Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)

By

-

2014-06-06

That's a lot of horses. And spears. Wonder what they'll use them for? — That’s a lot of horses. And spears. Wonder what they’ll use them for?

Twitter Plot Summary: The final part of the trilogy sees the quest come to an end and a final climactic faceoff between good and evil.

Five Point Summary:

1. Origins of “Preciousssss…”
2. Denethor’s gone a bit loopy.
3. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
4. The quest comes to an end. For Frodo!
5. So many endings. And more endings. And yet more endings.

And so the journey of the ring bearer comes to an end in The Return of the King, and the stakes are increased ever higher for the final leg of the journey. The er, minor disagreement with Sauron comes to a head, and the fate of all the characters is unveiled. Will Faramir finally gain the approval of his father in the wake of Boromir’s death? Will Arwen and Aragorn finally stop skirting around their romance? Will Eowyn finally be considered on equal footing with the men? Will Frodo and Sam elope and leave Middle Earth behind them so their bromance can blossom? Well, you’ll have to just watch the film and find out, won’t you?

Return of the King suffers from having a final set piece that is very similar to the Battle of Helm’s Deep as seen in The Two Towers. That and having about fifteen endings, which in the home video market isn’t so bad, but after nearly 4 hours sat in the cinema it’s not helpful. This is perhaps the only serious criticism you can aim at the film, other than the fact you really need to have seen the previous two films in order for most of it to make sense or have at least a modicum of context.

That final battle at Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is a well balanced escalation of the conflict with Sauron’s forces, taking the siege element of Helm’s Deep and expanding it tenfold. The armies are so vast in number, Minas Tirith itself so vast in scale, that it can be quite difficult to take it all in. The army of Sauron is given a face, albeit a deformed one, in Gothmog who represents evil given a snarly voice. The appearance of Oliphaunts, and vast numbers of them too, also serve as indication over the odds stacked against the Men of Middle Earth.

Frodo didn't take well to the food in Mordor. — Frodo didn’t take well to the food in Mordor.

Gollum’s story is nicely prefixed at the start of the movie as Jackson takes us back to see how Smeagol originally came to be in possession of the One Ring, and it’s his overall arc that is perhaps the most compelling of them all – driven to insanity through his obsession, at heart a kind soul corrupted by the Ring’s power – a story that is reflected in Frodo’s slow degradation from holding the Ring even for a comparatively short period of time.

Peter Jackson is not afraid to hearken back to his origins and play up the horror aspects of this story, which is appropriate given that the stakes have been ramped up almost exponentially. The Witch King makes a horrifying appearance in the battle at Minas Tirith, whilst elsewhere Frodo and Sam must deal with Shelob, a giant spider residing in Mordor. Meanwhile, just to make things even more epic and ambitious, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas head down the Path of the Dead and try to gain the assistance of an undead army. Whilst all of these elements are inherently dark and a touch creepy, they also serve as a clear indication that there is a lot going on. Throw in all of the non-horror aspects and there’s dozens of other threads and pieces of narrative that are ongoing, and it’s a testament to Jackson’s skill as a filmmaker, and the skills of his production team and fellow writers, that it all makes sense to the audience and we don’t need to have our hands held at every juncture.

It’s easy to see why Return of the King performed so well in the 2004 awards season, but then you could argue that it only did so on the back of the two previous films, on which Jackson and his team learned from their mistakes and honed their storytelling. Still, even with this in mind it’s an exceptionally well made film that brings the trilogy to a graceful end and thoroughly deserved the accolades handed to it. Once more it’s not absolutely faithful to the source material, but then if it was too slavish it would lack much of the impact that Jackson and co’s interpretation of the text has, and would have made for a far less interesting movie. Just do away with the multiple false endings and it would be pretty much perfect.

Score: 4.5/5

Shutter Island (2010)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-06-05

0

"Maybe I'll... no I think I'll just go to sleep." — “Maybe I’ll… no I think I’ll just go to sleep.”

Twitter Plot Summary: US Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels heads to Shutter Island to investigate a missing patient.

Five Point Summary:

1. Seasick.
2. …a Nazi?
3. Stormy weather.
4. An unnecessarily creepy wing of the facility.
5. All becomes clear.

Once upon a time it was Robert De Niro who was positioned as the film muse for Martin Scorsese, but most recently it has been Leonardo DiCaprio who fulfils that role. Shutter Island marked their fourth collaboration and sees DiCaprio’s federal marshall Teddy Daniels investigating a missing patient on an island dedicated to the care of the criminally insane. Drenched in rain, wind and almost permanently bathed in either rain clouds or the dark of night (until the storm passes, at least), the island is not a hospitable place and from the very beginning there is the constant feeling that all is not what it seems.

Scorsese uses a combination of surreal imagery and deliberate cuts and continuity errors to create a sense of unease, and the more astute amongst the audience may think that they themselves are going a little bit crazy. It’s never afraid to get incredibly dark on occasion, and in many respects is the perfect representation of a fractured mental state in film form. Stark imagery, odd camera angles and that persistent bad weather all help turn the island into a metaphor for the mind.

That’s where DiCaprio’s Teddy comes in. Teddy is haunted by his experiences in the closing moments of World War 2 (the film being set in 1954), where he witnessed first hand the horrors of the Dachau death camp, and just to add insult to injury he’s also coping with the death of his wife in a house fire not long previously. These moments, the death of his wife in particular, bleed through into hallucinations that are beautifully designed and represent a perfect mix of acting with CGI.

Teddy was amazed at the power of fire. And smoke.

The supporting cast features Mark Ruffalo, Sir Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow do sterling work, with the likes of Michelle Williams, Jackie Earle Haley and Elias Koteas also bulking things up. Ruffalo’s Chuck is an amiable presence as Teddy’s new partner, often being the voice of reason amidst the sense of unease and paranoia. Sir Ben Kingsley meanwhile, as Dr Cawley, is equally as amiable but with an apparently fixed smile that leaves you not quite trusting him. Does he have a hidden agenda in this investigation?

The twists in the second half may be a little cliche in hindsight, but in context there aren’t very many avenues for the narrative to follow. In one sense though it does make a second viewing almost compulsory, if not to spot all of the deliberate continuity errors and cuts, but to see the story afresh from another angle. Suffice to say, subsequent viewings won’t have quite the same impact the second time round. What is real? What is just a figment of the imagination? Is everyone who they say they are? The questions will keep buzzing around and thankfully, unlike Lost, the answers are provided. For the more astute in the audience, the clues are there from the start, but you’ll likely need that second viewing just to join all the dots. Chalk this one up as another worthy collaboration between DiCaprio and Scorsese.

Score: 4/5

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-06-04

0

Leaving his weapons at home was proving to be a very bad idea.

Twitter Plot Summary: Po and the Furious Five are back, this time facing off against an evil peacock intent on destroying Kung Fu.

Five Point Summary:

1. More backstory!
2. Gary Oldman is a very evil peacock.
3. Van Damme as a crocodile.
4. Tiny cannon. BIG cannon.
5. Inner peace.

The first Kung Fu Panda did rather well back in 2008, so it was almost inevitable that a sequel would follow. That and the first movie barely scratched the surface of a China populated by anthropomorphic animals, so with all of the origin story out of the way KFP2 is able to dive right in and deliver a kick to the solar plexus.

This time round the theme is that of finding inner piece, with added depth provided by Po trying to figure out where he comes from and uncover his past. It was obvious that it would be raised at some point after meeting his father Mr Ping, a goose, in the first film. It makes a nice point about not having to be bonded by blood in order to be family to one another. At the same time both Po and the Furious Five have to contend with a villainous albino peacock, again played by a Brit – this time Gary Oldman – who has a dastardly plan to destroy kung fu using his new weapon: a gunpowder cannon.

The sequel follows the first film’s brand of humour, offering silly little visual gags (who would have thought a goat chewing on a robe could be so amusing?) as well as some top notch dialogue. This is again mixed expertly with some impressive martial arts action sequences and the obligatory time set aside to develop the characters a little more. In fairness the rest of the Furious Five besides Tigress have little to do, but they at least have a bit more to say this time round, and whilst there are numerous opportunities for them to work as a group, a sequence involving a Chinese dragon costume and infiltrating a city under enemy control is a particular highlight. Obligatory martial arts/action cameos are provided by Jean Claude Van Damme as a crocodile who can do the splits, and Dennis Haysbert as an Ox. As for Gary Oldman, he is well versed in playing a villain, and his character Shen takes the villainy levels up to eleven when compared against Ian McShane’s big bad from the first movie. Here Shen is a real threat to the ways of kung fu, and his methods tie in directly to Po’s own history.

"I am delightfully evil." — “I am delightfully evil.”

Po of course remains as delightful as ever, still every bit as enamoured with the ways of kung fu, but enjoying every second as the Dragon Warrior. The voice cast return from the original, which means there’s more of Jack Black’s childlike enthusiasm and naivety to see the audience through.

It’s frequently the case that a sequel dilutes what made the original so good, or retreads the same territory and has nothing new to say. It’a also common for kids animated films to have a bare bones plot outline and then spread the formula too thinly as each progressive sequel gets released. In the case of the Kung Fu Panda franchise, this is not true and Kung Fu Panda 2 does what any good sequel should – take the best elements of the original, then expand and improve on them.

Score: 4/5

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-06-03

0

Training montages are even more awesome when there's a panda involved. — Training montages are even more awesome when there’s a panda involved.

Twitter Plot Summary: A slovenly panda with a passion for kung fu finds himself named the Dragon Warrior and tasked with defeating Tai Lung.

Five Point Summary:

1. Po likes the dumplings.
2. The Chosen One! (NB: Not The Rock)
3. Training montage!
4. Obligatory initial setback.
5. Spidoosh!

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to get kids interested in an animated feature, you’re almost guaranteed a success if you feature anthropomorphic animal characters who can later be exploited mercilessly in the world of related merchandise. Step up, Kung Fu Panda. Except that it’s not as simple as that. Audiences today are, it seems, much more sophisticated than in the past, and therefore the types of films we enjoy has had to adapt as a result. Gone, for the most part, are the vacuous kids movies that have no depth, and instead replaced by a number of films aimed at children but still hold a hefty amount of emotional punch. We’re looking at you, “Up”.

Chock full of martial arts action, the story pays homage to the martial arts genre, and kung fu in particular, whilst wrapping it all up in an entertaining and kid-friendly package. This is helped of course by the anthropomorphic animals that inhabit this universe’s version of China. The cast of characters is led by a panda called Po (Jack Black, playing a panda version of Jack Black), a fan of kung fu and of the Furious Five, a team of kung fu masters who reside in the mountain retreat that overlooks Po’s home town. The Furious Five are an interesting bunch of classic martial arts totems – a tiger, a praying mantis, a monkey, a crane and a snake, all of whom are voiced by the likes of Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, David Crane, Lucy Liu and Seth Rogen. Throw in Dustin Hoffman as their mentor/sensei Shifu and you habe a solid star cast. The return of an evil villain, a cat by the name of Tai Lung and played with British menace by Ian McShane, is foretold and the Dragon Warrior must be selected in order to defeat him. As you might expect, against all odds Po the overweight and unskilled panda is chosen, and he has to quickly learn the ways of kung fu and prove to everybody that he has what it takes.

Al Swearengen! Minus 150% of the swearing.

The majority of the film follows Po as he trains to become the Dragon Warrior, spurred on by his almost childlike levels of enthusiasm for kung fu and the Furious Five who he now sits alongside. And this is mich of Po’s charm – he’s more excited than the audience to find himself where he is and not serving food in his father’s noodle restaurant. His father is a goose, by the way, but more on that in the sequel. He’s also voiced by James Hong, who is a veritable legend.

It’s clear that the makers are also fans of martial arts, as the fight sequences are structured with a breathtaking level of choreography yet never degrading into needless violence that is liable to cause a few injuries in the playground. Kung Fu doesn’t have to mean broken bones and bloodshed, but it can be age appropriate to a young audience by making it clear from the offset that those who do the fighting have spent years training. Except Po, but he’s so loveable that this never becomes an issue.

Kung Fu Panda no doubt helped Dreamworks Animation gain a foothold on the animated box office takings which had until that point been dominated by Disney and Pixar. Compared to many other animated films, and would help lead into the likes of How To Train Your Dragon and the Kung Fu Panda sequel. Because it’s a story that appeals to both kids and adults alike thanks to its ability to balances character development, action beats and the obligatory moments of humour.

Score: 4/5

Killing Them Softly (2012)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-06-02

0

It's like a big budget version of that episode of Bottom where they go to Wolverhampton. — It’s like a big budget version of that episode of Bottom where they go to Wolverhampton.

Twitter Plot Summary: Brad Pitt’s hitman is a fan of getting up close when bumping people off. Sadly he doesn’t kill them softly with his words. He uses a gun.

Five Point Summary:

1. An almost too sawn-off shotgun.
2. Spats of blood and awesomeness.
3. Lots of sitting around talking.
4. A visual representation of what it feels like being on drugs.
5. Finally, a point is made about the barrage of US politics!

Killing Them Softly is a film that is littered with numerous television and radio broadcasts relating to US politics, because somebody clearly thought at the time that linking US politics to the ins and outs of contract killings was being big and clever. That’s actually not the case, because whilst there is a payoff for this by the end it doesn’t effectively link the woes besetting the nation’s economy with the macrocosm that is the local criminal economy. Unless the whole point being made is that politicians are crooks, in which case we don’t need it referenced every five minutes.

Ben Mendelsohn is perhaps the most entertaining individual character, almost constantly drenched in sweat and staggering around like a Walking Dead zombie thanks to his drug addiction. He plays one of two lowly criminals, alongside Scott McNairy, who rob a Mob card game and bring the local criminal economy to dissolve. It’s then up to Brad Pitt’s contract killer Jackie to bump off those responsible and restore balance to the criminal fraternity. A bit like a gangster Annakin Skywalker in that respect. He is unusual though in that he likes to get in close when he completes the contract, killing his target whilst being almost face to face. Nice to see he provides the personal touch.

Mendelsohn’s scenes are good, but the most compelling relationship is that between James Gandolfini’s mob boss and Brad Pitt’s hitman. They have a history together which is talked out in great detail, but doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Still, it does at least indicate what a phenomenal talent Gandolfini was, and the tragedy is that he didn’t get more substantial roles following his breakout performance in The Sopranos. Ray Liotta, meanwhile, is a surprise in that he’s usually a key player, a tough son of a gun who won’t let anybody trash talk him. In this instance he’s a key player – to an extent – but he lacks that killer instinct that defines most of his key performances in the crime genre. He’s also not got a huge amount to do, unfortunately.

Awkward date night. Gandolfini is clearly not interested.

Dialogue is in no hurry to be spoken, scenes play out naturally but lack tension or urgency. It seems like 60 pages of story stretched to nearly 100, and by an hour in you realise that not much has happened and it’s unlikely it will pick up much. Then again, this is from the same director that gave us the equally slow Assassination of Jesse James, although that one made a bit more of itself.

The violence at least is heavy hitting and presented in a typically gritty yet stylised fashion. The direction supports this by being equally as stylish and competent throughout. There are some nice flourishes admittedly, but it would be nice to see Andrew Dominik direct a script that has a bit more “oomph” to it.

You would expect more from a cast of this calibre, but they are let down by langorous plotting amidst brief dashes of brilliance. In the final scene there is a reference as to why US politics features so prominently in the background of the story, but by that point it’s almost too little too late. If a bit more time had been spent getting to the point rather than everybody having extended conversations like they’re in a poor man’s Tarantino flick, then there might have been more to write home about.

Score: 3/5

Evil Dead (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-06-01

0

That cheeky grin meant only one thing: she'd eaten all of the Quality Street again. — That cheeky grin meant only one thing: she’d eaten all of the Quality Street again.

Twitter Plot Summary: The Necronomicon is rebooted as a fresh batch of youngsters are assaulted by pure evil in a cabin in the woods.

Five Point Summary:

1. Intervention: underway.
2. Tree rape. Necessary? Nah.
3. Chekhov’s Gun is in attendance!
4. “Why won’t you die?!”
5. Slayer must be nearby – it’s raining blood!

If you ever wanted a perfect example of a film that demonstrates Chekhov’s Gun – that is, put simply, if something is introduced in the script then it must be used before the end of the film – then look no further than the 2013 remake of Evil Dead. Literally every object that features in this script, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, gets used with murderous intent.

The original Evil Dead was one of the lucky few that were banned as a “video nasty” in the 1980s, gaining notoriety and fame as a result. Its story, where a group of teens encounter an evil presence whilst stopping in a cabin in the woods, and they have to do what they can to survive. This remake has a great idea at its core, whereby the group of attractive young people have gone to the cabin to stage an intervention and help one of them, Mia (Levy), go cold turkey after her drug addiction results in her almost dying. Of course it’s then as a result of their own stupidity that the evil is unleashed and things soon fall apart. Before you can say “Necronomicon” people are dying, being possessed and making the most of the aforementioned notion of Chekhov’s Gun.

Jane Levy’s Mia, replacing the franchise’s hero Ash in the central role, is run through the wringer and then some. If Bruce Campbell thought he had it bad under Sam Raimi’s direction, then he’s got nothin to complain about when compared against the trials Fede Alvarez put Jane Levy through on this production. She’s soaked in rain water beaten up, crushed, attacked and soaked some more in various bodily fluids for good measure.

Bruce Campbell's presence will do this to a man. — Bruce Campbell’s presence will do this to a man.

It follows the usual template of the five characters having barely sketched out personalities in the first instance, existing solely to be ripped apart, stabbed and shot at various intervals. Suffice to say it’s not actually necessary for them to have any discerning personalities because they’re clearly not going to survive long enough for it to matter.

Fans of the original are serviced by a number of subtle – and occasionally less than subtle – references to the original, other than the obvious ones like the setting and the Necronomicon. It’s the points where it diverges from the original where it really wins out, the violence is graphic almost to the point of obscenity, seemingly attempting to outdo the original by whatever means necessary.

By the finale you’ll either be running screaming for the exit or roaring in laughter depending on your disposition. The tone is so nihilistic and violent that you either have to find it amusing or cave in to the violence and admit it’s just a bit too much. There are a couple of missteps – the tree rape scene in particular hasn’t been cut from the original and only seems to exist for shock horror value only – but otherwise Fede Alvarez has reinvigorated a horror franchise that, for better or for worse, had taken a turn towards the comedic and moved away from its horror roots. However the franchise proceeds from here, it’s received a much needed kick in the tool shed and you get the impression that any sequel will probably much more violent, just because it can be.

Score: 3/5

American Gangster (2007)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-05-31

0

Russell was completely oblivious to the arrival of Josh Brolin's moustache. And then Josh Brolin. — Russell was completely oblivious to the arrival of Josh Brolin’s moustache. And then Josh Brolin.

Twitter Plot Summary: Crowe’s a cop, Washington’s a drug dealer. One wants to take the other down, the other wants to sell drugs. Fight!

Five Point Summary:

1. Drugs are bad, mm’kay?
2. Aren’t there rules about sleeping with your attorney?
3. Denzel Washington is apparently not a fan of Luther.
4. Drive-by shootings can apparently be telegraphed five minutes before they happen.
5. Any reference to Vietnam immediately dates a film.

Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington are on opposing sides in this story of police corruption in 1970s New York. Crowe is the clean cop Richie Roberts, one of very few on the force, investigating the dealings of Washington’s drugs dealer Frank Lucas. Of course for dramatic reasons it can never be as clear cut as this, so to add a level of personal strife Roberts is also locked in a custody battle for his son with ex-wife Laurie (Gugino). Following the established gangster movie template established by The Godfather, American Gangster provides a modern take on that template, albeit making it a 1970s period piece in the process. This is of course because it’s based on a true story, that of detective Richie Roberts who later became a defense attorney following the events depicted in this film. Ignoring the fact that certain liberties have been taken with the original story (as is common), it still remains an excellent example of how to craft an entertaining narrative.

Ridley Scott has the power to pull in an all star cast, and does so here. Many of those faces you may recognise (Josh Brolin, Armand Assante, Carla Gugino, Joe Morton rocking an awesome moustache – the list goes on) aren’t usually on screen for long, but they are all integral to the plot and the heavyweights add a level of gravitas to the story. The script is strong and keeps things moving without getting too bogged down in detail or confusing twists and turns. It also maintains a balance between the story of both characters, providing an equal amount of screen time for both sides of the criminal divide. In most other cases the focus is primarily on one side or the other, so to have this balance adds more to the narrative and lets you get into the mindset of the two opposing sides. Adding to this is Ridley Scott who provides his usual level of competence in the director’s chair, pulling riveting performances out of all involved and never losing sight of the core storyline.

Denzel didn't take kindly to people that coveted his cheeseburger. — Denzel didn’t take kindly to people that coveted his cheeseburger.

Of course being a tale of drug trafficking, there’s an underlying theme of greed getting the better of you, refusing to quit while the going is good as a matter of pride, or the cliche notion that the good cop always gets his man – a bit like 1990s professional wrestler The Mountie. It is this that separates Crowe and Washington’s characters, and one that ultimately defines them. Washington’s Frank Lucas will do whatever it takes to stay out of the limelight and build his empire – bribing, stealing, killing and so on – whilst Crowe’s Roberts is incorruptible in terms of his work, yet not averse to sleeping with a vast number of women or breaking a few rules here and there if the end result means the right result is achieved.

It’s a gritty and uncompromising view of 1970s New York, and with an extended cast of compelling characters it positions itself as another essential part of Ridley Scott’s directorial works.

Score: 4/5

The Wind Rises (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-05-30

0

Twitter Plot Summary: A Japanese airplane designer laments over their use as war machines as WW2 looms.

Five Point Summary:

1. Using just human voices to create sound effects is a bit creepy.
2. The Zero’s look really nice.
3. A city is on fire, but people aren’t apparently that bothered by it.
4. Consumption seems to be a recurring theme in 2014’s movies.
5. Fantasy sequences with giant planes and an Italian airplane designer? Odd chap.

The Wind Rises marks Miyazaki’s eleventh animated feature film for Studio Ghibli, and if reports are to be believed then it will also mark his last. Whilst this is a shame, all good things must come to an end. It’s a very personal story as far as Miyazaki is concerned, covering his concerns over retirement with his love of airplanes. Following Jiro Horikoshi, designer of the famed Mitsubishi Zero airplane – Japan’s equivalent to the Spitfire if you want to draw comparisons – we see him grow up from being a short-sighted boy who wants to fly airplanes to an adult who does the next best thing: design them. The disparate attitudes towards flight and combat are explored as Jiro dispairs at airplanes – beautiful creations – are used for destruction and violence. But then in his dreams he meets Italian designer Caproni who argues that the world is still a better place for having them.

Adding a somewhat creepy edge to proceedings is that all the sound effects have been created using human voices. The earthquake and resulting fire in Tokyo has a haunting quality to it as the wind breathes through the streets. The creation of the Zero is mixed with Jiro’s interest in Naoko, and the resulting tragic love story that ensues. It’s a story of hope in spite of any loss you may experience, and pushes the audience to consider making the most of your life by seeking out your goals no matter what has or potentially could happen.

Little did he realise that his stalker was an airplane.

Breaking up the real world narrative are a number of fantasy sequences with Italian aircraft designer Caproni. Perhaps tellingly there is a pertinent line of dialogue about designers only having 10 good years in them – a reference to the fact this is Miyazaki’s 11th Ghibli feature, perhaps? Given that he was originally due to retire after Princess Mononoke was released in 1997, it could be seen both as an apology and an acknowledgement that, if The Wind Rises doesn’t meet the same level of quality as his previous films, you know why it falls short of Miyazaki’s usual standards. That is never a concern though, the story moves at a nice pace and is filled with characters the audience can care about, whilst retaining the usual themes and motifs that are common throughout his work.

It’s gratifying to know that Miyazaki has not bowed to the pressures of the modern world of animation and make everything in 3D, either in terms of the animation style such as in Disney’s Tangled or Frozen, or by making the audience slap on some glasses that cause 30% light loss. This is a resolutely 2D film and is all the better for it. The animation is crisp and frankly delightful, and it’s a shame that we don’t get to see more animated films released in this style any more. At least we know we can rely on Studio Ghibli to deliver the goods. Time will also tell if Miyazaki’s retirement remains permanent.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imtdgdGOB6Q

Son of Rambow (2007)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-05-29

0

Slightly different than Sylvester Stallone and Richard Crenna... — Slightly different than Sylvester Stallone and Richard Crenna…

Twitter Plot Summary: Two boys attempt to make a film inspired by First Blood, whilst dealing with their own family issues.

Five Point Summary:

1. Not allowed to watch films? For shame!
2. Low budget Rambo is always fun.
3. The French kid gets involved.
4. Obligatory strife.
5. The film is shown!

Sometimes it’s the simple ideas that work the best. That certainly applies to Son of Rambow which sees two boys, one a rule breaker, the other raised in a strict religious home but wanting to escape, joining forces to make a film together. The project begins as an action film inspired by First Blood (the original Rambo movie), but soon morphs into something bigger than the sum of its parts. A bit like First Blood Part 2 then. It’s a resolutely low budget feature they’re making, of course, but before long the cast and crew of their little two man production has expanded to the point where even the cool French exchange student wants in. Set in the 1980s, it’s a perfect excuse to break out all of the dodgy hairstyles and music of choice from the era, all while Will Proudfoot and Lee Carter are trying to recreate the violence of the Rambo movies on a shoestring budget.

Will Poulter shows that, even from an early age, he is an incredibly talented actor, and he’s got better as time has gone on. He is so good in fact that there never is an urge to punch him in the face for being an annoying child actor. The same can also be said of Bill Milner, whose youthful exuberance is a delight. This even applies to the remaining child actors, of whom there are many. None make you want to rip out their jugulars in a painful homage to John Rambo, which is a plus point. The adult cast are equally as impressive and you feel as though they had to up their game somewhat in order to match up with the child actor performances. Jessica Hynes is spot on as Will’s religious mother, whilst Adam Buxton arrives as comic relief as a science teacher who is involved in an incident with a pair of scissors and a dog-shaped charity donation box.

Rambo + Ninjas... why hasn't Sly made this yet? — Rambo + Ninjas… why hasn’t Sly made this yet?

The film’s themes – family, brotherhood, abandonment, loneliness and so on – are tied together nicely by the end. They’re weaved throughout the script amongst the youthful hijinx and pack a punch that puts it into similar emotional territory to The Goonies. Both of the boys, and to an extent everybody else who gets involved in their film, form a bond where they previously had none. Lee Carter (who cannot be known simply as Lee – watch the film and you’ll understand) is a tearaway at school because of his absent parents, yet his actions could be described as both an attempt at seeking attention and rebelling at the system for being overly restrictive. The same applies to his new friend Will Proudfoot, whose creative desires are impeded by his strict religious upbringing, whereby he is not allowed to watch films or television, and

Director Garth Jennings has crafted a thoroughly enjoyable story that works for everybody despite the adult-rated First Blood that much of Lee and Will’s production draws inspiration from. It revels in the low budget creativity that inspires not only Will and Lee Carter but the rest of their schoolmates, and is a charming little film that packs a punch.

Score: 3.5/5

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-05-28

1

Eastwood could smell the alcohol on Burton's breath from a mile away. — Eastwood could smell the alcohol on Burton’s breath from a mile away.

Twitter Plot Summary: A small team, led by Richard Burton, is sent behind enemy lines to rescue an American general from the Nazis.

Five Point Summary:

1. Broadsword calling Danny Boy.
2. Dammit! It’s all my fault.
3. Some people are getting dead…
4. DAMMIT!
5. Lots of shooting.

Where Eagles Dare isn’t just a classic, but it also represents that old school Boys Own style of adventure where the good guys will win and lots of evil Nazis/German soldiers will be killed in the process. The outcome is never in doubt, but there’s much enjoyment to be had in the various plot twists and slow drip-feed of information as the story plays out. The plot twists and turns to an unnerving degree – somebody is a traitor, but who? Alistair MacLean’s script does its best to keep the audience on its toes, whilst maintaining an almost constant feed of action and peril. To call it a labyrinth plot in terms of the twists would be entirely true, balanced with the constant threat that their undercover roles may be discovered at any moment.

Set in and around the picturesque snowy castle of Schloss Adler (portrayed by Hohenwerfen Castle in Austria) in the Alps, a small team led by the stiff upper lipped resolution of Richard Burton’s Major John Smith and the deadpan puzzlement of Clint Eastwood’s Lieutenant Schaffer are dropped behind enemy lines in order to rescue an American general who has been captured by the Germans. What follows is a tense game of cat and mouse between the undercover operatives and the German army that have taken up residence in the area, a regular game of cat and mouse that has double and triple crosses aplenty, yet it all resolves itself with barely a plot thread left unresolved.

Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood are perfectly cast as the leads, although you’re not going to get subtlety from that pairing. You can practically smell the alcohol on Burton’s breath, yet somehow he still maintains his screen presence almost effortlessly. There’s able support from Mary Ure and Ingrid Pitt as undercover operatives who provide operational support when members of the team start dying in mysterious circumstances. Whilst they’re stronger characters than you may expect, they do eventually find themselves taking a more passive role in events rather than helping dictate a plan of action – let’s just leave that to the men, shall we?

One of these men looks a bit shifty to me... — One of these men looks a bit shifty to me…

It wouldn’t be a war film without its fair share of action sequences, which in this case culminates with a dramatic fight atop a precariously balanced cable car halfway between the mountain retreat and the village below. A chase involving a bus and a platoon of German soldiers is no less thrilling, however you’re best ignoring the fact that the helicopter in use by the Germans is actually an American design that entered military service in 1946, or that there are a number of other historical inaccuracies if you look close enough – in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. Honestly.

It might have heavy comic book overtones similar to Commando or Valiant, but then that forms part of its appeal. By modern standards it may appear to be slower paced in terms of action, but don’t let that dissuade you from enjoying the thrills that are provided. If all is well, you’ll be pretending to be Broad Sword calling Danny Boy before the film’s end, no doubt.

Score: 5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM