Enemy At The Gates (2001)

2013-10-11

The Primark sale was due to start at any moment. Jude Law was ready.

Twitter Plot Summary: A game of cat and mouse plays out between a Russian and a German sniper during the battle of Stalingrad.

Genre: Drama/History/Thriller/War

Director: Jean-Jacques Annaud

Key Cast: Jude Law, Ed Harris, Joseph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman.

Five Point Summary:

1. Just so happens that Jude law is a crack shot.
2. Bob Hoskins makes an impressive looking Russian.
3. Ed Harris – a formidable figure in that uniform.
4. Ahh, the love triangle thing means vengeance is necessary.
5. The futility of war summed up in the final third.

As far as movies are concerned, the conflict on the Eastern Front has not received as much attention as other aspects of the war. Perhaps understandably, Western cinema is more interested in the battles being fought a little closer to home, the D-Day landings in particular. More recently we’ve started to see more combat from other theatres of war in both film and television, and the Eastern Front has started to get some of the attention it deserves.

Vasiley Zaitsev (Law) reaches Stalingrad at a critical point in the fight. Men are cut down left, right and centre by strafing Luftwaffe forces, and it’s likely that the city will fall to the Germans very shortly. For anyone who knows their military history they’ll know that ultimately the Russians were able to push the German forces back, but even so it’s a good way of establishing the stakes early on. Enemy At The Gates takes place during this conflict, but reduces the scope (aha! A sniping pun!) to the rivalry between Zaitsev and Ed Harris’s accomplished German sniper Major Konig. In these situations you either focus on a small aspect of the fight (Saving Private Ryan) or you look at the whole thing (The Longest Day). At their lowest ebb and caught at their most desperate, the Russian army choose to use propaganda to give their troops courage in the face of adversity. You know, rather than shoot deserters and waste bullets and stuff.

Bob Hoskins cuts an imposing figure as a Russian general, like an angry vole. Ed Harris, similarly, is just as imposing in a German uniform. Cold and calculating even when revelations about his personal life (which also explain why he’s there) come to the fore. Then there’s Ron Perlman who has to inflict us with a cheeky chirpy English accent despite being Russian, apart from that he’s good as always. This whole English accent: Russian/American accent: German thing would be far better if the Germans all had American accents. Instead they’re a mix of American and German. Very confusing.

You mean you were expecting an actual German to play this role? Nein!

I will throw one complaint forward for discussion – the arbitrary need to include a love story/triangle in this already tense personal conflict is wholly unnecessary and for me adds nothing. There’s also the small matter of James Horner’s completely derivative score to consider as well – he blatantly lifts the melody from John Williams’ Schindler’s List score. Let’s just say that the music fits with the tone of the movie, but I will never rate Horner as a composer.

The scenes of battle are visceral and as near to accuracy as cinema can provide without throwing you into combat in person. The true horrors of war are not hidden from view, and from a purely historical perspective I agree with this approach. There’s a tendency to glorify warfare or show it in a sanitised light, which I’m not a fan of. If we’re going to learn anything from history, in particular the ultimate futility of war, then we need to see the bloodshed, see the violence, see the impact it has on the soldiers and civilians caught up in it.

Enemy At The Gates is certainly stylish, and the cat and mouse games between the two snipers are well structured. It’s the love story that drags it down from being excellent to passable. But then it’s human nature to have romantic interactions in most films, so I guess I should just shut up about that point and move along.

Favourite scene: Zaitsev is pinned down by Major Konig in a factory. Tense!

Quote: “Vodka is a luxury we have. Caviar is a luxury we have. Time is not.”

Someone says “It’s a trap!”: Yes.

Score: 3.5/5

A Matter of Life and Death (1946)

Simon Prior

2013-10-10

And she's buying a stairway to heaven... — And she’s buying a stairway to heaven…

Twitter Plot Summary: When a WW2 pilot doesn’t die when expected, he has to argue with a heavenly court for his life.

Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Romance/War

Director: Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger

Key Cast: David Niven, Kim Hunter, Robert Coote, Richard Attenborough, Roger Livesey, Raymond Massey, Kathleen Byron, Marius Goring.

Five Point Summary:

1. I’ve seen this scene spoofed in Big Train… and in Bill and Ted too, I think.
2. Heaven in black and white, Earth in colour. Nice. Also: Richard Attenborough!
3. Let the court case… commence!
4. Lots of arguments based on nationality. Not quite sure why that’s relevant…
5. Love conquers all. Naturally.

On his way back from a bombing raid in a battered Lancaster at the end of World War 2, pilot David Niven strikes up a conversation with radio operator June just before bailing out of his heavily damaged aircraft without a parachute. Given a choice between bailing out and being cooked alive by the flames, it’s certainly the lesser of two evils. After disappearing into the fog he wakes up on a beach and bumps into June who happens to be based nearby. They fall in love and all seems well until a French conductor (Marius Goring) from the other world drops by and tells him that he should have died, and he’s here to take him back. Carter refutes the claims and appeals the decision, as any Brit would do, thus setting the stage for the rest of the film.

The divide between Heaven and Earth is nicely done, with the place of the angels in old-school black and white, and the Earthly world in full colour – in some ways this is directly opposite to what you may expect, however it seems that the colour implies life, whereas black and white indicates death and the afterlife. Perhaps a bit too on the nose for modern audiences, but it would have been something new and exciting back in 1946. I should note that the other world is never directly referred to as Heaven in the film as apparently that would have been too limited given the number of religions out there, but the implication is there. I’m of the opinion that the disclaimer that opens the film regarding the other world/Heaven is designed solely to appease the Christian element of the audience who may have taken umbrage at any representation of the afterlife in a film. Personally I don’t have any issue with any portrayal of worlds beyond our own – it’s a film about love conquering all despite whatever circumstances are put in front of you, yadda yadda, repeat ad nauseam.

Sniffing David Niven's hair. It was all the rage in 1946. — Sniffing David Niven’s hair. It was all the rage in 1946.

There’s also some nice ideas at play in terms of direction and narrative. One scene shows David Niven’s Peter Carter being anaesthetised , and we see his eyes close from his perspective. Again, nothing astounding for a modern audience, but it’s very clever. The other special effects are also fantastic for the period – the stairway to heaven in particular looks amazing, and the freeze frame moments where characters are stuck in place whilst Carter discusses options with the French Conductor are a marvel of technological achievement.

The love story is key to the whole affair – by having additional time on Earth and having opportunity to fall in love, Carter argues that if he hadn’t had the additional time he’d have gone willingly. As he had fallen in love with a girl between his expected time of death and the point where Heaven sent the Conductor down to collect him, asking him to give up his life is somewhat a moot point. Can’t say I blame him to be fair. There’s also the argument as to whether or not this is actually happening, or if it’s simply taking place in Carter’s head as he plummets towards the ground, his final thoughts before death. It’s ambiguous enough for either perspective to be true, and the script tows the line nicely by neither confirming or denying that it’s one or the other. Instead it’s for us the audience to decide, and that’s perhaps the best thing the film can give to us. Besides being rather good, of course.

Favourite scene: The court scene. Very nice.

Quote: “Ah, these English! What is the good of kissing a girl if she does not feel it?”

Silly Moment: Very fast talking whilst playing table tennis.

Score: 4/5

Stolen (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-10-09

Nicolas Cage and his thing for cuddly toys. Sheesh.

Twitter Plot Summary: After 8 years in prison, reformed crook Nicolas Cage has to rescue his kidnapped daughter from a disgruntled former friend.

Genre: Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: Simon West

Key Cast: Nicolas Cage, Danny Huston, MC Gainey, Malin Akerman, Josh Lucas, Mark Valley.

Five Point Summary:

1. Cheesy action movie soundtrack. Oh dear.
2. Nicolas Cage and his obsession with stuffed teddy bears.
3. An angry man with one leg and an agenda. Amusing.
4. Oh my – I think they just repeated a shot of Malin Akerman from earlier in the film.
5. Stealing gold from the bank vault – do they always just leave bars of gold out like that?

Stolen was on my cinema list earlier this year, but it never made it to any of my local screens so I had to wait for other legitimate means of seeing it to become available. Step up Netflix, you little beauty. Much like Fire With Fire, Stolen is most definitely a made for DVD movie, so the fact it got even a limited cinema release is nothing short of miraculous. It’s about bank robber Will Montgomery (Cage) who is sent to prison after a job goes south. Released from prison 8 years later, his daughter is kidnapped by one of the old members of his team, previously thought to have died years before and in search of his cut of the $10 million they had stolen.

I’d expect more from Simon West, he has a generally good back catalogue as far as action films go – Con Air is perhaps the pinnacle of his directorial career. You’d have hoped that him re-teaming with Nicolas Cage would be something to celebrate. Nope. It’s a train wreck of a film, badly acted, badly directed and badly scripted. The triumvirate of the bad film, if you will. Nicolas Cage varies between entertaining and entertainingly bad in his performances. Here, he’s entertainingly bad, nowhere near the same levels of insanity he captured for Face/Off or The Wicker Man. His character here is more in the same vein as Goodspeed in The Rock, but with 99% less entertainment value. Meanwhile, Danny Huston chases around after him wearing a lovely pork pie hat. As plots go it’s all rather silly, it doesn’t go anywhere and the finale feels like outtakes from the Terminator franchise mixed with… well, the finale to Fight Fire With Fire. Nothing can hide how low budget the whole thing is – a token bit of fire at the end does nothing but highlight the film’s inadequacies.

The action is laughable. It’s supposed to be kinetic but it feels dull and lifeless. The soundtrack too does it no favours, sub-par action spy theme mixed with an over the top video game of yesteryear. Then there’s Nicolas Cage trying to sprint but instead spends half the running time (pun half intended) hobbling around, breathless like an old man trying to retain his youth. Whilst in the Expendables films, or even the latest batch of resurgent action flicks starring Stallone and/or Schwarzenegger, there’s a sense of fun and a bit of nudge-nudge, wink-wink with the audience. Not here, it’s played completely straight. Shame really, the actors and the director combined should be awesome, instead they’re merely “meh.” There’s hints of how the script could have worked – more humour between Huston and Valley’s cops, more of super crook Nicolas Cage planning bank jobs i stead of spending most of his time being reactive not proactive. Perhaps even a few one liners dotted around would have added a bit of colour to proceedings. But no, we don’t get enough of any of that. Very much a wasted opportunity.

Favourite scene: Stealing gold from the bank – a hint of the potential shown by the script.

Quote: “Although he do scare mah kids when they come to visit their daddy at work. Mah kids are in their 20s.”

Silly Moment: Nicolas Cage crashing the police car just so he can answer the phone.

Score: 2/5

Reach For The Sky (1956)

Simon Prior

2013-10-08

Smug. That's the word. — Smug. That’s the word.

Twitter Plot Summary: Douglas Bader loses his legs in a flying accident, yet goes on to become a successful fighter pilot during WW2.

Genre: Biography/Drama/War

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Key Cast: Kenneth More, Muriel Pavlow, Lyndon Brook, Lee Patterson, Alexander Knox, Howard Marion-Crawford.

Five Point Summary:

1. Never fly a plane dangerously just because a civilian pilot goads you.
2. Those Canadians and their uncouth appearances. For shame, chaps.
3. Worst marriage proposal ever.
4. Getting your false leg stuck in your plane as it hurtles towards the ground. Bad show.
5. Bader showing the Germans what for. Just because he’s got no legs doesn’t mean he can’t do a runner!

Douglas Bader, as portrayed in this film, was a bit of a maverick, circumventing the rules as and when it suited him and causing a significant number of headaches for his superiors. But he got the job done and, in wartime in particular, this was no easy feat. Oh, and there’s the fact that he lost both his legs in a flight-related accident. This anti-authoritarian, never say die attitude is what makes him determined to walk again, albeit on tin legs. After being advised that he’ll never walk without a cane, Bader resolves to never walk with one.

After war breaks out and Bader manages to get called back into active service, he takes control of a squadron comprised mainly of Canadian pilots who are low on morale and lacking discipline. Bader whips them into shape through enforcing strict uniform dress code and a strict regime. Soon he’s appreciated by the squadron for bending the rules to get them the supplies they need in order to be fully prepared to fight.

Kenneth More is on top form as Bader, portraying the typically British stiff upper lip attitude whilst maintaining an air of disregard for rules and regulations at the same time. Later when he’s shot down over France and imprisoned by the Germans, he makes numerous attempts to escape and is a constant thorn in the side of his captors, to the point where they have to move him from camp to camp in a bid to control him. Naturally, this fails until they moved him to Colditz, purportedly escape-proof. As it happens, Bader remained there until the close of the war, so as far as Bader was concerned this was true.

Whilst it’s possible to hold the whole “stiff upper lip” thing against it, Reach For The Sky works because the key elements of Bader’s life are shuffled for greater dramatic resonance and to create a thoroughly engaging story. The direction from Lewis Gilbert is on par with what we’d normally expect from this period in cinema, but it’s More who sells it. It’s a testament to the human spirit, that despite everything life throws at us we can still bounce back. Be it the loss of both your legs, the war itself, relationships, even imprisonment after crashing again behind enemy lines. Despite every obstacle put in his way Bader seems to have brushed it all to one side and just got on with things.

Despite the positive messages, that’s not to say that Bader himself was as pleasant as More makes him appear – arrogance isn’t the best quality in a person, and he seemed to have spades of it. Still, it’s the film I’m here to review, not Bader. Irrespective of what he was really like, the film version of Bader is entertaining.

Going back to my point about Lewis Gilbert’s direction, that’s not intended as a slight to the work he did on this film – the drama works because of how he’s constructed each scene, and the action is compelling for exactly the same reason. Yes, so the war is glorified and the true impact on the nation and its combatants isn’t highlighted as it perhaps should have been, just enjoy it for the glorious piece of post-war propaganda it is and leave it at that.

Favourite scene: Bader is given a dressing down by the Germans for constantly trying to escape, much to the amusement of his fellow prisoners.

Quote: “Legs or no legs, I’ve never seen such a mobile fireball.”

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzWUt2xrFBo

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-10-07

The freestyle dance contest was not going particularly well.

Twitter Plot Summary: Years after their encounter with a witch and her candy house, Hansel and Gretel are now witch hunters. Dressed in leather.

Genre: Action/Fantasy/Horror

Director: Tommy Wirkola

Key Cast: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen, Peter Stormare, Pihla Viitala, Rainer Bock.

Five Point Summary:

1. A shotgun? Srsly?
2. 95% of this seems to be running through the woods.
3. “I go by many names… some call me Cillit Bang.”
4. Blood Moon-related shenanigans.
5. Inevitable climactic showdown. Bored now.

I had serious reservations about the film as soon as the words “MTV Films” appeared at the beginning. Jackass films aside, it’s usually an indication of a film’s quality, or lack thereof. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters is clearly designed for the MTV generation, where substantial plot and intelligent filmmaking is left at the door in favour of quick cuts, rapid pacing and repetitive action sequences.

Trouble is afoot. Witches are reviled and witch hunters Hansel and Gretel (Renner and Arterton) are called in to save a small village from a group of powerful witches that are making their presence felt. There’s resistance from the sheriff (Peter Stormare) but otherwise the focus is on our eponymous witch hunters… well, hunting witches. There’s a bit more to it than that, of course. There’s a whole backstory to current events which stem from Hansel and Gretel’s initial encounter with the witch in the gingerbread house in their childhood. To say more would border on spoilers, but whilst I’m not hugely keen on narratives that arbitrarily create a destiny for the main characters it does at least tie everything together nicely.

Thankfully there is a redeeming factor – apart from the fact it’s repetitive the action is actually quite good. On the whole it’s clear what’s happening in each scene, and there’s plenty of energy to each sequence to maintain your interest. The CGI is better than I expected, but not by much. It has that video game feel to it that takes you out of the story once you pick up on it, but is still leagues ahead of the CGI used in R.I.P.D. Regrettably I can’t say much about the acting – Renner and Arterton are earnest as the lead pair, and indeed so is everybody else, but I think to be a winner it needed more knowing winks to the audience. Ramp up the camp, as it were, with tongue firmly in cheek and create a decent balance between action and humour. As it stands, it’s a little too staid for my liking. Famke Janssen also doesn’t have enough to do as villainous witch Muriel, there’s a few signs of how truly evil she is, but it’s never played out to its full extent.

Worst "walking away from a fire/explosion" shot ever. — Worst “walking away from a fire/explosion” shot ever.

Updates to the established Hansel and Gretel lore include Hansel being diabetic thanks to the amount of sugary goodness he was forced to imbibe as a child, and that both siblings have access to a plethora of modern-style weapons, including what is essentially a pump action crossbow and a primitive shotgun. Yep, that’s quite silly but then we’re talking about a brother and sister who hunt witches for a living, so perhaps having weapons like this isn’t that far-fetched. Other than allowances made for those updates, we’re still very much in an old-school primitive fairy tale/fantasy world. There’s also a ridiculous amount of gore and violence, which came as a welcome surprise. Blood sprays all over the place, although it has some way to go before it can be on par with something like Peter Jackson’s Braindead. Even so, the liberal amount of claret was a plus point.

Some good action set pieces can’t save this from being a mostly bad film. The only recommendation I can make is that if you want a film that doesn’t require you to engage your brain for 85-90 minutes, or you’re a fan of Jeremy Renner and/or Gemma Arterton running around in leather outfits, then this is the film for you.

Favourite scene: The opening with young Hansel and Gretel in the witch’s gingerbread house.

Quote: “When you see my signal, unleash hell.”

Silly Moment: Peter Stormare constantly getting smacked in the face.

Score: 2.5/5

Prisoners (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-10-06

"You got a purdy mouth." — “You got a purdy mouth.”

Twitter Plot Summary: When his daughter goes missing, rugged man’s man Keller Dover will do anything to get her back.

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Key Cast: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo, Paul Dano, Viola Davis, David Dastmalchian.

Five Point Summary:

1. Yes! It’s an extender!
2. What kind of a person buttons his shirt all the way to the top yet doesn’t wear a tie?
3. Snakes! Why’d it have to be snakes?!
4. WHERE IS MY DAUGHTER?!?! If only someone had said that…
5. The highway looks amazing. Bravo Roger Deakins.

The story, on the whole, is one that we’ve seen before. Kids go missing, family are distraught, police attempt to solve the mystery and track down the kidnapper. Meanwhile one of the parents decides to take matters into their own hands and goes after the person they think is responsible for the kidnapping. Then the plot will inevitably take some twists and turns until the truth is revealed. So yes, there’s nothing particularly original there, but Prisoners remains an engaging drama/thriller in spite of this.

The key theme is one of confession, of religious devotion contrasted with having to inflict pain on others, with your moral duties as a good person. We keep dipping back into this theme as Detective Loki continues his investigation into a kidnapping plot that has links to a similar case in that town from 20-30 years previously. There’s another theme at play, that of American attitudes in this post 9/11 world we live in, where torture of potential terrorists is standard practice (allegedly, cough cough), although these days folks will take any excuse to go Jack Bauer on somebody.

Whilst not explicitly discussed in the film itself, Gyllenhaal’s Detective Loki clearly has a lot of issues, evident from his dress sense, his hairstyle (of all things) and his numerous tattoos. Gyllenhaal’s performance is the highlight of the film, played as if there’s this deep-seated anger just bubbling under the surface and liable to erupt at the slightest provocation. His eyes constantly twitch and he’s never failed to solve a case. As time moves on and they’re still no closer to locating the missing girls, he slowly but surely starts to unravel.

"Hey, I know you - weren't you in Donnie Darko?" — “Hey, I know you – weren’t you in Donnie Darko?”

Of the remaining cast Jackman gets the most to do in his role as Keller Dover, a God-fearing man who “prays for the best, prepares for the worst.” He’s got a fully stocked basement filled with food, water and survival gear should there be an emergency – hurricanes, terrorist attacks, zombies and so on. He’s a far cry from his role as Logan/Wolverine in the X-Men franchise, or even Jean Valjean in Les Miserables earlier this year. The remaining cast are sadly underserved, Maria Bello in particular spends most of her time sleeping. Neighbours Terence Howard and Viola Davis get a touch more to do, but are otherwise limited to looking upset and turning up to candlelight vigils. This film is essentially a two-hander between Gyllenhaal and Jackman, everybody else is surplus to any need for deeper characterisation.

Never let anybody say that cinematographer’s aren’t essential to a movie. Roger Deakins’ work in Prisoners is nothing short of exceptional. Muted colour palettes are given a cinematic depth not seen in many other films. This is the same guy who made the likes of Skyfall, True Grit and No Country For Old Men look as spectacular as they do. Even if the story had been terrible, Prisoners would have at least looked amazing. More impressive is that this is director Denis Villeneuve’s first bug budget film in the American system, which is mind-blowing and equally as impressive. Some of his choices for camera positioning, at times creating a voyeur effect, are superb. If he can maintain this level of quality with his next few films then he’s going to be one to look out for in the coming years. Tellingly, his next project, Enemy, also features Jake Gyllenhaal, so I have high hopes for it.

It’s a very long film though, it has to be said. Whilst it remains engaging from start to finish, you reach a point at around the 90 minute mark where drama fatigue starts to set in. It’s unrelenting in its bleak tone, understandably, but I think a running time of 2.5 hours is a bit much. However, with that said there’s so much going on in terms of the story that to trim it down would lose a lot of the impact, and subsequently reduce the drama. In the grand scheme of things, I think the 2.5 hour running time is justified, but only just.

Favourite scene: Loki investigating the local priest’s house.

Quote: “Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.”

Silly Moment: Any time it gets close to somebody saying “WHERE IS MY DAUGHTER?!” as it’s a bit too close to Liam Neeson.

Score: 4/5

Blue Jasmine (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-10-05

Jasmine couldn't believe that her sister fell for the "dead rat on her head" trick. — Jasmine couldn’t believe that her sister fell for the “dead rat on her head” trick.

Twitter Plot Summary: Unhinged Jasmine moves in with her sister after her husband is arrested for dubious financial dealings.

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Director: Woody Allen

Key Cast: Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Sally Hawkins, Andrew Dice Clay, Louis CK, Peter Sarsgaard, Bobby Cannavale.

Five Point Summary:

1. Talking to herself on the plane. This could be interesting.
2. Now she’s talking to two kids about her personal life. Egads.
3. Louis CK and Andrew Dice Clay – surprisingly good performances for standup comedians.
4. Trouble is afoot – it all starts to unravel.
5. And lo, it ends perfectly.

Jasmine is in dire straights. All of her money is gone thanks to the pyramid scheme dealings of her husband, he was sent to prison and has since hung himself in his cell, and now she’s been forced to move from New York to San Francisco and live with her sister until she’s back on her feet.

It’s another confession time – this is the first Woody Allen film I’ve ever seen, which given how many films he’s made is quite an achievement – an average of one a year. That’s a particularly impressive routine, more so because the films invariably seem to be of a high quality. As it happens I chose a particularly excellent one to start with, even if it takes many of its cues from A Streetcar Named Desire.

The story cuts between the present and the events leading up to her husband’s arrest, flipping between the relaxed socialite Jasmine and the fraught, on the edge Jasmine of the present. Narratively there’s a lot going for this, particularly as we the audience know what’s going to happen to her and so go into the flashbacks aware that it will all come crashing down by film’s end.

Cate Blanchett puts in one of the performances of her career, portraying a woman who’s mental state is fractured and desperately in need of therapy. Instead she necks pills like they’re going out of fashion, and it’s a rare thing to see her without alcohol in her hand. She’s a compulsive liar too, wrapping herself around rich socialite Peter Sarsgaard, inventing a career and a history for herself in the process. That’s when she’s not staring into space and talking to herself, of course, spouting monologues about how her former husband wooed her (to the tune of Blue Moon), then drinking some more and popping a few more pills.

The auditions for the Psycho remake were not going well.

Jasmine is not a likeable character, let’s make that clear. She looks down on Ginger’s life simply because she doesn’t live in privileged circumstances. She tries to make her want more than what she has despite the fact Ginger is actually quite happy with her position in life. She’s one of those people who wants nothing to do with you whilst she has all of the money and power, but once that situation changes, as it invariably does, her attitude swings a complete 180 degrees and she’s demanding your help.

Alec Baldwin does his usual slimey spiel, a conman clearly in control for the most part and being able to get a lot past his wife who remains blissfully ignorant. Sally Hawkins is likewise excellent as non-biological sister Ginger (they were adopted, so that’s another level of psychoanalysis there just waiting for a discussion) who doesn’t have much but she has a guy in her life that she cares for, an apartment and two kids. She’s happy, however Jasmine’s presence interrupts the flow and causes its own fair share of problems. Then there’s the supporting cast of Peter Sarsgaard, Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay and Louis CK, all of whom are equally impressive.

To say Blue Jasmine is a good film would be underselling it massively. Everybody involved puts in a solid performance and the script is funny yet tragic in equal measure – scenes such as the one with Jasmine and her nephews in the diner intercut between real drama and comedy with almost every line of dialogue, it’s masterful storytelling. Blanchett should get an Oscar nod for her turn as Jasmine, and if Sally Hawkins doesn’t get a Best Supporting Actress nod for her role as Ginger, then there’s clearly something wrong with the Academy’s decision making process.

Favourite scene: Jasmine sits in a diner and bears her soul to her nonplussed nephews.

Quote: “Anxiety, nightmares and a nervous breakdown, there’s only so many traumas a person can withstand until they take to the streets and start screaming.”

Score: 4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FER3C394aI8

Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1982)

Simon Prior

2013-10-04

It's what all gumshoes did in them days. Honest. — It’s what all gumshoes did in them days. Honest.

Twitter Plot Summary: An homage to film noir, mixing archive film footage with Steve Martin’s private eye who’s investigating a mysterious death.

Genre: Comedy/Crime/Mystery/Thriller

Director: Carl Reiner

Key Cast: Steve Martin, Rachel Ward, Carl Reiner, George Gaynes.

Five Point Summary:

1. Mixing archive footage with Steve Martin? Win.
2. Every film noir cliche is out in force, and delightfully spoofed.
3. How many times has Steve Martin been shot now? Still funny every time.
4. The archive footage thing is starting to wear thin now. Hey ho.
5. Vincent Price! Sweet.

After working together on The Jerk, Steve Martin reunited with director Carl Reiner for this spoof of Hollywood’s film noir movies of the 1940s, shot in black and white to maintain that style. Steve Martin even has black hair for the role, later repeated when he appeared in Little Shop of Horrors. The twist here is that Steve Martin’s amusing antics are intercut with footage from old classics from the same time period, with Martin appearing as though he’s sharing the screen with Hollywood greats such as Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. The latter is actually involved with one of the funnier gags about wearing ties. Yeah, ties. I know.

The material works because the archive footage is from serious film noir movies, juxtaposed with some strong jokes and improvisation from writers Carl Reiner, Steve Martin and George Gipe. It’s also a very cheap way to make a film – if half of the footage is from old classics then you only need to spend half the usual amount of time making it. The problem is that, whilst a fun idea at the start, the archive footage conceit starts to grate after the first 45 minutes. Whilst it remains funny from start to finish, you’re left wishing for a wholly original story rather than seeing constant clips from old Hollywood films. That or less clips are used to reach the comparatively insane finale where it turns out Nazis are to blame. It’s a great idea but narratively it’s hamstrung by being forced down certain paths just because they insisted on using archive footage. Used sparingly this technique can work very well, and again the first half of the film is a perfect mix of new footage and archive clips. It’s when it starts pushing towards a resolution that it gets hoisted by its own petard.

There was something deeply disturbing about that bird.

The “modern” performances are typical of the era, specifically that they’re very good. Martin in particular is incredibly funny, hardboiled ironic voiceover mixed with some simple yet effective gags. Rachel Ward is the archetype femme fatale, although she’s never quite sure of her own accent – is she English or American? Or both?! It’s not important. There’s an air of Kathleen Turner’s husky voice to her performance. Carl Reiner also shows up as a distinctly Germanic butler, but to say any more would give the whole thing away (even though I’ve already said that Nazis are involved at the finale). Also if you see the trailer it’s all spoiled there too. So it goes. Reiner is superbly funny despite only having a limited screen presence. Probably sensible given that he was also in the director’s chair.

Then of course there are the stars of yesteryear, their performances made comedic from having played it straight in the original movies. Of course it’s the writing from Martin, Reiner and Gipe that make it work, without some sharp-minded writing at work it could’ve fallen terribly flat. A satisfying entry in Steve Martin’s career, far better than the low points (cough, Pink Panther) but not necessarily his finest hour.

Favourite scene: Steve Martin making a cup of java.

Quote: “My plan was to kiss her with every lip on my face.”

Silly Moment: Every time Steve Martin gets shot in the arm.

Score: 3/5

Runner Runner (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-10-03

"I have stubble. Thus: I am evil." — “I have stubble. Thus: I am evil.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Timberlake loses his tuition fees gambling online. He goes to Costa Rica to get it back.

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: Brad Furman

Key Cast: Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, Gemma Arterton, Anthony Mackie, Michael Esper, Oliver Cooper, John Heard, Louis Lombardi, Christian George, Yul Vazquez, James Molina, David Costabile.

Five Point Summary:

1. Hey look, it’s the chap from Flight of the Conchords and Breaking Bad!
2. Oh, it’s going down a completely different route than expected. It’s playing it safe…
3. Crocodiles. Why’d it have to be crocodiles?!
4. Getting a bit bored now. Who watches the watchmen and all that.
5. Ahh, the ending everybody was expecting. Of course.

It gets off to a good start. Timberlake plays Richie Furst, a promising student at Princeton who is quite the gambler in his spare time. After attempting to gamble for his tuition fees and losing, he works out that he was cheated and heads down to Costa Rica where gambling website owner Ivan Block (Affleck) is based. Offered a job, he sees the seedy underbelly of the business and has to deal with corrupt locals and angry police officers (led by Anthony Mackie) who are trying to take Block down.

There’s a lot of good vibes about this setup. A thriller that delves into the modern world of online gambling, the effects it has on those involved in it, and the behind the scenes drama that no doubt is a real world concern. And then… it plays safe. There’s very little in thrills, very little in drama. In fact, very little of anything of note. The story meanders forward without purpose, and all the promise from the trailer – that of a desperate student needing a ridiculous amount of money to pay for his tuition fees – is lost amidst a sub-par thriller story that wouldn’t have been out of place in the 80s, with probably John Claude Van Damme or Sylvester Stallone or similar in the Timberlake role, and someone like Eric Roberts as Ivan Block.

Affleck is clearly phoning his performance in – after some relatively intensive work in the last 12 months and reaching Oscar nod territory with the likes of Argo, Affleck’s appearance here is a slightly bigger budget equivalent (and then some) of Eric Roberts agreeing to do Sharktopus. It’s an excuse to go on holiday to a nice location for a couple of weeks, learn a few lines and get paid for doing it. Easy work if you can get it. Anthony Mackie too has little weight in his role as Agent Shavers, a cop who’s only tactic appears to be threatening his potential moles with jail time if they don’t co-operate. Oh, and looking sweaty, like a budget version of The Rock in Fast Five. Timberlake by comparison does well with the material, but I don’t think he’s big enough or has sufficiently deep acting chops to carry the film on his own.

What Affleck and Timberlake saw on Anthony Mackie's laptop could not be unseen. — What Affleck and Timberlake saw on Anthony Mackie’s laptop could not be unseen.

Gemma Arterton also appears, but she’s woefully underserved by the script. Her role is literally to help Timberlake get out of the business and that’s it, there’s no depth to her at all. Anybody else could have played the character, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Heck, even a pine wardrobe could’ve done the same job, such is the extent of her character’s usefulness.

It’s a shame Runner Runner wasn’t any better. It had potential to be a modern update of the tired old thriller template, yet serves up every cliche in the book and then some. As thrillers go there’s no depth to it – all surface glitz and glamour, nothing substantial. One day there may be a thriller that does justice to this concept – Runner Runner sadly isn’t it.

Favourite scene: Furst is sent to pay off the local gambling commission, and is given a beating for his troubles.

Quote: “Why the House?’ “Cuz the house always wins.” GROOOOOANNN…

Silly Moment: The Bond villain style of using crocodiles for nefarious purposes.

Score: 2/5

American Zombie (2007)

Simon Prior

2013-10-02

One of these is a woman. Neither is a zombie. Also, that jumper is a crime against fashion.

Twitter Plot Summary: Mockumentary investigating the culture of a community of living dead in LA.

Genre: Comedy/Horror

Director: Grace Lee

Key Cast: Austin Basis, Jane Edith Wilson, Al Vicente, Suzy Nakamura, John Solomon, Grace Lee, Andrew Amondson, Amy Higgins, Kevin Michael Walsh, Jose Solomon, Paul Eiding, Philip Newby, Finneus Egan, Roger Ainslie, Ossie Mair.

Five Point Summary:

1. Oh he just said the title of the film. Oh no you didn’t!
2. He’s not a very nice guy – why’s he making this documentary again?
3. Sob stories for zombies. Not quite sure how to take that.
 4. A zombies-only convention in the middle of nowhere? Something strange is afoot.
5. Hmm, a lapse into traditional zombie fare. Shame that.

As previously discussed, I’m quite the zombie movie fan and, as with Harold’s Going Stiff, I usually enjoy those zombie films that do something a bit different with the concept. In this case (which I hurried to watch because it was dropping off Netflix), American Zombie sees a documentary film crew head into a community of zombies living in Los Angeles to document their lifestyle and how they integrate with the living world.

Opening in the genuine style of a low budget documentary, we start with filmmakers Grace Lee and John Solomon argue about how you make a documentary – he’s done some storyboards, which clearly don’t apply to documentary films. Right from the off there’s an imbalance between the two of them – he seems to think she wants the film to be all about her, because she appears in it briefly. He’s clearly got an agenda of his own, and with a lack of any hardcore zombie bloodlust, he’s placed as the antagonist of the film. Asking the tough questions of the zombie interviewees, Solomon (the character, not the actor) clearly has beef with the undead – arguably this is because he’s an investigative reporter but more that he’s just an unlikeable swine.

An interesting idea explored briefly is the concept of relationships between stage two or three zombies and the living. Y’see, in this world there are three types of zombie – your basic, brainless type that has a craving for living flesh; then there are stage two zombies that have a few more cognitive functions; then at the top of the pile are the stage three’s, those who could pass for living if it wasn’t for an obvious wound or slightly blue lips. That does keep the budget down as far as practical effects go, but a lack of the bloodthirsty type of zombie is disappointing. Mixing up some of the interviewees with some stage 1, 2’s and 3’s would have jazzed things up, and setting up different outcomes for all of them would have also helped. It’s as if they’re all different yet exactly the same, it doesn’t exactly make you want to root for any of them, that’s for sure.

For almost the entire run time it maintains the documentary tone, treating the zombie problem as a real world thing and avoiding any sense of looking at the camera with a knowing nudge and a wink. By the final third, ignoring the fact all the characters we’ve seen thus far arbitrarily all go to a zombie convention/festival in the middle of nowhere, it lapses briefly into typical zombie fare (kind of) before the end credits roll. In a way it’s an appropriate ending, but in another sense it spoils the previous 85-odd minutes of establishing the reality of the world. It’s a little bit silly and should’ve perhaps gone in a different direction.

Ultimately it’s clear that there are significant differences between the living and the undead, to the point where they have a lot of the same problems and neuroses as those who still have a pulse, but the mere fact they’re dead and still shuffling around in this mortal sphere is held against them. Beyond that it’s hard to take any significant message from the film, and its lack of any action or real narrative drive holds it back. The documentary style is a good idea, but not enough is made of it. A missed opportunity in just about every sense.

Favourite scene: The zombie convention and discovering that there are other living attendees there.

Silly Moment: The ending. All good will I had towards the film evaporated in that last 10 minute segment.

Score: 2/5

1...757677...90 Page 76 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM