Sherlock Holmes mystery, including cages of canaries, disappearing circus midgets, monks sworn to silence, odd goings-on in the ruins of a Scottish castle and even sightings of a Loch Ness monster.

The scriptwriters continue to have fun with Holmes' sex life, allowing him to provide a rationale for his distrust of women, and placing him in various interesting juxtapositions - and let's be honest, temptations - with his new client, Valladon, including full-on nudity and the semblance of domestic married bliss. Early on, at the Baker Street flat, for example, Valladon, mentally confused after a recent near drowning and apparently thinking herself in her own home and mistaking Holmes for her husband, wanders around unashamedly in a state of undress and attempts to embrace him. Later on, to mask their true identities, Holmes and Valladon pretend to be a married couple, with Watson as their valet, leading to interesting developments in the bedroom.

In any case, by the end of the film, the significance of the items pulled out of Dr Watson's chest should be quite clear and questions about Holmes' choice of relationships feel satisfactorily resolved.

Turning to performances: as the great consulting detective, Robert Stephens, his features suitably angular, is really pretty convincing. With voice and body language, he conveys a background of sufficient social and educational privilege and the required intellectual arrogance, and with just a hint of arch campness, introduces the shadow of a doubt. Colin Blakely plays Watson very conventionally, as is right, to emphasise Holmes' uniqueness; Geneviève Page is just right as Holmes' client, lovely and loveable; and Christopher Lee is very sinister as Mycroft. Of the supporting actors, Irene Handl gives a wonderful performance as Mrs Hudson, Holmes' landlady.

This film would make a good double bill with John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon (1939).


  • Director: Billy Wilder
  • Writers: I. A. L. Diamond, Billy Wilder
  • Starring: Robert Stephens, Geneviève Page, Colin Blakely, Christopher Lee, Irene Handl, Clive Revill, Tamara Toumanova, Stanley Holloway

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: 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.

Saturday, 9 April 2011

It Came from Outer Space (1953)

From Ray Bradbury's great science fiction story!

Based on a story by the great lyrical SF writer, Ray Bradbury, this low budget but interesting aliens-on-Earth thriller is dated, but at only 81 minutes well worth a viewing for SF fans, and could work well in a double bill with Don Siegel's superior The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). And like Body Snatchers, often viewed as a reflection of contemporary Cold War paranoia, this film could be seen as an expression of Americans' fear of the Red Menace, the personification of the unknown other from a strange land. Hollywood was in the grip of an FBI and governmental witch-hunt for Communist sympathisers in the few years leading up to this film, with many unlucky writers, directors, actors, musicians and others being blacklisted from working in the movie and TV industries.

The story, set in small-town Arizona, USA, begins with science writer, John Putnam (Richard Carlson), and fiancée, schoolteacher Ellen Fields (Barbara Rush), investigating a large meteor crash. Descending alone into the crater, Putnam discovers that the meteor is actually a crashed space craft. He examines some strange tracks he finds outside the craft, little knowing that he too is being observed by an off-screen presence within the space craft. Other people, including a local newspaper reporter, arrive at the scene, but before anyone else can see anything, the space craft is hidden by a massive land-slide.

Can Putnam convince others of what he has seen, and what he suspects (that non-Terrestrial life-forms are on Earth)? What is the reason for the mysterious sounds on the telephone wires outside town? What is to be made of the disappearance of certain townspeople and the strange behaviour of others?

As I said, the film is dated, and the theme of alien visitation has been pretty thoroughly explored in the almost 60 years since this film was released, but it's still a fun watch. The script is intelligent (Wikipedia says "it is said Ray Bradbury wrote the original screenplay and Harry Essex merely changed the dialogue and took the credit"), and takes some interesting turns that resonate very ironically with a Red Menace paranoia reading. The acting by the leads, Carlson, in particular, and also Charles Drake as the local Sheriff Matt Warren, is very good. The weak link in the chain is the special effects, which at the time were probably rather poor, and for 21st century eyes are decidedly ropey though not without their own kind of kitsch charm.

Funny how so many movies in this period, in order to signal reliability in a male character, give him a pipe, even if, like Putnam in this tale, the character uses it only as a prop, never actually smoking tobacco in it. Funny too, how, although Putnam is characterised as a lonely intellectual seeking the solitude of the desert, he seems to be able to greet almost everyone in town by their first name, and everyone seems to know him.

Sources:

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

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



Tuesday, 29 March 2011

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.



Death Proof (2007)

A White-Hot Juggernaut At 200 Miles Per Hour!

Rather boring for the first 30-40 minutes. It's the dreariness of the Texas girls' characters and their existence that's dull. Their existence is just empty hedonism. Hot girls with "attitude", talking tough, drinking, smoking, doing drugs and just hanging out. It's all so banal. Then "Stuntman Mike" starts killing. Why? Who cares? As Tom Charity says, "For 50 minutes four girls sit and gab: in a car, in a bar, and in another bar. Then something really terrible happens and the movie starts over again: four girls in a car."

The girls in Tenessee are a bit more interesting, but again, as always with Tarantino, the characters talk virtually non-stop, and always with "attitude". Moveover, there's some awful exposition designed to let the audience know that two of the girls are stuntwomen, one of whom carries a pistol strapped to her leg, telegraphing a more equal combat scenario with Stuntman Mike. And that these two girls are into cars.

Have to say, the last half hour the action picks up, to some extent redeeming the previous hour's longeurs, including an excellent "ship's mast" action sequence, and getting very exciting when the girls turn the tables on Mike. But then the film ends. As with the psycho killer in No Country for Old Men (2007), we never find out anything about Mike's motivation.

Like Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003), it seems to be like a practice exercise for a proper film. Great cinematography and editing, great soundtrack, hip dialogue, but for what?

When we enter Tenessee, the film changes to black-and-white, then some time later, back to colour, presumably trying to replicate Tarantino's experience of watching Grindhouse B movies in cheap movie theaters in the 1970s. Ditto the faux scratches and jumps on what is presumably pristine possibly digital modern film or video footage.

I read that the original film, shown as part of a double bill with Rodriguez's Planet Terror (2007), was only 60 minutes long, but here it's got an extra 27 minutes!

Watching streaming online from LoveFilm.com didn't help, as the movie kept stopping and having to re-buffer.

On the plus side, Russell does a fantastic John Wayne impression.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

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



Saturday, 19 March 2011

Crime Story (1993)

The World's Toughest City Needs More Than An Army To Stop The Mob... They Need One Man!

A fast-moving violent story of kidnapping and corruption in Hong Kong, with Jackie Chan excellent as a gung-ho police inspector, up against crooks and a corrupt colleague (Kent Cheng) working against him behind the scenes.

According to script-writer Teddy Chen, in the DVD extras, the story was intensively researched and the results appear realistic, with authentic-looking locations and convincing police procedures. According to Chen, this was Chan's first serious action film and I guess there were question marks over the issue of how well he would be able to play this kind of dramatic role but if so, people needn't have worried. Chan is very good, as is Cheng, as the crooked cop.

Some of the action sequences are breath-taking and there are some phenomenal extended fight sequences along the way, with Jackie Chan performing some amazing feats of athleticism. This is especially commendable when you consider that the stunts would all have been done "in-camera" as they say, without the luxury of post-produced computer effects. I remember Jackie Chan in interview describing the number of injuries he had had while filming, and watching this film, I can well believe it.

Interesting that the kidnap victim is portrayed with some complexity, on the one hand, as a very unsympathetic character, a wealthy property developer ruthlessly cutting corners and exploiting his workers in pursuit of profits, but on the other hand, as a human being in jeopardy who really seems to care for his family.

Apart from the apparent affection between the kidnap victim and his wife, there is little to distract the audience from the main kidnap story-line. Over-used to Hollywood movie conventions, perhaps, I expected Chan's relationship with an attractive young police psychologist early on in the story to blossom into a romantic sub-plot, but no, she does not even appear in the second half of the film. The story is stripped down, and all the better for it.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

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



Saturday, 12 March 2011

The Sweet Hereafter (1997)

Sometimes courage comes from the most surprising places.

There is a tragedy at the centre of this film involving the children of a town in British Columbia, Canada, teased out little by little until the final reveal. We learn of it first through a clever plot device in which Mitchell Stephens (Ian Holmes), a lawyer, canvasses support among the parents for a group lawsuit. As Stephens tours the town, we too are taken inside people's homes, and more importantly inside the town's rumour mill. Through Stephens's eyes and ears, we gain insight into the dark and dirty secrets of the townspeople's lives.

Holmes' divorced lawyer is himself in a troubled relationship with his grownup daughter, a long-time drug addict. Present-day scenes of their painful talks by phone contrast with idyllic scenes from the past, but also one incident where he literally held his daughter's innocent young life in his hands.

Another access point to the story is young Nicole Burnell's (Sarah Polley) narration of the traditional tale of The Pied Piper of Hamlyn, expressed in the form of a poem. This poem, very poignantly, stands as a metaphor for what has happened to the town and the town's children, including Nicole, especially Nicole. Almost subliminally, at first, the poem extends the story and mutates it in unexpected directions, to more closely mirror the aftermath of the town's tragedy.

A key reason for choosing to see this film was that the title came up when I did a search on Sarah Polley, the wonderfully bloody-minded star of Go (1999). She was good, but for me the standout performance here is that of Holmes.

Another reason for choosing to see this film is that it was well spoken of by Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson on Filmspotting.net, but having seen it now, I can't quite decide what to make of it. It is a serious film for an intelligent, adult audience, well acted, well shot, and with several very poignant and/or disturbing story-lines running through it. But what the film is about, what the underlying message is, what all the parts add up to, I'm not quite sure, and so, I'm a bit disappointed. (Surely the film's take-home message can't be: "Spare your children from the miseries of adult life. If you have the chance, kill them now!")

The reason for my confusion could be down to the fractured narrative structure of the film. Alternatively, it might be a problem of perception, i.e. my fault. Rather than seeing the film straight through, due to force of circumstance, I saw it in two sittings, and this might have diluted the impact. But, until I see it again and maybe gain greater insight, I can't give it more than a high matinee.

Hmn, now reading on IMDB.com/title/tt0120255/ I find that Matthew Tichenor HAS made sense of the film: "The community is paralyzed by its anger and cannot let go. All but one young girl... who finds the courage to lead the way to the sweet hereafter."

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

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



Saturday, 12 February 2011

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Funny seeing the film of a book so recently read. Good script stripping out a lot of the subplots, focussing on the central story of the mystery of the missing girl, Harriet.

Good casting of the crucial Lisbeth Salanders character (Noomi Rapace): she's believable and fascinating.

The theme of men's subjgation of women, and worse, is mirrored in Salander who becomes the avenging angel of abused women, taking on and vanquishing evil men. In this film, much more than the book we see the development of a dark female superhero.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

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



Sin City (2005)

There is no justice without sin.

Fantastic film version of a strong artistic vision of a dark, violent, sexy version of our world.

When Xanthe and I saw this in the cinema on release, after a steady diet of kids' films, this was a massive shock to the system which left us gasping.

The visuals are gorgeous and so well realised with the limited colour palette and the stunning from above night time snow and rain shots, so iconic.

Of course it can be seen as offensive in its gender stereotyping but it's all tongue-in-cheek, no?

Awesome performance by Mickey Rourke as Marv and by Bruce Willis as cop Hartigan.

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: added actor tags: "Jessica Alba, Benicio del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Friday, 11 February 2011

Elephant (2003)

An ordinary high school day. Except that it's not.

Short - only 80 mins. (I read that the title was taken from Alan Clarke's 1989 BBC drama about violence in Northern Ireland. Not sure why...)

Fantastically well realised in terms of naturalism of script, dialogue and performances. (I read that they were real high school kids, many using their own real names, and that much of the dialogue was improvised.) Most of the film is the build-up, as we accompany various kids around the school. Fantastic long (tracking?) shots, walking along endless corridors and other parts of the school, concentrating our attention on the people, often behind, sometimes from in front, often just on their faces. Time is fluid, as we keep returning to the same junctions between people, but from another person's point of view.

We see some of the preparation of the two boys who commit the massacre, how easy it is to buy assault weapons, and get them delivered to the door with no questions asked. The thoroughness of their planning beforehand, showing it was not a spontaneous but premeditated act. The FPS (first-person shooter - a type of violent video-game) they play, similar to what they later do - a bit controversial, this! Their (gay?) activity.

But we get little suggestion as to the motivation behind the boys' action. There is little/no emotion shown by the killers, apart from some enjoyment when they succeed in shooting people. Is this good or bad? On the one hand, we are allowed to draw our own conclusions. However, there is little evidence to base any conclusions on, so, on the other hand, it is difficult to ascribe motivation. It then becomes a film about outward actions, about surfaces, with little indication of anything beneath. So, somewhat unsatisfying: you give us the experience of the massacre but don't tell us anything really new, unless it's that motiveless crime exists? Interesting: the Radio Times review takes the same tack as I have, querying the lack of depth to the film.

Ebert puts a positive spin on it: "It simply looks at the day as it unfolds, and that is a brave and radical act; it refuses to supply reasons and assign cures, so that we can close the case and move on."

Posted using Blogo from my MacBook Pro

Amendments: added actor tags: "Alex Frost, Eric Deulen, John Robinson". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Tuesday, 8 February 2011

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Read between the lies.

The performances are very good, particular the leads. Ewan McGregor is very good, Pierce Brosnan is particularly persuasive in the Tony Blair-alike PM role, and Olivia Williams, as the PM's wife, is very credible.

There's nothing that particularly marks the film out, stylistically, as the vision of any one particular film-maker. The story is pretty good, but the tone is a bit flat, a bit lacking in a sense of suspense for the first half, though it livens up considerably in the second half. There are some delightful twists to the story, and a particularly wonderful final twist.

But the most surprising twist of all comes after the final frame, as the credits began to roll: a film by Roman Polanski! Who would have thought? I'd forgotten who the director was, and was surprised, shocked even, that this entertaining but rather pedestrian genre piece was made by the auteur who brought moody shockers like Knife in the Water, Repulsion, Cul-de-sac and the great stylistic tour de force of Chinatown. And written by Robert Harris (Fatherland, Enigma).

Amendments: Added writer tag: "Robert Harris"; actor tags: "Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams, Kim Cattrall, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Hutton, James Belushi, Eli Wallach". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.



Sunday, 6 February 2011

The Black Dahlia (2006)

Inspired by the most notorious unsolved murder in California history.

Pretty good overall. The tone seemed right, compared to the book: dark, savage, bitter.

The photography, production design and all were all good.

Good performance from Josh Hartnett. Scarlett Johansson, Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart were also OK, though I never believed Eckhart and Hartnett as buddies, no connection between them. Best performances were by the girl who played the dead girl, Betty, and a brilliant performance by Swank's mother.

The problem was the script: too dense, as the LoveFilm entry says. Difficult to follow the plot at times, especially at the beginning. Compare the adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" in Blade Runner, which was stripped down and re-made, very lean.

The audio was poor, difficult to follow what they were saying, maybe too much information, or too fast and choppy. The effect was to confuse the viewer.

Amendments: Added writer tags: "Josh Friedman, James Ellroy"; actor tags: "Aaron Eckhart, Scarlett Johansson, Hilary Swank". Removed link to Wikipedia-sourced image. Added ranking image.