A Walk Among The Tombstones (2014)

2014-10-04

"Oh, not this again..." — “Oh, not this again…”

Twitter Plot Summary: Scudder is a private eye, tasked with investigating the kidnappings of women that may be connected.

Five Point Summary:

1. Big, loud gun shots.
2. Random homeless kid.
3. Another kidnapping.
4. The Liam Neeson telephone call.
5. Things are getting very dark.

Any concerns about A Walk Among The Tombstones being yet another Taken clone should be disregarded immediately. Yes, it stars Liam Neeson, and yes it does feature him making a telephone call to the bad guys, but it’s there that the similarities end. Neeson’s character, Matthew Scudder, is an unlicensed private eye, which basically means he can take jobs that have a more morally ambiguous background. Such is the case here, involving drug dealers, a pair of perverted villains and a man – Scudder – investigating the case with no emotional attachment to the participants or the outcome.

The plot and presentation are such that it could potentially be an incredibly difficult film to watch, but this also helps to push events away from the almost comic book narrative of the Taken franchise and does more than enough to make it absolutely clear that this is a completely adult-oriented thriller. Anyone expecting popcorn action and silliness should keep this in mind before viewing. It’s a dark, disturbing and overall serious film, and it soon becomes clear why Neeson took the role.

Dan Stevens appears to be branching out quite successfully from his breakout role in Downton Abbey, this year alone taking on the guise of a mysterious visitor in The Guest and now appearing as a drug dealer whose wife is kidnapped and killed by the perverted pair. Talking of which, the bad guys are truly unpleasant, lacking the moral compass that makes most of the world go round. Their objectives are based around financial gain, and there are no limits to their depraved nature.

There is some light relief from Scudder’s interactions with a homeless boy who has Sickle Cell Anaemia, with the boy wanting to help Scudder in his investigation and Scudder reluctantly agreeing, whilst simultaneously showing the kid how he can better himself. Their relationship is an interesting one, and one that doesn’t feel overly forced or unusual.

The pre-millennium setting provides many benefits, the convenience of our current technology was still some distance away in 1999 and means the characters have to resolve their problems in what feels like a more old-fashioned method. Scudder can’t just whip out a smartphone to do his research, which is another aspect that works in the film’s favour. It adds to the grittiness, the reality of the situation, more so when one of the kidnappers, the more talkative Ray, sees a news report about the Millennium Bug and suggests that people are afraid of the wrong things. In terms of the moments of action, the gun shots and violence feel weighty and real, and they have an impact all of their own.

Neeson may not have the best of grasps on the New York accent, but otherwise he provides a solid central performance and much of the success of the film relies on him providing gravitas and a certain level of world weariness. Suffice to say, he is entirely successful in this respect, so his occasionally dodgy accent is less of an issue. In an ideal world the further adventures of Scudder could prove to be an interesting franchise, particularly if subsequent efforts are as accomplished as this.

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Ttj9tXzCA

Raging Bull (1980)

Simon Prior

2014-10-03

Twitter Plot Summary: A biopic of tough boxer Jake La Motta, portrayed with unerring method acting by Robert De Niro.

Five Point Summary:

1. 1941 boxing. Looks a bit… hmm.
2. Thin De Niro.
3. Blood splatter.
4. Accusations and the decline of his career.
5. Fat De Niro.

Scorsese and De Niro reunited for a fourth time for the 1980 classic Raging Bull. De Niro goes full method as Jake La Motta, a boxer who in 1941 is on the ascendance within the sport. The film then follows his life and career, demonstrating how the skills and temperament to succeed in boxing may not necessarily translate to a happy home life. Many of De Niro’s characters under Scorsese’s watchful eye are quick to anger and inherently jealous of the woman and/or women in his life, and La Motta is no different. More often than not he is jealous of his wife, his brother and indeed almost everybody else, and prone to throwing a few punches when his anger gets the better of him. From one perspective it’s easy to spot how truly insecure the man may have actually been, despite his physically imposing persona.

Joe Pesci plays La Motta’s brother Joey, and turns in as strong a performance as De Niro. It’s of no surprise that Pesci would collaborate with Scorsese and De Niro again several times in the future. Joey is a necessary cog in the development of La Motta’s boxing career, acting as his manager, and his absence also no doubt led to his eventual decline.

Scorsese has a penchant for stories where there is a certain level of moral dubiousness to the lead character, and Raging Bull is no different with La Motta showing a physical interest in a fifteen year old girl, Vickie, played with gusto by Cathy Moriarty. Vickie slowly morphs from an impressionable teenager into a strong woman, perhaps more out of necessity than design.

Lying down on the job is usually frowned upon.

There’s a certain poetry to both the fight sequences as well as Scorsese’s direction in general, frequently mixing the hard hitting impact of the boxing ring with mock home video footage of La Motta’s life outside of the ring. These sequences also mark the only time when the film moves into colour, a bold and hard hitting stylistic choice that may have had more to do with the blood splattering the boxing ring more than anything else.

Raging Bull is an unapologetic biography of La Motta, a man who clearly had his fair share of demons and seems to have had no problems with this being portrayed in the film. Without wanting to lapse into boxing puns, it’s as hard-hitting as La Motta himself, a twelve (or fifteen) round slugfest of competitive spirit, emotional insecurity and relationship troubles.

It’s a supremely confident production from Scorsese, and may mark his finest work to date. If there are any flaws to be considered, it’s in the relatively rushed final act as La Motta seeks alternative methods of employment following the end of his boxing career. De Niro once again went full method for this part of La Motta’s story, piling on the pounds to show a man who is well beyond his peak. Overall this is but a minor gripe against what is otherwise a gripping insight into the boxing world and the lives of those who exist in it.

Score: 5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiVOwxsa4OM

The Call (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-10-02

"Sorry, who is the studio behind this again? What?" — “Sorry, who is the studio behind this again? What?”

Twitter Plot Summary: Halle Berry is a 911 call operator who tries to help Abigail Breslin after she’s kidnapped by a nutter.

Five Point Summary:

1. Nice hair, Halle.
2. Oh no, the same thing that happened before has happened again!
3. He’s a very angry man, isn’t he?
4. Was there any need to strip Abigail Breslin down to her bra?
5. Okay, as soon as she left the call centre it got silly. Very silly.

Working on the contact line for one of the emergency services is sure to have its fair share of unpleasant moments, with any number of serious crimes being reported and the operator being helpless to provide anything more than verbal support to those calling in. After one such call goes badly, Halle Berry’s 911 operator Jordan comes off the front line (so to speak) in order to train newbies and to highlight the positive and negative aspects of the job they’re signing up for. On a floor walk a call comes in that requires her attention, and she’s soon drawn into the kidnapping of a teenage girl.

Abigail Breslin is the girl, Casey, who finds herself locked in the boot of a car and being taken to places unknown. A lot of tension is drawn from the simple kidnapping act and the subsequent call Casey makes, with both Berry and Breslin carrying the situation through performance alone. It’s not an expensive production by any means, but without those two main performances it would be just another generic, straight to DVD thriller with characters we otherwise wouldn’t care for. It’s yet another example of decent actors elevating a tired script and poorly defined characters.

Sometimes in this genre it’s best to keep the killer’s identity hidden for as long as possible, but that’s not the case here and works in its favour. Shortly after the kidnapping takes place we’re introduced to Michael, played by Michael Eklund. Michael is a man who is nicely unhinged, although his actions do border on the silly rather than believable. Still, he does prove entertaining at the very least, and the gradual release of his backstory is the only thing that pushes the narrative forward, as the police investigation ultimately flounders and you start to wonder why those characters, Morris Chestnut in particular, were given any dialogue at all besides being used as exposition for the audience.

"You will appear in a WWE Films production, and you will ENJOY it!" — “You will appear in a WWE Films production, and you will ENJOY it!”

It’s a solid thriller for the first half, but it takes a turn for the slightly ludicrous once Jordan ventures out of the call centre in order to track down the kidnapper, without police assistance. Her detective skills are apparently second to none, making ridiculous levels of progress and proving the police, in this instance, to be surprisingly incompetent. Her progress in determining the kidnapper’s whereabouts isn’t given a decent explanation, and feels very much like an action-oriented ending that has been tacked on for the sake of giving Jordan – and the audience – closure.

As a result the final act feels rushed and an homage to far better crime thrillers, a perfect example of a script that starts to lose focus once it starts moving away from its core principle and feels it necessary to have Breslin stripped of her shirt and left in her bra. If you can forgive this blatant attempt at appealing to the teen audience – it is a WWE Films production, after all – and if you can forgive the daft final act, then The Call is a decent if unspectacular thriller.

Score: 3/5

X: The Unknown (1956)

Simon Prior

2014-10-01

As this was the 1950s, all women reacted to things like this, apparently.

Twitter Plot Summary: A strange alien creature thing starts bumping people off in a very British, very Hammer manner.

Five Point Summary:

1. So radiation is a bad thing.
2. It even kills soldiers! Oh, the humanity!
3. That doctor and that nurse sneaking off – that’ll end badly.
4. Is that it? I can see why they didn’t show the creature earlier.
5. Ahh, resolution. Everyone can stop being afraid of mud now.

In terms of the template for a classic 1950s science fiction picture, X: The Unknown ticks all the expected boxes, albeit from a distinctly British perspective. This isn’t your typical B-Movie feature though, keeping the tone low-key and the evil menace unseen for as long as possible in a typically British slow burning manner. The monster in question eats radiation, a potent fear given its release just over a decade after the nuclear bombs dropping on Japan. The difference being that Japan created Godzilla, a massive, physical representation of the radioactive menace. The British equivalent? Some radioactive, sentient mud. As people begin to die with regularity, they do so from the first person perspective of the monster, its presence only indicated by the buzz of a Geiger counter – which is a bit odd given that the humans aren’t carrying geiger counters when their death occurs. It’s an inconsistency that’s easy to forgive though, otherwise there would be no other way to indicate the creature’s presence. Besides the look of abject fear on people’s faces, obviously.

Dean Jagger provides an American presence as Dr Adam Royston, a scientist knowledgeable about radiation and not afraid to discuss crackpot theories when the facts fit. He’s a solid presence and the only character given any definition. In fairness, there isn’t the need for any of the rest of the cast to have rounded personalities as they mostly exist to be bumped off one by one by the monster.

"My diagnosis? This window is broken." — “My diagnosis? This window is broken.”

There’s a brief appearance by Mr Grimsdale actor Edward Chapman which does temporarily threaten to tip things over into silliness, despite him doing nothing at all to warrant such thoughts. His work with Norman Wisdom lives long in the memory, but here he plays it straight and provides a valid counterargument to Royston’s theories. Whilst nothing comes from the counterargument, he does at least present the impression that an alternate approach may be considered – even if that will never be the case.

In the finest tradition of the Hammer studio the script isn’t afraid to go into darker territory, and some brief but gruesome effects add to the fun. Of course, on the other hand women are portrayed as fragile, delicate things that are unlikely to remember their own name after witnessing a man being melted by radiation, let alone make any noticeable contribution to the plot. This being the 1950s, gender equality was never on the cards, and the fact that almost everyone with dialogue – and specifically with opinions on how to proceed – are men, that says it all.

In many respects X: The Unknown is exactly what you might expect from a B-Movie of that era, but with a typical Hammer twist that leaves it just a step or two away from their usual horror output. It may lack named stars and doesn’t do anything unexpected in the science fiction genre, but it happens to be good fun regardless. It would have benefitted from having more of a Hammer flavour – sadly it’s not as if they can just add Christopher Lee just for the sake of it.

Score: 3.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lOT0KBWuW0

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Simon Prior

2014-09-30

A thoroughly British way of dealing with zombies.

Twitter Plot Summary: The world’s first zom-rom-com (not Warm Bodies you silly people) sees Shaun try to salvage his relationship during the zombie apocalypse.

The first cinematic pairing of director Edgar Wright and our titular hero Shaun, played by Simon Pegg, spun out from their work on the still excellent sitcom Spaced (one episode featured a dream sequence involving Pegg’s character Tim dreaming about Resident Evil and killing zombies) and their shared enjoyment of the zombie genre. The result is a film that pays homage to decades of zombie cinema but also manages to be one of the best examples the genre has to offer. This is in no small thanks to a script that balances jokes with scares alongside Wright’s kinetic style of direction.

Shaun is a thirty something working in an electronics shop and unaware that his life isn’t going anywhere. This is apparent to his frustrated girlfriend Liz (Ashfield) however Shaun is content to just go with the flow and not try to make anything more of himself. At the centre of all this is the friendship between Shaun and Ed, made all the more real because of the genuine friendship offscreen between Pegg and Frost. Ed is a layabout with no aspirations and is arguably holding Shaun back. Things come to a head, Shaun and Liz split up, and just as Shaun decides to sort his life out, the zombie apocalypse takes place. What follows is their attempts to survive and “wait for this whole thing to blow over”. So where do they, Liz’s friends David and Dianne (Dylan Moran and Lucy Davis), Shaun’s Mum (Penelope Wilton) and Shaun’s stepdad Phillip (a marvelous Bill Nighy) decide to go? The pub where Shaun spends his time and contributed to his breakup: The Winchester. They have a Breville out back, just in case you want a toasted sandwich.

Not something you see every day. Saturday nights in town, perhaps.

Shaun of the Dead works not just because it’s full of loving homages to other films about the living dead, but because it has a fun story structure that features many callbacks to earlier moments and is subsequently great for multiple viewings. Behind the camera, Edgar Wright brings his now familiar bag of tricks to proceedings, utilising quick cuts, repeated camera moves and an understanding of when less is more.

The jokes hit home on a regular basis, and this is tempered by some incredibly gory, pure horror moments. Thankfully there is just the right balance of comedy with drama. This isn’t a rose-tinted comedy film where everybody comes out the other end in one piece. The cast are more than capable of supporting such moments. Whilst they are all, primarily, from a comedy background, there is still real gravitas to the more serious elements as they occur – and there are a surprising number of them.

Looking back now that the “Cornetto Trilogy” has been completed, it’s evident that the trio of Wright, Pegg and Frost are a team that have a very specific creative edge that, between them, can be adapted to almost any genre. Shaun may lack the same levels of narrative depth as their later efforts have revealed, but it was the starting point for what was to follow and is a supremely confident feature film debut for this particular creative team. And, more importantly, it works perfectly well as a zombie film in its own right. Anything that gets George Romero’s seal of approval is clearly deserving of praise, and Shaun is a more than deserving recipient.

Score: 4.5/5

John Carter (2012)

Simon Prior

2014-09-29

Twitter Plot Summary: John Carter is transported from Earth to Mars and has a bit of an adventure. Bless him.

Five Point Summary:

1. Confederate-era Walter White.
2. That dog/lizard thing is fun.
3. He’s so delightfully evil!
4. Fighting and derring-do – pulp sci-fi style.
5. Mark Strong wins the award for “baldest man” in this film.

It would be a a gross understatement to say that John Carter didn’t perform well at the box office. Mired with a poor marketing campaign, the title being shortened so as to, apparently, appeal to a wide, non-science fiction audience, it did not come anywhere close to recouping its bloated production costs.

Despite its poor box office performance it’s not a bad film. It may not work on as many levels as intended, but it proves to be an entertaining science fiction adventure. Spawned from the pulp science fiction novel A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Confederate soldier John Carter

is transported from Virginia to the dusty plains of Barsoom, aka the planet Mars. There he becomes a figurehead for the good fight against the nefarious (and bald) Mark Strong who wants to see Helium crumble.

Carter is practically a superhuman in the Martian atmosphere, capable of jumping huge distances and slinging heavy objects as if they were made of paper. Barsoom is filled with an array of colourful characters, from the human-like residents of Helium and Zodanga to the taller, more alien Tharks and the dog-lizard creature Woola, who seems to be the most entertaining character of them all. Some gusto is provided by Dominic West as the villainous Sab Than, but it’s still Woola who proves to be the most relatable and enjoyable presence.

"Sorry, what is this film about again?" — “Sorry, what is this film about again?”

With the performances in mind, it’s far too reliant on CGI, and whilst it looks impressive (and looks like a lot of money has been spent on it) it is easy to tell when the actors have been placed against a green screen and conjures up memories of George Lucas’ Star Wars prequels. The casting choices are solid, but something doesn’t sit right. Taylor Kitsch has been known to put in some stellar performances in the past, yet here he feels oddly subdued. The cast is full of big names who aren’t given enough material to do it justice, although it’s clear they enjoyed their work on the production.

At least everything has a good sense of production value – the money spent is on screen for all to see. With a few conceits for a 3D cinema experience aside, the action is competently handled by Andrew Stanton, even if at times he has the urge to pan all the way out in order to see events playing out in miniature, minimising the emotional connection between the characters and the audience.

The other point to note is that if you’ve seen the camp 1980 movie Flash Gordon then you’ve effectively seen tis plot before, albeit on a much smaller budget in that case. As Andrew Stanton’s first live action film after a string of hit animated films with Pixar, it’s a shame that John Carter did not perform to expectations as the man is clearly able to tell a good story. Sadly in this case the stars didn’t align and John Carter will be discussed in similar tones to the likes of Waterworld, The Lone Ranger and, probably, Battlefield Earth.

Score: 3/5

Nostalgia Kicks – My First Cinema Visit

Simon Prior

2014-09-28

As far as I can recall, my first ever trip to the cinema took place in 1989 when I was five years old. The film was Honey I Shrunk The Kids, and the screening took place at the old UCI Cinema in Solihull. That was a site I returned to many times in the following years, mostly because it was the nearest/most convenient cinema to get to from my home town. That and it had a Pizza Hut attached to it – most convenient for pre or post-film dining. That cinema has long since closed, my last film viewing there was probably The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King back in 2004. Actually no, in hindsight it was perhaps Casino Royale in 2006, which came out just before our local cinema in Redditch opened in early 2007. We have a family tradition of going to see the latest Bond film together which dates back to The World Is Not Enough in 1999. We had been without a cinema in Redditch since 1999 when the much revered ABC Cinema closed. My last film at that particular cinema could very well have been Small Soldiers in the summer of 1998. I’ve seen a lot of films from ’98 since then, but all of those were after the fact on one of them newfangled DVD devices.

Anyway, back to that first cinema visit in ’89. I remember quite a bit from that trip, surprising given the twenty five years that have since passed. I was taken along by my uncle and, having purchased some obligatory snacks, we took our seats on the right hand side of the busy screen and I recall enjoying the film despite my tendency at that time to be scared of pretty much anything and everything. I mean, what could be potentially scarier to a child at that age than seeing people shrunk down to an inch in height and terrorised by ants and other common garden objects? In all honesty most kids would likely enjoy such a story, and from what I recall I was able to put aside my inherent fear of such things and thoroughly enjoy the film. It may have been the novelty of visiting the cinema for the first time, or that the film isn’t all that scary in the first place, I genuinely can’t remember.

In any case, it did help start a love of cinema that would later lead me to take my brother along to several screenings of films at the old ABC cinema in Redditch – no doubt a subject for another blog post further down the line. I’ll admit that I don’t recall being desperate to go back to the cinema at the earliest opportunity, but it’s something I eventually got round to turning into a regular occurrence, more so in the last couple of years since starting up this blog. Over the summer I had the opportunity to take my 2.5 year old niece on her first cinema trip to see Frozen on the big screen, and she’s been back there a few times with her Mum. I’m looking forward to the next few years when I can start introducing her to more essential films and trying to lead her down the cinema path. And if she ultimately chooses not to follow that, there’s always her younger brother to try and convert in a couple of years. Fun times await, and cinema is the name of the game.

Pride (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-09-27

Twitter Plot Summary: The true life story of how a gay activist group supported the miners during the strike of 1984-85.

Five Point Summary:

1. The 1980s. It looks very dank and unpleasant.
2. Jonathan is very flamboyant, isn’t he?
3. Welcome to Wales. It rains there.
4. Sowing the seeds of trust and acceptance.
5. Your obligatory feelgood ending.

Pride is a film which on inspection has many layers to it. First and foremost it’s a story about cooperation in spite of the outward differences we may have or the attitudes of others towards you, your politics or your sexual orientation. Set in 1984, it’s the story of the 1984-85 miner’s strike and the group of gay men and women (under the banner Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners) who decided to support and raise funds for them because they were essentially kindred spirits. You know – attacked by the authorities and disliked by the general populace for standing up for your principles, that sort of thing. Essentially, their actions are a heartfelt “screw you” to Thatcher and her gradual dissolution of British industry, but that’s a political thread for discussion at another time and place.

Our way into witnessing this situation is through twenty year old gay man Joe, played with assurance by George MacKay. Joe attends a gay pride march and quickly finds himself involved with the movement to support the miners, established by activist Mark (Ben Schnetzer). Before long they are off to the incredibly Welsh mining town which has more consonants than is absolutely necessary, where they encounter initial scepticism and strong opposition from the uptight, anti-gay mother who actively seeks to have their fundraising efforts ignored by the striking miners.

Pride runs through the typical gamut of emotions, knowing exactly when to throw a laugh your way or to tug on the heartstrings and provide a moment of raw emotion. Somehow the script manages to find a balance between these two separate and distinct tones, leaving an audience almost in tears one moment and guffawing the next. It is the fact that the script balances these conflicting emotions which pushes the story from ignored daytime television and into prime time awards territory.

It is supported by strong performances from Paddy Considine, Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton on the Welsh side of things (nary an accent slipped), and the aforementioned MacKay and Schnetzer on the LGSM front. Dominic West threatens to steal the show on several occasions as the flamboyant Jonathan, one of the two older gay men within the LGSM group, partner of Andrew Scott’s Gethin, who runs the book shop in which the LGSM is established.

There are certain aspects of the story that are sadly given short shrift – we don’t get to know the LGSM group in any detail beyond the broad strokes that a movie plot necessitates, and there are perhaps too many characters for everyone to get their fair share of screen time, but you get a good feel for the little Welsh mining community and their gradual segue into appreciating the efforts of the LGSM group. The concerns regarding the HIV/AIDS epidemic are also covered briefly, and whilst there is real dramatic heft to these moments they do come across as having been tacked on just to bolster the LGSM side of the story. On the other hand, they could be interpreted as showing that both sides have their concerns, that whilst the circumstances are different, everyone still has the same everyday concerns about health, about money, about making their way in the world. If you’re going to take any message away from Pride, it should be this: at the end of the day we’re not all that different, and by working together we get the best results. Food for thought.

Score: 4/5

The Three Musketeers (2011)

Simon Prior

2014-09-26

The Three Musketeers lacked basic mathematical skills.

Twitter Plot Summary: The Musketeers tale gets updated by Paul WS Anderson. So that means it’s been ripped apart.

Five Point Summary:

1. Slow motion Milla Jovovich running towards camera in a corset.
2. Some bits of this are acceptable. Most of it, however, is not.
3. Orlando Bloom – epic levels of smarm.
4. Another superfluous use of 3D.
5. Ugh, sequel baiting again. Will Anderson ever write a proper ending?

Let’s be honest, Alexandre Dumas’ most popular novel – The Three Musketeers, naturally – was never the most obvious choice to receive a steampunk style makeover, was it? Combining old fashioned derring do with airships and the like, courtesy of Leonardo Da Vinci, Paul WS Anderson’s take on the story is, in places, quite faithful to Dumas’ original story. Milady is deceitful, D’Artagnan is introduced and meets each of the musketeers – Athos, Aramis, Porthos, as if you needed that pointing out – in quick succession whilst attempting to follow the dastardly Rochefort following their first confrontational meeting. From there it soon deviates from the text and becomes something that, whilst occasionally entertaining, is liable to have Dumas spinning in his grave.

The real issue facing this adaptation is the spectre presented by Richard Donner’s brace of films starring Michael York, Christopher Lee and Oliver Reed, or even the more recent 1993 Brat Pack version with Kiefer Sutherland and Charlie Sheen. Comparisons will inevitably be drawn between those and any adaptation that follows, which may be why Anderson went off in a completely different direction by giving the Duke of Buckingham control over an airship that leads to a final act that is 1 part faithful adaptation to five parts insanity.

In its favour it does have a knowing, modern sense of its own inane silliness, the dialogue frequently providing amusement. It’s just a shame that it’s so bloodless, with people being shot and stabbed yet never leaking any claret in an obvious bid for the film to achieve a 12A rating. The sword fights and action sequences are entertainingly presented – Anderson does at least have a handle on these elements, although on occasion is perhaps a little too quick to cut away to a different angle.

It might be easier to forgive this steampunk reimagining if there was some consistency. Mila Jovovich is fine when it comes to action sequences, but her accent varies wildly. Milady is French of course, yet her accent jumps at random between American and English. Then there are the 3D effects, with items, bodies and debris flung at the screen with regular and reckless abandon. Typical Paul WS Anderson, of course – any excuse to throw literally every 3D effect and technique in, he does it. The CGI looks awful, even for 2011 – another common issue with Anderson’s movies.

He's supposed to be irritating in this film. Surprise! — He’s supposed to be irritating in this film. Surprise!

Still, at least the cast look like they’re enjoying themselves, which goes some way towards balancing out the more ridiculous aspects. The Musketeer trio of Ray Stevenson (Porthos), Luke Evans (Aramis) and Matthew Macfadyen (Athos) are a thoroughly enjoyable bunch, tarnished somewhat by Logan Lerman’s mostly irritating D’Artagnan. Lerman carries D’Artagnan’s youthful arrogance and subsequent development well, but there’s something about him that doesn’t quite work. Meanwhile, Christoph Waltz is perfect as Cardinal Richelieu, but the character as scripted here isn’t given that level of sinister underhandedness that has defined his portrayal elsewhere. Then of course there’s Orlando Bloom, who looks like the one most enjoying his part in the film. His Duke of Buckingham oozes smarmy charm, and it’s the type of character that best suits Bloom’s acting style – besides playing elves in Middle Earth, of course.

Looking at this 2011 version of The Three Musketeers in context, it could have been much worse. True, once again Anderson proves that he can’t write an actual ending and leaves events on a cliffhanger, but the preceding 100 minutes could be considered as incredibly cheesy fun. It’s a shame that it can’t be considered anything more than that, but then it’s doubtful it would have been any better if it had stuck rigidly to the text. Perhaps in that respect it’s for the best that this version of the story veers so wildly from the established tale – if it had been any closer it may have ruined our enjoyment of both the novel and the other, better adaptations that preceded it.

Score: 2/5

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

Simon Prior

2014-09-25

"The name's not Bond." — “The name’s not Bond.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The story of Operation Market Garden, the Allied offensive against the Germans in The Netherlands that failed.

Five Point Summary:

1. The plan – three bridges. Three very important bridges.
2. Lunatics laughing at Sean Connery from the woods.
3. The Germans have a tank. Lots of tanks.
4. The tide is turning.
5. That’s a lot of injured soldiers.

What could be better than a film where lunatics laugh at Sean Connery from the woods? Plenty of things, as it happens, but this is just one particularly amusing moment in Richard Attenborough’s A Bridge Too Far, and one of the very few moments of levity in a story that portrays the Allied failure to take control of three important bridges in Operation Market Garden, a plan that, had it been successful may have shortened the war through the successful capture of several bridges in The Netherlands. Instead it has been marked as one of the all-time great failures of the post D-Day invasion of Europe, where a number of supply issues and bad decisions led to Allied troops being slaughtered in their hundreds.

There are many positive aspects to A Bridge Too Far, however it never goes so far as to make a full commentary on the rights and wrongs of warfare, nor does it make any specific point similar to other great war films like Das Boot or The Longest Day. Instead the focus is on a rare film portrayal of an Allied offensive that didn’t go to plan,

A huge number of stars agreed to appear in what is at face value a latter day version of The Longest Day. Other than the aforementioned Connery there’s also the likes of Dirk Bogarde, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Edward Fox, Elliott Gould, Denholm Elliott, Gene Hackman, Ryan O’Neal and, in a brief 10-15 minute part of the film only, Robert Redford. It’s a veritable smorgasbord of talent, one that is sadly let down by an epic war film that has no cohesion beyond the bloody remains of the Allied forces.

The most hard-hitting sequences are those that focus on the human cost of the conflict, the horrendous injuries suffered by the combatants and their resilience in the face of defeat. The standout sequence is as low-key as it can get, with James Caan upholding his promise to keep his young protege alive by recovering his body and escaping from a German patrol in the woods. There’s a huge amount of attention to detail, although the occasional matte painting is obvious where vast numbers of aircraft or the like are required to be in shot.

Much like in the offensive itself, the Polish soldiers are given short shrift, finally being permitted to parachute in towards the end of the film only to be cut down by the Germans who have captured the drop zone. Whether or not this was an intentional move by Richard Attenborough remains unclear, but it does the Polish commitment to the war effort no favours, constantly shifted to the back of the queue despite having the technical ability and the manpower to adequately support the operation from the start.

No favours are done for Lieutenant-General Frederick Browning either, who is clearly portrayed as a man emotionally detached from the human cost of the operation, the man made responsible for the deaths of so many soldiers. Whilst the historical accuracy of this is questionable, as a film and by proxy a piece of entertainment, there needs to be somebody in that position to be the fall guy – it’s just the way film narrative works.

Most importantly however, the Germans actually speak in German rather than in awkward, accented English. This is always a good thing.

Score: 3.5/5

1...394041...90 Page 40 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM