300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

2014-03-08

The helmet was good protection, but it did get a little bit sweaty.

Twitter Plot Summary: It’s prequel/sidequel/sequel time as more fighting takes place in ancient Greece. Six packs mandatory.

Five Point Summary:

1. Xerxes. Big and gold.
2. It’s 300 on a boat!
3. A not at all sexy sexy fight/love scene. Amusing, more like.
4. Rousing “This is our Independence Day” style speech.
5. Let battle commence!

Some 8 years after we first encounter King Leonidas and his penchant for kicking messengers down wells, sequel 300: Rise of an Empire toddles along and tries to remind us exactly why speed ramping and gloriously over the top CGI battles and glistening pectorals were all the rage in 2006. Those pectorals and six packs are back for another trip round the block as we see events before, during and after those seen in Zack Snyder’s 300, in a sort of confusing prequel/side-quel/sequel mashup.

Whilst Gerard Butler and his 300 Spartans block one aspect of the Persian assault, a naval attack is also underway further north. These Greek forces are led by General Themistokles, an expert tactician who finds himself at the head of a ragtag army intent on stopping the Persian advance led by the psychotic femme fatale Artemesia. But before any of that takes place we go back to the very beginning, establishing why Artemisia hates Greece so passionately, and how Xerxes became a God. Sadly it doesn’t do this very well, and the exposition is so verbose that you almost expect the entire film to be told in the form of voice over narrative. On occasion it doesn’t feel too far off from this. The speed ramping too is used overindulgently, with whole sequences slowed down for an almost inexorable period of time before returning to normal speed.

Sullivan Stapleton is serviceable as the hero Themistokles, although he has about as much charisma as a drab painting of a car park. There’s a running theme of male impotence that follows his every move. He’s a poor man’s King Leonidas, strong in battle but will always come in second place in a Tale of the Tape style comparison. Whilst tactically brilliant, this only extends to naval battles. The only time he really has vigour is when he’s cutting people up in battle – make of that what you will.

It’s really Eva Green’s show to steal though, her performance as psycho general Artemisia is impressive and deserving of a far better love interest/rival than is provided by Themistokles. A fight/love scene between the pair threatens to be entertaining but ultimately proves to be a slightly embarrassing couple of minutes, emphasised by the blatant female nudity (although it is Eva Green, to be fair) contrasted with the almost Austin Powers- esque need to cover up Stapleton’s man bits. By comparison, Lena Headey remains entirely covered up in her role as Queen Gorgo, although seeing as her appearances mostly follow the death of her husband that does actually make sense.

Those expecting a film as enjoyable as the first may well be disappointed. With that said, it’s nowhere near as bad as it could have been, and has at least been handled with a modicum of skill. There are unfortunately a number of pitfalls that it can’t recover from, so whilst it’s certainly entertaining on the whole and has vast swathes of silliness, it lacks the flair and style that made the original such good fun.

Score: 3/5

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 (2012)

Simon Prior

2014-03-07

He always did have a flair for the dramatic.

Twitter Plot Summary: Years after his retirement, Bruce Wayne dons the mask and cowl again to restore Gotham City.

Five Point Summary:

1. Fatman Returns.
2. A new Robin.
3. The first fight does not go well.
4. Rematch. Better outcome.
5. Nicely set up for Part 2.

Whilst DC Comics have never had a huge amount of success on the big screen outside of the Batman franchise, their characters have always fared much better in their animated universe. It’s no surprise that their most popular creation, Batman, is the primary subject of their animated movies, and The Dark Knight Returns is the latest in a very long line of impressive animated Batman adventures. Based on Frank Miller’s gritty graphic novel of the same name, it’s been several years since Bruce Wayne retired as Batman, and he’s now aged, out of shape and grumpy. Somewhat impressively, Alfred is also still up and about as Bruce’s trusty servant, and Commissioner Gordon, by now aware of Bruce’s secret life as a vigilante, is coming up to his own retirement. Unfortunately for Gotham, gangs have taken over the streets and it seems that it’s time for Batman to return to the streets. Or rather, Fatman – as I said, The Dark Knight Returns sees Bruce Wayne horribly out of shape and struggles in his first fight with the Mutant Leader – a man who has seemingly decided to exchange nipples for bolts. It’s the future – go figure.

There are a number of plot threads introduced but not everything is fully explained, all because the story has been split in two. Provided we get a resolution to those threads in Part 2, then all will be well. Judged on its individual merits, Part 1 tells a self contained story, with Bruce reacquiring that special set of skills that once made him the World’s Greatest Detective. He has a single nemesis in the form of the Mutant Leader, which allows the script to focus on Bruce and his rediscovery of his Batman skills without straying too far from the whole “Gotham’s falling apart” conceit.

"I'm sorry Master Wayne, the colours ran in the wash." — “I’m sorry Master Wayne, the colours ran in the wash.”

Much like the source material, Dark Knight Returns Part 1 does not skimp on the blood and the violence – bones are broken, noses are bloodied, and the future dystopia that is Gotham City is nicely realised. On that note the Batmobile is an impressive piece of kit, a beast of a vehicle that’s more like an armoured tank crossed with a personnel carrier than the sleek and not so sleek vehicles we’ve seen in the live action series. It may also be a sign of my age, but hearing Batman voiced by someone other than Kevin Conroy felt a little odd at first, but eventually I became accustomed to Peter Weller’s take on the character and it actually fits very well. Perhaps not as well as Kevin Conroy, but it’ll do. The remaining voice cast are as good as you’d expect, and whilst there are a few recognisable names it’s not something that played too much on my mind as I watched it.

Of course, being part 1 of 2 means that there is a cliffhanger ending to draw you into the second half, but it also raises a very pertinent point. It’s always been said that the only reason Batman has such an extensive rogue’s gallery is because his existence demands a similar level of crazy, at the other end of the spectrum, to act as a dark mirror. Whilst Gotham wasn’t in fine fettle before Batman’s return, it wasn’t populated by a bevy of villains who are just as messed up as he is. Instead it’s a city filled with mostly generic goons, and it’s only with the Bat back on the streets that the likes of Two Face and, perhaps, the Joker decide to re-enter the game. Part 1 was competent, but the pieces are lined up for an explosive second half.

Score: 3.5/5

Non-Stop (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-03-06

A perfect example of how not to act on an airplane.

Twitter Plot Summary: Neeson plays a US Air Marshall who has to prevent a killer on his plane from bumping someone off every 20 minutes.

Five Point Summary:

1. He’s having a drink – not a good sign.
2. Nice way of showing text messages in a film.
3. Who’s the killer?
4. He’s not trying to hijack this plane, he’s trying to save it!
5. And there’s your usual nonsensical ending.

Liam Neeson seems to be in no rush to give up his action movie roles in this late stage of his career, although to be fair to Non-Stop, other than two or three sequences there isn’t much in terms of physical action required – we are on a tightly packed aircraft after all.

Neeson plays Bill Marks, a US Air Marshal with a drinking problem, who boards a transatlantic flight from New York to London in the course of his work. Around halfway through the flight he starts receiving text messages on his secure line from a passenger on board, threatening to kill a passenger every 20 minutes until he transfers $150 million into an account that turns out to be in his name. As time goes on Marks has to work out who’s responsible and attempt to persuade those on the ground that he’s not trying to hijack the plane – he’s trying to save it!

And this plays out rather well for the majority of the film. There is a real sense of tension and you’re kept guessing as to who the villain may be. This is despite the plane being a lot smaller than expected – a small business class and a slightly larger standard cabin, and that’s it. In one sense it does limit the possible number of villains for Neeson to pick from, but on the other hand it reduces the impact of finding out who is responsible, and also reduces the amount of work Marks has to do in order to figure it all out.

This is sadly let down by the final few minutes where the villain is revealed and it lapses into standard action fare – yawn. Furthermore the reasons for the hijacking are lame. Seriously lame. There was so much promise yet it throws it all away at the last, as if the writer ran out of cool ideas and didn’t know how to end it in a satisfactory manner. In fact it borderline ruins all of the build-up and the entertainment of the first 80-odd minutes.

It had taken the entire flight, but he'd finally beaten that level of Angry Birds. — It had taken the entire flight, but he’d finally beaten that level of Angry Birds.

The way in which the forces on the ground attempt to negotiate with Marks, thinking him to be the hijacker, is a tad unbelievable. They seem to be reading more into the situation and their interactions with him than is actually there. then again, that’s an entirely believable situation – even with this taken into account though, this aspect needed to be better written in my opinion.

Non-Stop does at least follow the classic template for a Liam Neeson action film. He has a particular set of skills, he has gravitas, he has at least one cool action sequence that shows up in the trailer, and he has at least one line or speech that will become a cult favourite. Each of these options is ticked off with gleeful abandon. Neeson is supported by some surprisingly big names – Julianne Moore as a fellow passenger who sits next to him on the flight; Michelle Dockery (that woman from Downton Abbey) and Lupita Nyong’o as air hostesses or whatever the politically correct name for them is these days; and an array of actors whose faces you might recognise from a number of smaller roles in other films. It might not be as enjoyable as his role in the Taken films, but Non-Stop ticks enough boxes to justify a viewing. Then again if you’re not a fan of Taken or Neeson’s more recent action roles then you’re better off giving this a miss.

Score: 3/5

The Seventh Seal (1957)

Simon Prior

2014-03-05

I don’t fancy the odds of the guy on the right.

Twitter Plot Summary: A knight challenges Death to a game of chess and questions life, the universe and everything as he does so.

Five Point Summary:

1. Chess against Death? I doubt his odds.
2. A merry band of players. And a baby’s bottom.
3. Never discuss chess tactics with a priest.
4. He should never have climbed that tree.
5. A merry dance? Oh my.

Most people will likely only recognise The Seventh Seal on one of two, possibly three grounds. The first would be Death emerging from the screen in Last Action Hero and imparts wise words (he is played by Ian McKellen after all); the second would be Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey, whereby the teen rockers challenge Death to a multitude of games and he proves to be a sore loser. Then there’s the final act of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, where Death intrudes on a well spoken dinner party which has some slightly less than appetising salmon mousse. The chess game in particular is the central conceit to The Seventh Seal, where an errant knight encounters Death and challenges him to a game of chess, the winner taking the knight’s life.

A young Max von Sydow plays the knight, Antonius Block, a man who questions the existence of God and his place in the world. This is set against a backdrop of the Black Death, a time of great religious strife and deference. As people drop dead from the plague left, right and centre, the knight and Death play their merry game of chess. Perhaps the outcome is never in question – death is immutable after all – yet questions are raised regarding the human spirit, the validity of faith and what it means to be alive. Symbolism abounds from start to finish – the young baby boy of actors Jof and Mia, Death given physical form, and of course that iconic game of chess.

The game of chess is not the only focus though. As it turns out, that iconic meeting of minds is a mere background thread. On their journey across the plague-ridden lands the knight and his squire – a man who wouldn’t be out of place stood alongside The Big Lebowski’s nihilists – encounter several people who enlighten their journey. There are the aforementioned family of Jof, Mia and their son, a servant girl who is saved by squire Jons from being raped by the man who made Block go off on the crusades in the first place, and the blacksmith and his wife.

Pawn to King four... pawn to king four... — Pawn to King four… pawn to king four…

On reading about the film further after my viewing, one of the evident themes is that of the silence of God, described in the Book of Revelation and where the film gets its title. Throughout all of the pain and suffering experienced by the knight and those he encounters, death is a consistent presence and the merciful God is nowhere to be found. Funny that. On the subject of amusements, it might be heavy on allegory but that doesn’t mean there isn’t ample opportunity for humour. This is provided distinctly by the blacksmith, his wife and Skat, an actor/tour manager type who runs away with the blacksmith’s wife until she grows weary of him – what follows is a genuinely funny conversation whereby the wife’s methods of worming her way back into the blacksmith’s good books are laid out for all to see.

It’s existential, relatively verbose and likely nonsensical to the vast majority of people who see it, but these are all good things. To be fair, the thing that is likely to put most people off is the fact it’s subtitled. There’s meaning and depth to be found should you choose to watch The Seventh Seal, and you can make of its themes what you will. Therein lies the signs not only of a good film, but a great one.

Score: 5/5

Road House (1989)

Simon Prior

2014-03-04

Twitter Plot Summary: The best bouncer in the land is hired to clean up a particularly dirty bar and protect the town from a corrupt businessman.

Five Point Summary:

1. That’s a nasty looking bar.
2. Jeff Healey! Brap brap.
3. Throat rip!
4. Sam Elliott, hobbling around the place.
5. Shotgun party.

They certainly don’t make them like this any more. Road House represents the classic “man with no name” western movie and moves it to the present day and putting said man – in this case called Dalton – at the front of a rough drinking establishment, known as the Double Deuce, as its no-nonsense bouncer. All is not well in the local community, however. There’s a big business tycoon, Brad Wesley (Gazzara) who is threatening and intimidating everybody within his reach – the whole town, then. For some reason it’s up to Dalton to unite the fearful townsfolk against Wesley and bring peace to their small town.

To say it’s a silly film would be underselling it. There’s that much machismo and testosterone built up that it threatens to break through the fourth wall at any second, none more so than the infamous throat rip scene. Nothing says “manly” like a sweaty, topless Patrick Swayze going all Bruce Lee on a named goon. Well, perhaps manly isn’t the right word for it… Furthermore the whole western idea feels at odds with the present day setting – if the local police are in Gazzara’s pocket then surely you just call in a police force from out of state? Vigilante justice has a time and a place, and it sure isn’t the present day.

Swazye exudes effortless cool as Dalton, and Gazzara makes for a slimy villain, never one to get his hands dirty unless he has to. The only other character close to replicating this level of awesomeness is Sam Elliott, but then he’s always excellent so that should come as no surprise. Music is provided by guitarist Jeff Healey, although in this case he’s not Jeff Healey, he’s Cody, resident singer at the Double Deuce. His music runs throughout the film and, as expected, is a blues rock delight.

She was the foremost expert in armpit hair.

Dalton is a conflicted man – his modus operandi when it comes to the world of bouncing is to avoid conflict where possible and only revert to violence when absolutely necessary. Of course, that means in his past he was a violent man, and it’s something that he’s fought to keep in check ever since. This plays havoc with his budding relationship with Doc (Lynch), which is also perhaps one of the most cringeworthy relationships ever committed to screen. I don’t think Lynch and Swayze have much in the way of screen chemistry, and other than an obligatory “naked buttocks” scene for both of them, there’s little in terms of passion or believability. In fact it’s almost painful to watch at times, it would have been a much better appreciated film if this angle had been removed.

As is often the case, it’s a very silly film that revels in its silliness by playing it almost completely straight faced. There’s a knowing wink in its proverbial eye, but let’s face it – there’s no chance a film like this would ever get past muster these days. Lucky for us that in the 1980s they really didn’t care. For better or for worse, Road House is a true relic of its time, and is an absolute hoot as a result. Road House!

Score: 3.5/5

Taken (2008)

Simon Prior

2014-03-03

Liam had just found out how large his phone bill was.

Twitter Plot Summary: When his daughter is kidnapped on a trip to Paris, Bryan Mills has to use his particular set of skills to save her.

Five Point Summary:

1. Four guys: red meat, red wine. This will only end badly.
2. Five minutes in Paris, and she’s taken. Some people shouldn’t travel abroad.
3. Liam Neeson has a very particular set of skills…
4. Some people die…
5. A few more people die and… the end.

Taken is built on a ludicrous premise, but the key thing is that it is completely aware that it’s ludicrous. Once you take that into account then it’s a huge amount of fun. Expect nothing but the most outrageous of revenge thrillers and you’re sorted for an entertaining 90-odd minutes.

Bryan Mills is a former agent for the US government, now retired and eager to reconnect with his daughter (Maggie Grace), who he wasn’t there for as she grew up and has just turned 17. She heads off on a jolly to Paris where things almost instantly go wrong and she’s kidnapped. Thankfully her dad is a naturally suspicious type and is soon crossing the Atlantic and is hot on her trail. What follows is 60 minutes of gradually escalating silliness as Mills takes on the entire French criminal underworld, killing indiscriminately and barely suffering a scratch in return, like some indestructible John McClane/Jack Bauer type action hero.

Perhaps not surprisingly, having an actor of Liam Neeson’s calibre is in the film’s favour – he brings a certain level of gravitas to any performance he gives, and Taken is no different. Take “that” monologue for example – it wouldn’t work anywhere near as well if one of the other well known action stalwarts had delivered it. When it’s Liam Neeson on the other end of the phone, however, you know he means business.

The story is really, really simple when you break it down – it’s 60 minutes (following the lengthy opening build-up to the kidnapping) of Liam Neeson moving from one location to the next trying to locate his daughter before an arbitrary time limit expires and she’s lost to him forever. There’s some subtext there about him not being there enough for her when she was growing up, and now he’s effectively making up for that by, like, not letting her die or be sold into prostitution. That would explain why he does the whole gamut of action sequences stolen from 24 – torture, a car chase, butting heads with the local authorities and random acts of violence on bad guys are, of course, obligatory. Besides Neeson and a brief couple of scenes with Olivier Rabourdin’s local French police officer Jean-Claude, there is little else for anybody else to do – Maggie Grace is limited to screaming down the phone and looking doped up. This is the Liam Neeson show, and it’s better for that fact.

Maggie knew that her father would hit the roof - international calls aren't cheap. — Maggie knew that her father would hit the roof – international calls aren’t cheap.

What does it matter that a lot of people get killed with no consequences? What does it matter that Mills breaks most applicable laws in France on his bloodthirsty quest? What does it matter that the girl Maggie Grace goes to Paris with ends up on the wrong end of an enforced drug overdose? Can anyone remember her name anyway? No? Then she was clearly inconsequential beyond giving the French kidnappers a reason to kidnap them. Stranger danger, folks – even in Paris.

It loses its way a little by the time we reach the final act, but as the film responsible for the reinvention of Liam Neeson’s career as an action movie star, it’s hard to be too critical. Enjoy the ridiculous story and nonsensical action plot and take it for what it is – gloriously daft fun.

Score: 3.5/5

The Ladykillers (1955)

Simon Prior

2014-03-02

Twitter Plot Summary: The plans of a gang of criminals look likely to be upset by their doddering old landlady.

Five Point Summary:

1. This isn’t the Jedi you’re looking for.
2. Most complicated method of acquiring money ever.
3. Oh dear. Unravelling.
4. One by one…
5. Hah, signal change.

Ealing comedies have a certain reputation. You know, for being funny and all that. Sure, the studio released other material over the years, but it’s always the comedies that people go back to time and time again. The Ladykillers was made towards the end of their cycle, but remains perhaps one of their best known productions.

It is established within a few moments that Mrs Wilberforce is, no pun intended, a force to be reckoned with. Living in a crooked house soon to be filled with crooked men, she doesn’t mince her words and is incredibly forthright. Mrs Wilberforce has a very specific world view and a special relationship with the local police force, for want of a better term. She also has a room available for rent, which is incredibly handy as a crook by the name of Professor Marcus, along with his crew of bank robbing thieves, need a base of operations for their next job.

I really enjoyed the introduction of Alec Guinness as gang leader Professor Marcus, a far cry from his usually staid and well presented self, grotesque Igor-like features minus the hunchback. Very quickly thereafter we’re introduced to the remainder of the gang, including a pre-Pink Panther pairing of Herbert Lom and Peter Sellers. Lom is severe in both dress and personality – he’s not far off being a caricature of a Gestapo officer. Sellers meanwhile is surprisingly restrained, showing early signs of the comedy legend that he would soon become in the world of cinema – he had of course already spent a few years at this point as part of the seminal Goon Show.

Just an ordinary string quintet... or so it seems. — Just an ordinary string quintet… or so it seems.

The gang fill up the back room of the house, making it seem (and sound) like they are a quintet of musicians who intend on using the room for practice. Professor Marcus is ever the smooth talker, conniving and planning constantly, but even he finds himself at odds with the unintentional power that Mrs Wilberforce holds. There is much fun to be had in watching him amend his plans on the fly, trying to keep up with the various changes that unexpectedly occur to his plan and resolutely failing in this task.

Despite the film’s age, as indicated by the occasional painted backdrop and distinct low budget feel to the majority of the story, it maintains its timeless quality by being incredibly funny throughout. The entire setup is classic farce as the criminals find themselves being inadvertently bumped off one by one as they argue over whether or not to kill Mrs Wilberforce. Before that they must go about retrieving the money they have stolen and, amusingly, rescue Mrs Wilberforce’s pet bird.

As the story progresses the broad stroke characters of each crook are gradually brought up to boiling point, specifically in the shape of Herbert Lom’s Louis, At the other end of the spectrum is Major Courtney, aka Claude (Cecil Parker) who doesn’t wish to see Mrs Wilberforce harmed. It’s one calamity after another in the classic tradition, and despite appearances the film does have a happy resolution – it just doesn’t involve any of the crooks.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwTBKuRzYd4

Saturday Night Fever (1977)

Simon Prior

2014-03-01

The girl in the front row didn't know it, but Travolta's hip thrusts had made her pregnant. With twins. — The girl in the front row didn’t know it, but Travolta’s hip thrusts had made her pregnant. With twins.

Twitter Plot Summary: Whilst wanting to break free from his doldrum youth, Tony Manero struts his stuff on the disco dance floor.

Five Point Summary:

1. Stayin’ Alive
2. Night Fever
3. More Than A Woman
4. Night on Disco Mountain
5. You Should Be Dancing

Saturday Night Fever is often remembered for its soundtrack and “that” dance move, and very rarely anything else. What people often seem to forget is that there’s also a hard-hitting story at its centre and the music is just a pleasant addition to that. Of course, the soundtrack is excellent in its own right, featuring hit after hit mostly crafted by high pitched warblers the Bee Gees, but to ignore the story in any capacity is a shortsighted move.

As for that story, it’s all about young Tony Manero, played by John Travolta, who yearns to make something of himself and to escape the relative level of poverty and lack of ambition that haunts his home life. He might work as a lowly clerk in a hardware store, but Tony can dance. And I mean really dance – he’s a legend at his local club where disco is the flavour of the month and Tony’s boogying is everybody’s talking point.

There are serious themes at play, specifically the notion of religious belief as evidenced by Tony’s brother who leaves said religion behind much to the consternation of his and Tony’s parents. In fact Tony’s not served particularly well by his family – they all want him to aspire to be like his brother up until he leaves the priesthood. Tony’s desire to make something of himself is further explored with his relationship with fellow dancer Stephanie. At first he seeks her company for one particular reason – hint hint – but eventually develops into a potential friendship. Thankfully the script didn’t feel it necessary to force a romantic coupling on these two characters (despite Tony’s best efforts), for the simple fact that it would be entirely out of character for that to occur.

Travolta vs Serpico. Bono estente pussycat.

There’s also the fact that, being teenagers with nothing better to do, sexual frisson is abundant, even to the point where rape provides a strong and hard-hitting finale. I know the 70s were gritty and all that, but seriously? That was the way the world was, apparently. Casual racism abounds too – the Italian American kids all have a dislike for the Puerto Rican community that turns violent – needlessly, it becomes apparent.

Finally, there’s the bridge – it is abundant with symbolism and plays a key part to many events within the story – crossing it means escaping to a better life, fooling around on it has the potential for tragic circumstances (in more ways than one), and also acts as a bonding point between Tony and Stephanie. Tony’s journey is a delight to watch – initial disgust with his surroundings, hopes seemingly dashed at every turning point, and a misogynistic/racist attitude that slowly softens as he starts to find his way. He’s still damaged by the time we reach the end credits, but it’s a start. Sadly the female characters ultimately get short shrift, but then that’s endemic across almost every film ever made, sadly.

Put it this way: a gritty, well told story? Yeah, great. Combine it with the musical genius that is the Bee Gees? Absolute class. No further questions, your honour.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq4ZMKqWk80

Lebanon (2009)

Simon Prior

2014-02-28

Knowing me, knowing you... aha. — Knowing me, knowing you… aha.

Twitter Plot Summary: The story of a lone tank and its crew during the first Lebanon War.

Five Point Summary:

1. So… we’re in a tank. The brutality of war, it’s all outside.
2. He’s just asked for someone to call his parents as he’s their only son. Be surprised if he makes it to the end…
3. And that guy gets discharged in two weeks. It’s not looking good.
4. A prisoner!
5. It’s all started to crumble.

Of my very many genre interests, beneath zombie films, science fiction and westerns are war films. Much like my oft-described interest in zombie films, any genre that does something slightly different with the established tropes and style we’ve come to expect, I am more likely to appreciate the effort. Lebanon is set in the country of the same name during the war of 1982. We follow a single tank crew as they provide support for a platoon of soldiers as they move towards their objective. Naturally the fact we’re in a war zone means that tempers are frayed between the crew, and to call them a cohesive fighting unit would be a massive understatement.

Unlike almost every other war film ever made, Lebanon restricts the action to inside the tank, with events outside seen voyeuristically through the viewfinders available to the tank crew. This causes two potential problems – first that the number of camera angles is limited and can result in a slightly dull interpretation of the script if the director isn’t up to scratch, and second that you need the script to have enough variation and drama to maintain the narrative to a feature length standard. On both counts we’re in luck, as writer and director Samuel Maoz pulls out all the stops, providing a film that doesn’t drop in quality and maintains audience interest from start to finish. Some may disagree with me on this point, but at no point did I have any desire to see the tank crew get out of their tank. With that said, the only part I was less keen on was the incarceration inside the tank of an insurgent who had recently attempted to blow it up. This seemed a touch far fetched, although as Maoz based his script on his own personal experiences in the Lebanon War, who am I to take umbrage at this particular plot development?

He knew what they were up to inside that tank, and he did not approve.

That voyeuristic angle is a persistent thread from start to finish. There are a number of close-ups on the eyes of the tank crew specifically, but is also used occasionally on their captive enemy. The fact we’re in the tank and can proceed no further makes us as the audience almost complicit in the actions of the crew, their decisions to kill or not to kill reflecting back on us. If you don’t subscribe to the voyeur theory, then it does at least emphasise the brutality and horrors of war,

By its very nature the story becomes increasingly claustrophobic as time progresses. Finding themselves isolated from the ground troops, tensions increase and psyches begin to crack. It doesn’t help that everybody inside the tank is very young, to the point of being wet behind the ears. Even the tank commander fits this category – there are no grizzled and weary war veterans in the Jurgen Prochnow mould here. More’s the pity, as this is essentially a low budget version of Das Boot with the action switched to a tank rather than a German U-Boat. Slightly less impressive as a result, but another hard hitting entry in the “war is hell” sub category of the war film genre.

Score: 4/5

A New York Winter’s Tale (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-02-27

Twitter Plot Summary: Thief Peter Lake has to contend with demon Pearly Soames whilst falling for the soon to die Beverly.

Five Point Summary:

1. Colin Farrell and his floppy hair.
2. Nice accent, Russell…
3. Oh noes – it’s all gone horribly wrong.
4. How old is that woman, 110?
5. Fighting there? Not a good idea.

Fantasy is a much maligned genre of late, and has certainly been on the back foot since its heyday in the 1980s. It’s another of those genres that folks lately either get right (Harry Potter) or horribly, horribly wrong (everything else since the 80s ended).

There are a number of problems with A New York Winter’s Tale, which is a shame as it’s so well intentioned that it feels like you’re a right swine being negative about it. That’s further enhanced when you learn that writer/director Akiva Goldsman put the story together following the death of his wife. With that in mind it’s hard not to see what he was aiming for with this tale of love across the ages. Well, across 1916 and 2014. Goldsman is somewhat of an easy target for the film community given the list of writing credits to his name (Batman and Robin, The Da Vinci Code and Lost in Space, amongst others), however his adaptation of the 800 page behemoth by Mark Helprin is a deserving target for negativity and/or ridicule for being so over earnest it verges on pantomime.

The story sees small time thief Peter Lake (Farrell) escape from the clutches of villainy villain Pearly Soames (yes, really. Played by Russell Crowe) atop a magic horse that can fly. But the horse is actually a dog. Or something. The horse makes Lake break into a house where the sole occupant is a young girl called Beverly, who just so happens to be dying of consumption. A love story unfolds between them and Pearly really doesn’t like what he’s seeing as Lake used to work for him, y’see. Thus, Pearly sets out to cause some mischief. Albeit unintentionally badly. How this demon became a trusted agent of Lucifer, I’ll never know.

"Arr, they're always after me lucky charms!" — “Arr, they’re always after me lucky charms!”

Those problems I mentioned? Let’s run through them. Firstly the story has no set up – fantasy elements are introduced into this real world setting without any establishment or forewarning. The rules aren’t made apparent so as soon as the horse makes an impossible leap over a fence you’re left with a raised eyebrow. Or maybe two, it’s your call. A portion of opening narrative to explain the setting would have made all the difference. Second, Russell Crowe’s accent is horrific to the point of being a shade away from impersonating the Lucky Charms leprechaun. If you think of Colin Farrell as his bowl of Lucky Charms, you’re already halfway there. Third, the jump from the 1910s to 2014 is presented badly and doesn’t make a whole lot of narrative sense – there’s a woman editing a magazine who by all rights should have died/retired/both years previously, and nobody seems to be concerned that Peter Lake can live for over 100 years without aging. We get no sense that Peter Lake has been lost for 100 years and all things considered this part of the narrative needs a lot of work in order to be coherent. You almost feel sorry for Jennifer Connelly who shows up and doesn’t do much at all. Fourth, the love story between Lake and Beverly needed more time to feel believable – it feels like he breaks in and then suddenly they’re intertwined.

In fact if I’m going to provide the film with any praise, it’s the scenes featuring Lucifer, a cameo appearance which I will not spoil. However you consider the product overall, those scenes are clearly the best you’re going to get. A scene with William Hurt and Colin Farrell trying to fix a boiler – and no doubt trying to convey some deep meaning about trust, family and so on – falls incredibly short by comparison.

A flawed work then? Yes, and then some. But as I said at the beginning, it’s hard to overtly mean towards it as it’s coming from a genuine and heartfelt place. Others may disagree – and that’s there prerogative after all – but the emotional angle of the story, in places at least, does hit its mark, and the Lucifer scenes are worth the price of entry, but the rest of it is ham fisted and nigh on cringeworthy. Suffice to say, I get the impression that the book fares better on all accounts.

Score: 1.5/5

1...606162...90 Page 61 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM