Lone Survivor (2014)

2014-02-06

If those squirrels made one false move... — If those squirrels made one false move…

Twitter Plot Summary: The story of Marcus Luttrell and his three fellow SEAL’s sent into Afghanistan. The title gives it all away.

Five Point Summary:

1. Brotherhood and all that.
2. Their cover blown.
3. Mountaintop gunfight!
4. Falling down the mountain.
5. Aaaannddd… slightly less interesting.

Before I get into this, can I say first of all that the title is a horrible giveaway in terms of the story. I wasn’t aware of the mission in question before seeing the film, and knowing the fate of everybody else except for Mark Wahlberg’s Marcus Luttrell did slightly spoil the narrative. However with that said, as soon as we are introduced to our central four characters at the start of the film, you can tell immediately who isn’t going to make it to the end credits based solely on their interactions with each other and with significant others etc.

We go on a mission with four Navy SEALs, sent behind enemy lines in Afghanistan with the aim of taking out a notorious Taliban leader. Very soon after setting up position on a nearby mountain they are discovered by a trio of Afghani goat herders. Rather than kill them, the SEALs choose to let them go and make their way to an extraction point. Unfortunately for them they are soon tracked by the Taliban forces and they are placed in an epic gunfight which leaves them with two choices – be killed up top or to fling themselves down the side of a mountain. And thus, we follow their attempts to survive as the Taliban forces surround them and the odds of survival diminish with each passing moment.

The main bulk of the film is taken up with the gunfight with the Taliban, and it’s exciting stuff to say the least. The odds are very clearly stacked against the four Americans, yet despite being shot multiple times and constantly bombarded with RPG fire, they continue picking off Taliban soldiers left, right and centre. There may be some incredulity from an audience with regards to how many times these guys get shot and still carry on and yet manage to kill a vast number of Taliban soldiers, however director Peter Berg makes a valid point when stating the SEALs are using high calibre weapons and have had extensive training, whereas the Taliban forces are using AK’s and are almost as bad as the Stormtroopers from Star Wars when it comes to targeting enemies.

The obligatory "men at base stood around looking concerned" scene. — The obligatory “men at base stood around looking concerned” scene.

The underlying themes are ones of brotherhood and not backing down from impossible situations, as witnessed by the SEALs throwing themselves down the mountain. The point is emphasised in the film’s opening moments where we see archive footage of real SEALs training to join the group, and the amount of determination and perseverance needed to get through even the most basic elements of the incredibly rigorous training regime. After going through all of that, jumping down the side of a mountain doesn’t seem quite so bad. Not so much for the audience, the way it’s presented puts us right in the action and you can almost feel every bump and crash as they bounce their way down.

The central quartet of Wahlberg, Kitsch, Hirsch and Foster in my opinion are a perfect representation of brothers in arms, and the bonds between them are clear yet mostly unspoken. I also enjoyed playing a game of “spot the new recruit” based on beard size alone – anyone who’s been in the unit for some time will have an epic beard whereas the newbies barely have stubble. It’s a man’s world out there for sure.

The story stutters in its final 20-30 minutes as the bulk of the fighting comes to an end, but by that point it’s done more than enough to make up for this minor setback. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that final act, but it pales in comparison to the visceral and incredibly tense gunfight that preceded it. This is modern action done well, and Peter Berg can consider himself redeemed after the critical battering he faced for Battleship.

Score: 4/5

The Upper Footage (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-02-05

Twitter Plot Summary: A night of drinking and drug taking takes a turn for the tragic in this found footage story.

Five Point Summary:

1. Drinks and drugs.
2. More drinks and drugs!
3. The incident occurs…
4. Some driving
5. Sitting around in a car…

I’ve said before, but I’m not a huge fan of the found footage sub-genre. With the exception of Chronicle, which did something slightly different with the format, most of them tend to have either a strong opening or a strong finale, but the other half seems to lose its way or move off into strange territories. The Upper Footage is a strong contender for one of the better found footage films I’ve seen, and other than a few missteps and a lack of narrative drive in the second half, it definitely has moments of power and the ability to surprise.

The story is thus: a group of young and wealthy socialites go out for a night of drinking, partying and drug taking. After a lengthy night out they return to Blake’s apartment where the party continues and one of the guys brings a girl back with him, where she overdoses. I don’t want to go into too much detail in terms of the plot from that point forward as it’s better for you to go into it with as little information as possible. Suffice to say there are a couple of extremely powerful shots that help define the film, and there’s also something inherently creepy about a girl whose face has been pixelated in order to protect her identity and her family.

The opening of the movie sets up the story effectively – the footage we are seeing is described as an edited version of approximately 400 minutes of video shot by the group on the night in question and establishes that big names in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino among them, wanted to buy the footage for no doubt honest cinematic purposes. Or something. There’s also a blackmail plot aimed at the girl’s family which is essentially the reason for the footage now being out “in the wild” as it were.

You've erm... you've got something on your nose there mate... — You’ve erm… you’ve got something on your nose there mate…

The second half of the film I feel is less effective. The story builds up to the overdose and thereafter takes a dive into hysteria. Whilst this is an entirely believable situation in terms of the real world, as far as film narrative goes it loses a lot of its impact and nothing really of note happens for 45 minutes. That’s a lot of time that could’ve been put to better use. On a more positive note, the performances are strong, realistic and entirely appropriate for the situation at hand. There’s a lot of talent here, I’m glad to say.

It’s hard to say that any lesson is learned by the socialites, particularly given how the footage plays out and the final text scrawl that outlines what happened next. Perhaps that’s the point, and without going into any specifics it may be a commentary on the notion that if you have money and connections then you’re not accountable, even for the most horrific of circumstances. That’s perhaps the most shocking point of all, and one that is well made. Despite the narrative misstep in the second half, the real winner here is the marketing campaign which has been crafted perfectly and should perhaps be considered as a necessary extension of the film itself. A good effort from all involved, and I’m interested to see where they go next.

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Af7C-j6494

Die Hard (1988)

Simon Prior

2014-02-04

The ducts at Nakatomi were a top holiday destination.

Twitter Plot Summary: Alan Rickman locks down Nakatomi Plaza to steal $640 million in bearer bonds. What he hadn’t expected was John McClane.

Five Point Summary:

1. Make balls with your feet.
2. The man himself – Alan Rickman. And his beard.
3. Johnson and Johnson.
4. Shoot the glass!
5. Alan Rickman plummets!

Despite what many people may think, Die Hard remains a quintessential Christmas movie, yet also remains viewable at any point throughout the year. Such is its impact, it spawned an entire action sub-genre that has culminated in two films being released in 2013 that for better or for worse used the “Die Hard in the White House” template. Before I get into the review properly, let me just say how nice it is to see an action film which has a logical structure and has been written in such a way that almost all of the narrative threads introduced are resolved by the end credits. it doesn’t happen nearly often enough, and later entries in the Die Hard series fail to live up to this expectation.

It’s Christmas and there’s a party on at the Nakatomi Plaza. John McClane is in town to make amends with his estranged wife who works for the company. Before they can resolve their argument, however, the building is locked down by Hans Gruber and his band of mercenaries, locking down the building and taking everyone inside hostage. Everyone except John McClane, naturally, who makes his escape in his now trademark white vest. As the police stand arround, impotent, outside, McClane is the only one who sees what the real plan is, and it’s up to him and him alone to stop Gruber and his minions before they can make their escape. It’s a classic slasher setup disguised as an action film, although with a full if slightly silly story attached to it as McClane takes down the bad guys one at a time.

Hans Gruber remains one of cinema’s quintessential bad guys, played with epic levels of evil charm by Alan Rickman. Let’s ignore the fact that this is yet another case where a Brit plays the bad guy. It’s almost impossible to tell that this is his first major film appearance, to the point where he’s perhaps one of the all time iconic sreen villains. Bruce Willis kicked off an action career as John McClane, a man who, ever so slowly over the course of five films (to date) has lost his bite and his ability to swear. In any case, that’s a point for a later review. For this film at least, McClane is a quintessential action hero, the everyman cop placed into a situation that defies credulity. Bonnie Bedelia doesn’t have a great amount to do as John’s wife Holly, but does at least represent a woman who is good at her job.

Her presence does also create a certain tension seeing as we know her husband is the one causing all the problems for Gruber and his men, and there’s the constant worry that she will be discovered at any moment. This situation is not helped by fellow employee Ellis, a cut-price Alan Rickman if you will. His cocaine addiction aside, Ellis is also a smarmy, self-centred jerk and acts as a counterpoint to both McClane and Gruber. Other than Karl, the minion who looks like he should be in a power metal band, and Theo, the computer expert tasked with breaking through Nakatomi’s security, the remaining goons are defined solely by the description that they’re German. And let’s not forget Argyle, the young limo driver who picks up McClane from the airport early on and spends the majority of the film sat in the car park with a huge stuffed teddy bear.

As an action film you’d expect Die Hard to throw a few exciting set pieces your way, and it delivers in this respect quite substantially. There are that many dotted around the film that it’s difficult to single out any as they’re all well presented and exciting. The attempts to get inside the building, both with the SWAT team and when FBI agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) make their assault, are expertly set up by John McTiernan and are edited for maximum impact. Even in the brief moments of introspection, particularly where McClane and new best friend Al “I shot a kid” Powell have a discussion whilst McClane deals with a nasty glass-related problem, the story is still pushing forward and the scene serves to set up the final act.

Okay, so there are a couple of bits that don’t add up (Karl emerging from the rubble, for example), but it works within the concept of the film simply because it entertains the audience. On that note it’s an incredibly quotable film, filled with one liners that can be used in a multitude of everyday situations. Throw in the obligatory explosive action sequences and you have a film that never fails to entertain, no matter how many times you’ve seen it previously. Yippee-ki-yay and all that.

Is there an Alan Rickman-style plummet?: Well yeah, this is the film that spawned it!

Score: 5/5

Modern Times (1936)

Simon Prior

2014-02-03

Twitter Plot Summary: Charlie Chaplin takes on industry and the modern world in a biting 1930s social satire.

Five Point Summary:

1. A not so subtle indication that we’re all sheep…
2. He’s off his face on “nose powder”.
3. Gastritis gag. Very good.
4. Rollerskating near the edge…
5. A singing finale? Oh go on then.

Chaplin was incredibly resistant to the idea of talkies, to the point whereby he seemed to go into a bit of a strop about them in the early 1930s and didn’t make a film for several years. Whilst not entirely a silent movie, Modern Times bridges the gap between the two generations of cinema and features excellent performances from both Chaplin, naturally, and his co-star Paulette Goddard.

What’s most intriguing about the film almost 80 years later is the heavy satirical element that runs through it. This is of course several years after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, where austerity was more prevalent than it is today. Modern Times sees Chaplin’s Factory Worker – aka The Little Tramp, because that’s who it is, despite not being named as such – working in a factory tightening bolts on a production line. When he suffers a nervous breakdown and subsequently recovers, he finds himself unemployed and mistaken for a communist. So he ends up in prison, and out again. And in again. And out again. And so on, because prison is a guaranteed bed as opposed to being out there on the streets with nowhere to go. In the course of his arrests, he meets up with a gamine (aka a young, playful and mischievous girl) and they seek a home and employment together. From here they end up staying in a department store and ultimately find themselves serving and performing in a restaurant. The constant need to seek shelter, paid employment and the need to put food on the table was incredibly relevant for the time, and to a lesser extent the problems of the modern world and the over reliance on technology and modern gadgets – oh if only Chaplin could see us now!

Somehow, methinks this machine wasn't working quite as expected. — Somehow, methinks this machine wasn’t working quite as expected.

The physical humour is also spot on, with the rollerskating sequence in the department store and the opening sequence on the production line being of particular note. Chaplin remains as endearing as ever, a loveable tyke, for want of a better term, who is eternally optimistic despite the world seemingly being against him. He and the gamine are kindred spirits in this respect, and it’s fun to see how their relationship develops following their chance meeting in the back of the police van.

Chaplin may have been against “talkies”, but Modern Times sits nicely at the halfway point between the two formats, and whilst this is a novelty in itself, it also just so happens to be a very good film at the same time. Okay, so the overall narrative feels more like a series of sketches rather than a cohesive story, and that would be entirely true, but it’s a combination of those various short films within the film that make it what it is. The fact there is hardly a duff moment in any of them is a testament to the quality of writing and the quality of the performances. It’s also a solid indication as to why Chaplin’s work is as revered as it is.

Score: 4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekwbgtp1_Vg

I, Frankenstein (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-02-02

L'Oreal. Because he's worth it. — L’Oreal. Because he’s worth it.

Twitter Plot Summary: Picking up after the events of the novel, Frankenstein’s monster becomes embroiled in a fight between Gargoyles and Demons.

Five Point Summary:

1. It’s Alive!
2. Gargoyles VS Demons. Really?
3. Bill Nighy seems to be enjoying himself.
4. So… is she living there? Seems a bit of a dump.
5. Inevitable finale. Inevitable silliness.

As soon as you read that this film is from the producers of the Underworld series, you know pretty much where it’s heading. And that is sadly the case, a combination of bad CGI, superfluous 3D and a story that doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. Welcome, one and all, to the world of I, Frankenstein. Picking up from the end of Mary Shelley’s novel, Dr Frankenstein has pursued his creation to the far reaches of the Earth and frozen to death in his hubris. The creature returns his creator to his home intending to bury him, however at that point he is set upon by a gang of demons intent on bringing him to their master, Prince Naberious. Then Adam (as he is shortly named) discovers that there is an ongoing war between Gargoyles and Demons whereby the fate of humanity lies in the balance. Centuries pass and

Whilst it’s always a pleasure to see Yvonne Strahovski, she’s wasted as scientist Terra. Having seen her performance in Chuck (well worth seeing, if you haven’t already), she’s perfectly capable of holding her own in a phsyical confrontation, yet sadly this wasn’t utilised here. Instead she gets to spout a little technobabble and be chased/attacked by demons. Hardly the stuff of legend, it has to be said. Aaron Eckhardt meanwhile does a very good tortured soul performance and is faultless in that respect, although his Batman voice leaves a little to be desired. Bill Nighy on the other hand seems to be the only person actively enjoying himself, ramping up his typical mannerisms to 11 as Naberious.

Bill Nighy. Clearly a villain. He's wearing a suit. — Bill Nighy. Clearly a villain. He’s wearing a suit.

I watched this in 2D despite a 3D option being available. I did consider going for the 3D as it seemed an appropriate film to do so, but in hindsight I’m glad I didn’t. The film is incredibly dark – visually dark, that is – rendering any attempts at 3D almost moot. There’s also a distinct lack of standout 3D moments, even when watching it in 2D, so it’s no great loss that I didn’t see it in that format. The fact everybody speaks in an English accent is slightly disconcerting at first, but you soon adjust. Years of Hollywood brainwashing has made me expect every British accent to represent a villain, so I was assuming that everybody would turn out to have evil intents. Thankfully that didn’t turn out to be the case. The biggest problem I had was that there’s no depth to the story nor to the characters beyond Eckhardt’s efforts as the creature. It’s very much a surface level production, all special effects and no heart.

I appreciate what they were trying to do here, but ultimately it’s basic popcorn cinema and nothing more. If perhaps they had gone to the effort of making it a post apocalyptic world instead of shoehorning into our current one then it may have been a better movie. On that note, other than a couple of scenes towards the beginning we don’t see anybody the real world in any capacity – streets are empty, and the carnage ensues without any substantial loss of human life. The story, too, is one we’ve seen loads of times before and it would have been better to focus more on Eckhardt’s creature and his journey of self discovery rather than the epic war between good and evil that rages around him. On a positive note, they didn’t go out of their way to cram in a pointless love story between Adam and Terra, although it was hinted at. Hints are fine, but it would’ve been too much to take it into that territory. Then again, who am I to judge? If you really enjoyed the Underworld films or even, dare I say it, Van Helsing, then you’ll probably love this. For the rest of us, it’s unlikely to have any significant lasting appeal.

Score: 2/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxOSPfUw3qw

Renaissance (2006)

Simon Prior

2014-02-01

Walking moodily towards camera doesn't work so well when you can't see much. — Walking moodily towards camera doesn’t work so well when you can’t see much.

Twitter Plot Summary: Paris in the 2050s is a Big Brother state. Meanwhile, there’s a plot involving a kidnapped scientist for Daniel Craig to investigate.

Five Point Summary:

1. So is he a superhuman or something?
2. Top to bottom chase sequence. Nice.
3. Some guys in invisible suits.
4. The plot thickens…
5. That’s a bit of a downer…

It is the year 2054 and Paris is under the thumb of Big Brother. It is also inexplicably in black and white and constantly raining, if Renaissance is anything to go by. Much of the surveilance is undertaken by mega conglomerate Avalon, a health and beauty company that are constantly advertising about their rejuvenating skin and health products – so essentially a massive version of Oil of Olay then. Afer a scientist is kidnapped it’s up to jaded police officer Karas (Craig) to find her. Of course, it’s not as simple as that and soon he’s travelling down a road that uncovers a far bigger conspiracy at its core.

The animation is excellent, doing what good animation should. That is, making you forget the fact it’s animated. This is in spite of the stark black and white, neo-noir approach that’s been taken with it, which is remarkable in itself. It’s also most definitely not aimed at a younger audience – nudity and swearing are occasional occurrences. It’s also a meaty, adult story despite the endgame being about achieving immortality. That’s a distinctly sci-fi trope but in this instance it fits in nicely with the adult theme – the fear of death, the fear of aging. Science fiction works at its best when it questions our modern world and puts a unique futuristic spin on that, and Renaissance achieves this with considerable gusto.

The voice actors on hand, too, give a sterling performance. Daniel Craig is a proto-Bond, albeit one that is slightly more weary with the world in which he lives. This is of course an era where liberty has been taken away, so it’s understandable for him to have an air of melancholia. He’s one to do the right thing, however, and so despite everything thrown at him he is perhaps the best person to uncover the mystery that lies ahead.

A Mexican standoff that's gotten a little out of hand. — A Mexican standoff that’s gotten a little out of hand.

Whilst some aspects of the narrative could have been explained in some more detail, I loved the attention to detail in terms of the world itself – the future technology is believable and helps considerably in setting up the world the story takes place in, making a wry comment on surveillance culture in the process. The invisible suits worn by government agent types is reminiscent of those worn in Philip K Dick’s A Scanner Darkly, however in this case the subtext is again with reference to surveillance and the watching of unknowing targets.

It’s a brave experiment that appears to have failed – from a budget of €14 million, it only took approximately $2 million at the box office. That appears to be more an issue with the original French language version rather than the English translation – as we’re well aware, cinema goers are adverse to watching anything that may require subtitles. Would it have done better if the English version had been released into cinemas? Perhaps, but even despite its poor box office showing there’s no excuse not to give it a try now. Intelligent and thought provoking, we need more films like this, be they animated or otherwise.

Score: 3.5/5

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Simon Prior

2014-01-31

If you hadn't guessed, it was the 1970s. — If you hadn’t guessed, it was the 1970s.

Twitter Plot Summary: It’s the 1970s and there’s a mole within the ranks of MI6. Veteran George Smiley is tasked with finding him.

Five Point Summary:

1. John Hurt doing his thing.
2. A meeting that goes awry – it’s a mole’s fault, apparently.
3. They’re all so very British about it. Brilliant.
4. Gary Oldman – no shoes, just socks.
5. Vengeance.

The 1970s, the height of the cold war. MI6 are locked in a regular game of cat and mouse with their Russian counterparts as both organisations attempt to outdo the other. After an operation in Budapest goes wrong, Control (Hurt), the head of the organisation, is forced out and takes the permanently baffled face of faithful spy George Smiley (Oldman) with him on his way out. Some time later Smiley is asked back out of retirement to help unearth a mole within MI6, one who is feeding information to the Russians. What follows is wrought with misdirection and surprises as Smiley digs deeper and deeper to flush out the traitor.

Director Tomas Alfredson’s previous notable work includes Let The Right One In, a modern vampire story and again an adaptation of a novel. To say there is a link between the two films besides the literary connection would be entirely false, but they do both share Alfredson’s penchant for creating a dreamlike sense to every shot of the film. It has that slow, deliberate pace that sets it out from other films of the genre, yet never fails to be engaging. The 1970s setting is perfectly realised – lots of funky hairstyles and a plethora of orange and brown fashions – and the use of contemporary equipment sets it apart from more modern spy thrillers. Tape was a brilliant thing, wasn’t it? Oldman is the quintessential spy as Smiley, barely giving anything away in his facial expressions, a cold personality in a Cold War. Furthermore he’s incredibly British, which is never a bad thing, old chap.

There are a plethora of big name actors for you to enjoy, and also by turn try and work out which of them is the mole. John Hurt, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ciaran Hinds, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Colin Firth – it’s an amazing amount of talent drawn to appear in this story. So much so in fact, and taking into account its 70s setting, women rather understandably get short shrift in terms of screen time. The only notable appearance is Kathy Burke, for all but a few moments. This is one occasion where the poor representation of women doesn’t irk me. For one it was the 1970s, and to try and paint the era as anything but a mysogynistic period would be a lie. Furthermore, cramming in strong female characters for the sake of it is always noticeable, so I’m glad they didn’t go down that route.

It’s a very taut state of affairs, and directed with precision so you’re never quite sure who the mole might be. Many misdirections and subtle hints are provided, but even by the conclusion you’re not absolutely certain who the mole is until Smiley confronts them. I’ve never read Le Carre’s novel, nor have I seen the Alec Guinness TV mini series, so I walked into this film adaptation with no expectations. As an old school 70s-set thriller it ticks every box, providing excitement and tension in spite of its somewhat slow and melancholic style.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aco15ScXCwA

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-01-30

Jack Ryan had mastered the game of Hide and Seek.

Twitter Plot Summary: Jack Ryan begins, and his first port of call is the old nemesis: Russia.

Five Point Summary:

1. Jack Ryan: The Early Years
2. “You’re operational.” Nice dog, Kevin.
3. What’s she doing here?!
4. The clock’s a-ticking…
5. Very formulaic ending. Very formulaic.

It’s very much a case of Jack Ryan Begins in the latest movie vehicle for Tom Clancy’s analyst spy chap, as Chris Pine becomes the fourth person to play the character (Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck have all had a pop in the past). Trying to avoid taking pages from the James T Kirk playbook, Ryan’s backstory is moved forward to September 2001, where he witnesses the attacks on the World Trade Center. From there he serves in Afghanistan, ends up injured after a helicopter crash, and then has to slowly rehabilitate himself in order to walk again. He does so with the assistance of Keira Knightley’s Cathy, a trainee nurse who later goes on to become his girlfriend. As so often happens. Whilst in physical rehab, Ryan is approached by the Prince of Thieves himself, Kevin Costner, who takes him on as an agent with the CIA and sets him off to work undercover in a Wall Street company. Here he discovers irregularities with a Russian-owned account and thus sets off on his adventure.

The main bulk of the story takes place in Russia as Ryan is attacked by Russian agents, looks slightly puzzled at the fact he’s been made operational, and then more puzzled when Cathy shows up in Russia, on the assumption that he’s having an affair. This conceit to get her involved in the action and give the story a personal edge sits wrong with me. It would have likely taken up more story time than would have been appropriate, but a little more effort in defining their relationship would’ve helped make clear that he wouldn’t have an affair – a ticket stump for a film does not an affair make. Bearing in mind the undercover spy storyline, some of the decisions made by the CIA, in particular when choosing their super secret (read: not so secret) safe house, are particularly silly. Perhaps one more re-write of the script may have been beneficial. Certainly a bit more interplay between Ryan and Cheverin would have been nice, although then there’s the risk that it becomes a sub-par Bond film.

Never criticise Branagh's directorial skills. — Never criticise Branagh’s directorial skills.

Pine is acceptable as Ryan, the lingering shadow of Captain Kirk soon fades as he inhabits the character and you soon forget that he’s also the captain of the Enterprise. Keira Knightley is mostly superfluous as the damsel in distress, but does at least get a hefty scene with Kenneth Branagh in a fancy restaurant. The biggest surprise was how much Kevin Costner had to do – he’s a presence in most of the film and there’s hints that there’s more than meets the eye to his character. Apart from walking around Moscow with a dog at night (don’t ask), he also gets to show off his sniper skills, his hands on approach does at least make a change from the standard “big boss sits at the head of a table somewhere else and looks stern” trope.

Whilst I have no concerns with Branagh’s performance as the big Russian bad Cherevin, when it comes to action thrillers they are better served by having a dedicated director behind the camera rather than one who flits between the two. Not that the direction is bad at all, but at times it feels a touch formulaic. Still, despite any expectations you may have otherwise had, Branagh is at least very good at crafting a tense action sequence. There are a couple of them dropped into the story and they do help to jazz things up, but for the most part there is very little dramatic impetus to the plot. We’re told that the Russians are going to crash the stock market so the American dollar is reduced in value to less than nothing, but whilst it’s entirely believable there’s no feeling that the Russians are going to succeed, and there’s equally no depth to their plans. Sleeper agents, stock market exploitation and so on, fine, but give us a bit more meat to those aspects rather than doing what appears to be the case – seeing it all solely through Jack Ryan’s eyes. In terms of Cherevin himself, he’s not particularly villainous, and prone to being made a fool out of quite frequently. A little more of his villainy would go down a treat.

It’s not going to be winning any awards, but this modern thriller with an old-school tinge is a well made tale albeit one that is lacking in certain areas. You could say it’s merely okay rather than spectacular or a must see. A good effort from all involved, but I’m very much of the opinion that it’s the story at the centre of it all that’s at fault.

Score: 3/5

Inside Llewyn Davis (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-01-29

"Yes, this is a cat. What of it?" — “Yes, this is a cat. What of it?”

Twitter Plot Summary: The journey of folk singer Llewyn Davis as he tries to get his big break in 1961 Greenwich.

Five Point Summary:

1. That darn cat.
2. Relationship woes.
3. John Goodman!
4. Back to the drawing board?
5. Full circle.

I may have said this before, but I’m quite the fan of the Coen Brothers and their movies. Thus far in my journey through their back catalogue I have yet to experience a dud, although I have yet to see their remake of The Ladykillers so I’ll reserve judgement until that’s out of the way. In any case, I was keen to make a visit to the cinema to see their latest, Inside Llewyn Davis, a film about the titular character and his efforts to make it as a folk artist in 1961, just ahead of Bob Dylan’s appearance on the scene. The problem here is that, whilst undoubtedly talented to a degree, he never manages to find his break, often being told there’s no money in him or his music and that he should perform with a stage partner if he wants to get anywhere. And of course the problem there is that Llewyn had a partner but is now trying to branch off as a solo artist.

Oscar Isaac is perfect in the role of Llewyn, melancholic and up against the world, he moves from place to place and sofa to sofa as he tries to make his folk singing career work out. At the same time, he’s not making much in terms of money, and his sister thinks he should go back to the navy and re-enlist. There’s plenty of depth to his performance, no naval-based pun intended, despite the surface appearance. Giving strong supporting performances are Carey Mulligan as Jean, the girlfriend of Justin Timberlake’s Jim – a man who has the most severely angled beard I think I have ever seen. John Goodman shows up (obviously) with an equally strange hairdo and spends most of his time asleep in the back of the car as Llewyn and Garrett Hedlund’s near mute but effortlessly cool Johnny Five take a road trip to Chicago. Then there’s the Gorfein’s cat, whose name I will not reveal as it’s integral to the plot, but suffice to say it works wonderfully as a metaphor. Again, I’m not going to say what, you’ll have to work that one out for yourself. Suffice to say it’s a beatifully simple idea and adds another layer of depth to Llewyn’s story. Typically, the Coens don’t tie up every narrative thread or loose end neatly, nor is it absolutely necessary. In many ways their narrative structure follows real life, where nothing gets a satisfactory conclusion.

Goodman's test of strength routine hadn't worked out as planned. — Goodman’s test of strength routine hadn’t worked out as planned.

The cinematography is equally superb, colours are washed out and slightly drab, yet has an almost ethereal quality. It’s very distinct, let’s put it that way. Also choosing to shoot the film in 1.85 aspect ratio gives it a slightly squeezed look which befits Llewyn’s position if not the time the film is set in. It was also interesting to discover that all of the singing is performed live rather than being lip-synched, which adds yet another layer of depth to the performances. Seriously, you could spend forever trying to unravel all of the messages littered around a Coen Brothers movie, and the best part is they will neither confirm or deny that those messages exist. You take out what you will, I guess.

There are plenty of thematic and stylistic links to the Coen Brother’s earlier films, the most obvious of which is to O Brother Where Art Thou as music also played an integral part to that film’s narrative. The same applies here, each song heard is played out in full, and despite not being a huge fan of folk music I would gladly listen to the soundtrack on loop until my ears bled. In terms of narrative the songs are very carefully chosen – Llewyn’s opening Hang Me, Oh Hang Me is a glimpse into the man’s soul and helps drive the story forward. Indeed, the only time that we really get to see inside Llewyn’s mind and get a sense of how he really feels is through his music, his performances the only time he ever opens up. The likes of Fare Thee Well and The Shoals of Herring are perfect examples, the former being the song he used to perform with his folk partner before said partner decided to jump off the George Washington Bridge (apparently, that’s the wrong bridge to jump off), and the latter sang to emotive effect in front of his near-catatonic father. There’s nothing in the movie rulebook that says a character’s inner thoughts and emotional state can’t be conveyed by music, and if there was I would disavow it immediately. It’s intelligent storytelling at its finest.

There are other little visual links to their earlier work, but the most notable of which are the “Serious Man” aspect of Llewyn himself, and the driving sequences which owe a lot to the Coen’s first film, Blood Simple. There, much like Inside Llewyn Davis, much is said at the subtextual level and through images. Whilst this isn’t anywhere close to being as dialogue light as Blood Simple, Inside Llewyn Davis still has that element included in its story. Quite frankly it’s a marvel from one of cinema’s most notable cinematic writer/director pairings, and it’s a real pity that it wasn’t picked up for an Oscar love.

Score: 5/5

The Princess Bride (1987)

Simon Prior

2014-01-28

He had the stark realisation that he'd be playing basically the same role again in Men In Tights. — He had the stark realisation that he’d be playing basically the same role again in Men In Tights.

Twitter Plot Summary: A classic fantasy tale read by Columbo and starring that chap who was Mel Brooks’ Robin Hood.

Five Point Summary:

1. Cary Elwes as a pre-Mel Brooks Robin Hood!
2. His name is Inigo Montoya, if you didn’t know.
3. That machine goes up to 50, not 11.
4. Is that Billy Crystal…?
5. Sorry Andre the Giant, I’m not sure what you’re saying…

It’s the sheer quotability of the script that strikes you first. Not content with being a po-faced fantasy adventure, The Princess Bride has fun with the concept whilst at the same time being entirely faithful to the genre. There’s an evil prince, a heroic masked figure, a distinctly European swordsman, and a giant. Literally – Andre the Giant in this case. It’s sadly clear very early on that despite being a professional wrestler Andre didn’t have much in the way of acting ability, and he mangles half of his dialogue thanks to his thick French accent. Still, he adds colour to proceedings, even if he technically isn’t that much of a giant.

On the villainous side is Chris Sarandon as the evil prince, intent on marrying the princess and thwarting the good intentions of Westley/The Man In Black, played with dashing derring do-ness by Cary Elwes, later to take on a similar role as Robin Hood in the Mel Brooks spoof Men In Tights. There’s also Christopher Guest as a sinister, goatee-beardy type who is a world away from his role as Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel. Robin Wright also puts in a spirited performance as the titular princess bride in her first feature film appearance. You’d hardly tell based on her work here. Yes she’s the classic damsel in distress archetype, but she’s not entirely helpless and that’s what sets her apart.

Whereas Hawk the Slayer was horribly cheap in both performance and production, The Princess Bride doesn’t suffer from that particular ignominy because it doesn’t use excessive amounts of dry ice and doesn’t have Jack Palance (or, indeed, anybody else) overacting to the nth degree. Instead it’s a good old fashioned fairy tale – no complicated storyline, just a simple quest to rescue the princess and seek revenge on the man who killed Inigo Montoya’s father. That leads back to my comment about the quotability of the script – this is just one amongst many – “As you wish!” and “Inconceivable!” being the two other principle quotations – but there are many littered throughout that are squabbling for your time and attention.

His name is Inigo Montoya... you know the rest. — His name is Inigo Montoya… you know the rest.

Wrapping all this up is that it’s a story being told by Columbo himself, Peter Falk, to his grandson who is ill in bed. This provides some context for the slightly out there world in which the story takes place, without having to justify why certain things are as they are – it’s a fairy tale being told by a grandfather to his grandson, what more do you want? It also creates opportunity for some comic asides from both the grandson and the grandfather as they work through the story.

It would be remiss of me if I didn’t also mention Rob Reiner as director – everything has his gently comedic touch to it and is another strong entry in his catalogue. Witty and not averse to having fun with the fantasy genre, The Princess Bride is a delight for audiences old and young alike. Don’t let the fantasy aspect put you off, it’s a blast from start to finish and, most importantly, doesn’t talk down to its audience.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYgcrny2hRs

1...636465...90 Page 64 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM