Nebraska (2013)

28 Friday Feb 2014

Tags

$1000000, Alexander Payne, Billings Montana, Bob Odenkirk, Bruce Dern, Family feud, June Squibb, Lincoln Nebraska, Review, Road trip, Stacy Keach, Will Forte

D: Alexander Payne / 115m

Cast: Bruce Dern, Will Forte, June Squibb, Stacy Keach, Bob Odenkirk

When Woodrow “Woody” Grant (Dern) receives a letter saying he’s won $1,000,000, he heads off on foot to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim it. The fact that he lives in Billings, Montana, means nothing to him, nor does his age or that he walks like someone who’s had a bad hip replacement (if what we see isn’t Dern’s natural gait then it’s an impressive piece of character development). Woody believes the letter wouldn’t have been sent to him if the offer wasn’t legitimate, and though it’s clearly dubious, his resolve to travel to Lincoln doesn’t falter.

When it becomes clear Woody isn’t going to give up on his plan to claim his prize money from the promoters in Lincoln, his son David (Forte) agrees to take him there, even though he knows the prize offer isn’t as clear cut as it seems. David is struggling to make sense of his own life, and plans to use the trip to work out his problems. His relationship with Woody is strained as well, and as the journey begins, shows no sign of improving. With a stopover on the way at Woody’s hometown of Hawthorn and a stay with various relatives who all seem to want a slice of Woody’s money, David needs all his wits about him to avoid both a family feud and the more violent reprisals that sleazy ex-partner Ed (Keach) refers to if Woody doesn’t pay back the money he feels he’s owed.

Nebraska‘s strength lies in its main character. Woody is a man who has found himself at a distance from his family and his life. The money has given him a new purpose, and its the non-supportive response he receives from those nearest and (hopefully) dearest to him that goads him into action. There’s a case to be made for Woody knowing that the money isn’t “real”, and there’s a further case to be made that he’s enjoying the attention he’s getting, but Woody is a plain man with plain desires, and while everyone around him attempts to complicate matters, Woody keeps his head down and only occasionally looks up to see what’s happening around him. And when he does, it’s hard not to think he looks amused at all the shenanigans he’s caused. Woody is a wonderfully nuanced character, one who appears lost in a fog of early-onset dementia, but he’s a canny creation as well, diffident about most things but quietly impassioned about the things that matter to him.

Using such a wonderful character as their base, director Payne and regular scriptwriter Bob Nelson have fashioned one of the most heartfelt and engaging movies of 2013. Shot in luminous black and white by Phedon Papamichael (This Is 40, The Descendants), and with a wonderful emotive score by Mark Orton, this is perhaps Payne’s most fully and perfectly realised feature to date. Dern is superb, an old man on the verge of giving up but who latches on to the prize money like a quest. Forte, usually a comic actor, here finds a quiet grace that instils his character perfectly, while Odenkirk as his brother Ross shines in a supporting role. Keach provides credible menace, but it’s June Squibb as Woody’s long-suffering wife Kate who steals the movie; she gets the best lines and delivers them all impeccably, including the best line in the whole movie.

With its bittersweet undercurrent and meditation on what it’s like to try and hold on to a sense of purpose as old age takes over, Nebraska is charming, heartwarming, life-affirming and altogether a gem. With its gentle, often hilarious comic moments and a clutch of winning performances, allied to a superb script and Payne’s sublime directing, this is one road trip you won’t want to end.

Rating: 9/10 – Nebraska tells a simple tale but adds several layers to give it an impressive depth; Payne continues to build an equally impressive body of work and stake his claim to being the US’s premier indie filmmaker.

Mini-Review: All Is Lost (2013)

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

J.C. Chandor, Lost at sea, Review, Robert Redford, Sailing, Storm

D: J.C. Chandor / 106m

Cast: Robert Redford

All Is Lost is that cinematic rarity: a one-man show that really is a one-man show. Redford is in nearly every shot in this compelling movie about the courage to survive when a sailing trip goes from bad to worse to terrifying. Waking to find that his sailing boat has collided with a shipping container, and it has punched a hole in the side, Redford – whose character is simply known in the credits as ‘Our Man’ – patches the hole but finds himself unable to call for help, his radio having suffered water damage in the collision. Alone, but determined to get help or get home, Our Man finds himself next dealing with a terrifying storm… and the dreadful aftermath. Over the course of eight days, and as his situation becomes increasingly desperate, Our Man’s resourcefulness is put to the test, until even he begins to despair of being rescued.

This is an acting tour-de-force by Redford, who shows that despite recent efforts such as The Company You Keep and Lions for Lambs, he is still one of the best actors around, with a screen presence and a command of material that most younger actors can only hope to achieve. Every emotion, every surge of hope and slough of despair is projected perfectly for the audience to bear witness. The character’s pride and resolve is clearly referenced, and the sheer physicality of the character is heightened by his battle with the sea and the elements (it’s worth bearing in mind that Redford is now 77 – this must have been a very demanding shoot for him). With confident, focused direction by Chandor (from his script), All Is Lost holds the attention throughout and makes for riveting viewing. Filmed partly in the same tank at Baja, Mexico that was built for Titanic, All Is Lost is a fantastic piece of filmmaking, beautifully shot, and perfectly edited; there’s not a wasted moment in the whole movie.

Rating: 9/10 – a gripping, enthralling piece of filmmaking that gives Redford his best role in years; an incredible achievement all round.

Mini-Review: Le Week-end (2013)

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dinner party, Drama, Jeff Goldblum, Lindsay Duncan, Marital problems, Paris, Review, Roger Michell, Wedding anniversary

D: Roger Michell / 93m

Cast: Jim Broadbent, Lindsay Duncan, Jeff Goldblum, Olly Alexander

Nick (Broadbent) and Meg (Duncan) are celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary with a weekend in Paris, returning to where they had their honeymoon. It soon becomes clear that all is not well with their marriage, and that their relationship is foundering: they’ve lost any intimacy they once had, and Nick has recently lost his job as a teacher. As well, there are accusations of adultery, emotional abuse and repeated examples of each other’s despair at how things have gone so wrong. Nick is physically needy, while Meg is emotionally needy; both characters seem unwilling or unable to see beyond their own misgivings or regrets and rekindle the love they once had. This makes for a chilly romance between the pair who can imitate the love they once felt for each other, but have no idea how to resolve the issues they have. A chance encounter with one of Nick’s old college pals (Goldblum) leads to a dinner party invite and the confrontation of feelings they have been avoiding for so long.

Working from a script by Hanif Kureishi, director Michell has fashioned a creaking treatise on faded love and what it means to be aware of that loss within a failing relationship. Broadbent and Duncan are saddled with some awful, trite dialogue that wants to be meaningful but falls far short of the mark. At the dinner party, Nick makes a dreadful speech outlining his feelings that is so out-of-place and awkward it would only appear in a movie where the characters’ main purpose is to navel gaze repeatedly. Why movie makers continue to believe the dinner party confession is still a viable set piece in this day and age is incredible. On the plus side, Paris is as lovely as expected (there’s a particularly impressive view of the Eiffel Tower from Nick and Meg’s hotel room balcony), and Goldblum is a welcome antidote to the verbal posturings inflicted on the audience by his senior co-stars. By the movie’s end – itself feeling truncated and leaving things unresolved – it’s hard to care if Nick and Meg manage to sort things out or not. Still, it’s good to see Broadbent and Duncan in action – however hampered they are by the script – and at a trim 93 minutes, the movie doesn’t outstay its welcome. What would be interesting however, is this movie given a Before Sunset/Sunrise/Midnight make over; what Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy could make of this idea… now that would be interesting.

Rating: 5/10 – a sadly under-performing movie, Le Week-end strives to be profound in its own small way, but merely ends up sounding arch; growing old is bad enough without the possibility of ending up like Nick and Meg.

Removal (2010)

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Billy Burke, Mark Kelly, Murder mystery, Nick Simon, Oz Perkins, Review, Thriller

D: Nick Simon / 91m

Cast: Billy Burke, Mark Kelly, Oz Perkins, Kelly Brook, Emma Caulfield, Elliott Gould, Sharon Omi

At the end of his work day, contract cleaner Cole (Kelly) is persuaded to visit a potential client, Sharpe (Perkins) and provide him with an estimate for the work he requires. When Cole arrives he finds himself bullied into taking on the job, cleaning a very large mansion, that same night. He also begins to suspect that Sharpe has killed his wife and child and that their bodies might still be in the property. As he becomes increasingly convinced of their demise, so begins a deadly game of cat-and-mouse with Sharpe, a game that quickly escalates into something both unexpected and much grimmer. And to complicate matters, Cole has a secret of his own…

An uneasy, well-directed thriller, Removal has an edgy, almost hallucinatory quality from the off that helps keep the viewer wrong-footed as the plot advances from its standard everyman thrust into uncharted territory beginning, to its clever denouement. Set largely within the confines of Sharpe’s mansion, the movie prowls the empty rooms and corridors along with the increasingly suspicious Cole, and as the viewer is drawn into the mystery of whether or not Sharpe has killed his family, two things become evident: that Removal will confound expectations, and that it will prove to be a worthwhile viewing experience. Much of the storyline is overwhelmingly familiar but in the hands of writer/director Simon and his co-writers Daniel Meersand and Oz Perkins, the familiarity is overlaid with a disconcerting sense that, at any moment, the rug is going to be pulled out from under the viewer’s feet. And so it proves: two thirds of the way in, the game changes, and it’s a tribute to the creative minds behind Removal – not to mention the committed cast – that it works as well as it does.

As the main protagonist, Cole, Kelly imbues his character with a measured hang-dog quality, his personal circumstances dictating the ease with which Sharpe manipulates him. Kelly is never less than believable throughout, and is matched by Perkins (son of Anthony). Sharpe is an arrogant bully, judgmental and quick to undermine Cole’s already fragile self-esteem. Perkins plays him with a steely disdain for those he perceives as weaker than himself, and yet he still possesses an off-kilter charm. Burke acquits himself well, too, despite having less screen time, as an acquaintance of Cole’s, Eric, who finds himself drawn into the mystery. In smaller roles, Caulfield as Cole’s wife, and Brook as an unlikely estate agent, make an impression, but the one disappointment is Gould: his lines are delivered with all the enthusiasm of someone awaiting root canal treatment.

There’s atmospheric photography courtesy of Kevin Duggin, and a complementary score provided by Nima Fakhrara. On the negative side, the movie relies a little too much on its game changer to facilitate its ending, and while there is a logical outcome to events, the movie places Cole and Eric in a potentially never-ending situation that could presage a sequel at some point – but which would be unnecessary – and spoils the effect of what has gone before. However, it’s easy to see why the filmmakers went with the idea.

Rating: 7/10 – an old-fashioned has-he-dunnit tricked out with a more modern sensibility, Removal rewards the viewer by not “talking down” to them; intelligent and very well crafted.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014)

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Adoption, Agamemnon, Allison Janney, Ancient Egypt, Animation, Ariel Winter, French Revolution, King Tut, Lake Bell, Leonardo da Vinci, Marie Antoinette, Max Charles, Mona Lisa, Patrick Warburton, Review, Robespierre, Stanley Tucci, Time travel, Trojan Horse, Troy, Ty Burrell, WABAC

D: Rob Minkoff / 92m

Cast: Ty Burrell, Max Charles, Ariel Winter, Allison Janney, Stanley Tucci, Patrick Warburton, Stephen Colbert, Leslie Mann, Lake Bell, Stephen Tobolowsky, Mel Brooks, Dennis Haysbert

The last Dreamworks animated movie was the dire Turbo (2013), a frustrating exercise in high concept animation that forgot very early on that it needed to be entertaining. With that in mind, and with How to Train Your Dragon 2 waiting in the wings, this update of two supporting characters from the Rocky and His Friends TV show that ran from 1959 to 1964 was likely to appear a bit of a gamble. In recreating Mr. Peabody the dog (Burrell) and his adopted son, Sherman (Charles), writer Craig Wright and director Minkoff have fashioned a fairly straightforward tale and surrounded it with some great visual gags, and all the emotional heft a movie like this could ever wish for.

After an extended prologue that introduces us to the WABAC machine – a device that allows Mr. Peabody to travel through time – and which finds the pair on a trip to the French Revolution (necessitating a daring escape from the clutches of Citizen Robespierre), Mr. Peabody reminds Sherman that the next day will see him go to school for the first time. His eagerness in History class earns the enmity of Penny Peterson (Winter), and during their lunch break she bullies him to the point where he retaliates and bites her. Enter Miss Grunion (Janney) from Child Services. She informs Mr. Peabody in no uncertain terms that if her investigation finds he is not a fit parent, then Sherman will be removed from his care.

On the same evening Miss Grunion is due to visit, Mr. Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Colbert, Mann) over for dinner in an attempt to smooth things over. While he entertains the Petersons, Sherman finds himself tricked into showing Penny the WABAC. Penny ends up in Ancient Egypt where she is to be betrothed to King Tutankhamun; at first she’s intent on staying as she’s being treated like a princess. When she learns that if he dies, so will she, Penny changes her mind about staying and it’s up to Mr. Peabody and Sherman to rescue her.

Getting back proves difficult and the trio end up visiting Leonardo da Vinci (Tucci) who is having problems painting a less than cooperative Mona Lisa (Bell). While Mr. Peabody repairs the WABAC, Sherman and Penny take da Vinci’s prototype aeroplane for a spin; here Sherman’s perceived recklessness causes the beginning of a rift between the titular pair. When their attempts to avoid a black hole ends with them back at the siege of Troy, Mr. Peabody is faced with Sherman’s determination to fight with Agamemnon (Warburton) and the rest of the Greek soldiers hidden within the Trojan Horse. Things escalate from there, and with Mrs Grunion planning to take Sherman into care at the same time as a rip in the space/time continuum threatens to destroy everything, can the pair patch things up in time to save the world?

The good news is that, compared to Turbo, Mr. Peabody & Sherman is an absolute joy. There is so much to like about this movie. The relationship between Mr. Peabody and Sherman is played with obvious mutual affection, and Wright’s script tugs at the heartstrings on more than one occasion, highlighting the “deep respect” this odd parent and child have for each other. Burrell and Charles provide rich vocal performances, and while Robert Downey Jr was originally tipped to play Mr. Peabody, that interpretation may not have been the best idea because Burrell is terrific in a part that calls for him to relay more exposition than any other character in recent memory. Charles relays Sherman’s excitement and youthful insecurities with aplomb, and ends up almost stealing the show (although with Warburton in the cast, that’s nearly impossible).

The story has fun with its depictions of the past, taking a range of liberties but always with a sense of fun, and there’s an inspired shot that shows how the Greeks get out of the Trojan Horse. Historical figures are held up to gentle mockery but again there’s an obvious affection, even for Robespierre. There are cameos from Albert Einstein (Brooks), George Washington, and with a great one-liner, Bill Clinton. Of the present day characters, Mrs Grunion is a fearsome villain in the manner of Miss Trunchbull from Matilda, Penny is a mix of school bully and (eventual) best friend, and her parents are a winning combination of ditzy and clueless. The script juggles everyone to good effect, and rarely puts a foot wrong.

The movie is gorgeous to look at, the visuals popping off the screen – particularly in 3D – and the animation is packed with great sight gags and puns and there’s always something going on to overwhelm the attention. Minkoff keeps a sure hand on the tiller, making it look easy at times, and grounds the science fiction aspects through close attention to the relationship between Mr. Peabody and Sherman. The humour is infectious, and the general good-natured approach works tremendously, building up so much good will that by the movie’s end you’re prepared to forgive any missteps it might make on the way (there are a couple but they aren’t bad enough to hurt the movie or stop its momentum).

Rating: 9/10 – an early contender for best animated movie of 2014, Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a light-hearted romp that hits the mark with recurring ease; a treat for children and adults alike.

Under the Skin (2013)

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alien, Drama, Jonathan Glazer, Michel Faber, Review, Scarlett Johansson, Sci-fi, Scotland

D: Jonathan Glazer / 108m

Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan, Michael Moreland, Scott Dymond, Jeremy McWilliams

Set in Scotland, Glazer’s third feature (after Sexy Beast and Birth) is a loose adaptation of Michel Faber’s novel, focusing on an alien, “Laura” (Johansson) who lures men to their deaths so that her species has a food supply. The first half of the movie mostly sees “Laura” driving around in a white van asking various men for directions; it’s repetitive stuff and while there is some novelty in the fact that many of the men seen in the film didn’t know they were being filmed in the first place, it serves to keep the movie trudging along at a worryingly slow pace. When she does pick a man to take back to the strange house she “lives” in, the men are mesmerised before being lured to their deaths. These instances are compelling and chilling at the same time, with the men’s uncomprehending gazes adding to the effectiveness of each occasion.

Things do pick up though as “Laura” begins to experience human feelings. This leads to her going AWOL and the movie becomes more dramatic. As she interacts with more and more people, her purpose becomes forgotten, leaving her struggling to come to terms with the emotions she experiences. A brief liaison with a man leads to “Laura” hitching a ride that ends in violence, and an unexpected revelation. All the while, she is being pursued by a mysterious man on a motorbike (who may or may not be a fellow alien).

Under the Skin is a bold, stylised movie that piles ambiguity on top of ambiguity, keeps things mysterious throughout, adds a discomforting off-kilter – yet effective – soundtrack to the mix, and is largely experimental in its construction. The end result is a movie that challenges its audience and pushes dramatic expectations.

And yet all these positives add up to an underwhelming whole. The pace is languid rather than measured, and Johansson is required to do little more than look confused or be annoyingly mute. The men she lures to their deaths are character-less cyphers – even the one with acromegaly – and as such the audience is hard-pressed to work up any sympathy for them. The cinematography is all wintry greys and bleached-out greens and browns, and the rural locations – which should be breathtaking, these are the Scottish highlands after all – are made drab and dreary. The ending feels forced as well, almost as if Glazer and co-writer Walter Campbell couldn’t decide on a better outcome.

Glazer’s direction allows for little connection between “Laura” and the viewer, leaving the emotional arc she experiences one-sided and less than engaging. With a preference for long takes and static shots that add nothing to the mise-en-scène (but much to the running time), Glazer has created an empty, soulless movie that affects notions of humanity but fails to express any but the most basic emotions, and even then with only the most superficial of efforts.

There are other reasons why Under the Skin fails to convince: the absence of any momentum in the first half, its reliance on surrealist beats throughout that fail to add anything to the proceedings, and a script that seems afraid of saying anything literally. Johansson is less than convincing at times, more so when she’s supposed to be confused about her burgeoning emotions; it’s an awkward performance, and while the character’s “evolution” should make for arresting (or at the least, intriguing) drama, Johansson doesn’t quite fulfil the role’s requirements.

Rating: 6/10 – an interesting failure that will no doubt do well with the “art” crowd, Under the Skin is well-intentioned but undermined by its approach; cold, elliptical and remote, it keeps the audience at too much of a remove.

Soldiers of Fortune (2012)

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Action, Christian Slater, Colm Meaney, Dominic Monaghan, Freedom fighters, James Cromwell, Maxim Korostyshevsky, Mercenaries, Reality TV, Review, Sean Bean, Televised war games, Ving Rhames

D: Maxim Korostyshevsky / 93m

Cast: Christian Slater, Sean Bean, Ving Rhames, Dominic Monaghan, James Cromwell, Charlie Bewley, Oxana Korostyshevsky, Colm Meaney, Freddy Rodriguez, Ryan Donowho

Soldiers of Fortune, even with its impressive cast (who must still be paying off their mortgages), is still the epitome of a silly, war-related action movie. Playing fast and loose with both logic and credibility, Soldiers of Fortune begins with McCenzie (Slater) and Reed (Rodriguez) on a mission in Helmand province in 2008. Reed is disguised as a woman, and wears a full-length blue burqha in order to infiltrate a village hiding a weapons cache. He’s quickly rumbled and it’s up to “never-leave-a-man-behind” McCenzie to invade the village single-handedly and rescue Reed from both the Taliban and ultra-nasty CIA operative Mason (Meaney), and this despite clear orders to the contrary. Fast forward two dishonourable discharges and four years later, and McCenzie and Reed are in need of a big payday. Enter Oxana (Korostyshevsky) and Ernesto (Donowho), freedom fighters from an island off the coast of Eastern Europe. They want McCenzie and Reed to help them overthrow corrupt Colonel Lupo (Gennadi Vengerov), and reclaim their island. (Oh, and ultra-nasty CIA operative Mason who is now Lupo’s chief of security.)

At this point, so far, so predictable. But then the movie throws its one one and only curve ball… and it’s a doozy. The freedom fighters have gained financial backing for their intended coup from five multi-millionaires: metals magnate Dimitov (Bean); video games designer Tommy Sin (Monaghan); arms dealer Grimaud (Rhames); financial whizkid Vanderbeer (Bewley); and ageing tycoon Haussman (Cromwell). As well as providing financing for the intended coup, all five find themselves going along for the ride under the pretence of taking part in a televised war game. It’s down to McCenzie and Reed to keep them safe when the real bullets start flying.

It’s this aspect of the script – multi-millionaires in fatigues take on a well-trained guerrilla army – that heightens the absurdity of it all and takes it to new levels. And there is the added bonus of Tommy Sin having a broken leg from the mission’s beginning: initially it’s an obstacle to his getting about but it’s rarely of any consequence or cause of any impedance once the mission is fully under way. In fact, Sin walks and runs just as well as any of the others, even after he’s shot in the same leg later on in the movie.

Of the cast, Rhames and Cromwell fare best, while Slater is required to do little more than scowl a lot and show off his forward rolls. The action sequences are perfunctory, and the direction by first-timer Korostyshevsky is adequate for this kind of thing, although he often clutters the frame in his efforts to cram in all the cast. The locations, however, are beautiful, and if nothing else the cast must have had a wonderful time being there. There are the inevitable personal “showdowns” for each member of the team, and there is one completely WTF? moment when Grimaud produces a rocket launcher from – literally – out of nowhere.

Watching Soldiers of Fortune is akin to viewing the worst bits of a “boys with toys” wish-fulfillment video. The bad guys are always killed by one bullet when one of the team takes three hits before going out in a blaze of glory; Slater’s reputation for never losing anyone on a mission is overturned within minutes of the mission starting; one of the multi-millionaires turns out to be a traitor (gasp!); at boot camp, all five unfit multi-millionaires – even Monaghan – tackle the obstacle course with ease; and all the while the audience is left wondering if the script has been translated into a foreign language and then translated back again… by someone unversed in either language.

Rating: 4/10 – as bad as it looks but in a perverse way, fun too to see so many stars prepared to dumb down for the money; loud, stupid, and awful in equal measure.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

My Top 10 Movies – Part Ten

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Action, Alan Rickman, Bonnie Bedelia, Bruce Willis, Hans Gruber, John McClane, John McTiernan, Nakatomi Building, Review, Terrorists, Thriller

Die Hard (1988)

D: John McTiernan / 131m

Cast: Bruce Willis, Bonnie Bedelia, Alan Rickman, Reginald VelJohnson, William Atherton, Alexander Godunov, Paul Gleason, Hart Bochner, James Shigeta

If, like me, you started watching action movies during the Seventies, then you had a plethora of riches. There was Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry series, the stunt-heavy movies of Burt Reynolds, Charles Bronson’s vigilante excursions, and occasional gems such as Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974) and Vanishing Point (1971). These movies were often gritty and darkly humorous. The violence in them was often brutal. They did their best to reflect the times in which they were made, and often there were political overtones that couldn’t be ignored or missed.

This attitude carried on into the Eighties but the introduction of broad humour in movies such as Commando (1985), and the sense of a genre trading on old glories became more prevalent. For every Southern Comfort (1981) and First Blood (1982) that kept the flame alive, there was a Stroker Ace (1983) or a Missing in Action 2: The Beginning (1985). Action movies were becoming stale and unimaginative. It seemed the doldrums had set in, and we would have to wait some time for the genre to see a resurgence, and to reinvent itself.

Instead of a long wait into the Nineties, we only had to wait until 1988, and the introduction of a character created by author Roderick Thorp, New York cop John McClane. Die Hard came along unheralded and with a star in Bruce Willis who had no proven track record as an action hero. In many ways it was a risky deal for 20th Century Fox, but it paid off handsomely (even with parts of the script not having been finalised by the time filming began).

For my part, I wasn’t that interested in seeing it. I knew Willis from TV’s Moonlighting, but had the same feeling about him as everyone else, and the concept didn’t seem to lend itself to an exciting, two-hour thrill ride. And so I didn’t see it straight away, even when I saw the positive reviews it garnered, and even when friends who’d seen it did nothing but rave about it. It wasn’t until three weeks had passed that I finally went to see it, expecting to be disappointed, and not looking forward to it at all.

Well, we’re all allowed to get it wrong sometimes, aren’t we?

In fact, I was riveted. I couldn’t remember the last time I’d been so impressed by an action movie, by the twists and turns, by the cat and mouse games played out between McClane and Hans Gruber (Rickman), by the skill of John McTiernan’s direction, and the sheer exuberance of the action sequences. Here was a movie that didn’t short change the audience in terms of intelligence, thrills and well-judged humour. Die Hard was exciting. I remember still that classic moment where McClane drops the C4 explosive down the lift shaft and blows up one of the lower floors (and a couple of Gruber’s henchmen): not only was it an incredible moment, but it was topped by smarmy reporter Richard Thornberg’s quip to his cameraman, “Tell me you got that”. I wanted to see that scene again so badly, I’d already decided I was going to stay on and see the movie again.

Over the next two weeks, I saw Die Hard a further three times, and enjoyed it more and more. I became a majorly annoying convert, extolling the film’s virtues to anyone who’d listen (and a few who wouldn’t). Aside from the appallingly ill-judged Deputy Chief of Police Dwayne T. Robinson (Gleason), the movie didn’t put a foot wrong. The relationships were well handled, the characters believable, and the cast were all on top form (even the unfortunate Gleason). I loved the fact that John McClane was an everyman character, and that Willis imbued him with a vulnerability that the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris would have found beyond their acting abilities. His self-doubt was a nice change of pace as well. And, of course, he had the perfect adversary in Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber, a villain so urbane and charming his very sneer could probably cut glass. (Rickman steals the movie, as he would three years later in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).

When I got my first surround sound system – and Die Hard on DVD – this was one of two movies I used to show how good the system was (the other was The Matrix). Over the years I’ve watched it countless times, and it’s still as fresh as ever. It’s also one of the most influential action movies of all time: even now, the Die Hard template is still being used – Olympus Has Fallen, anyone? And with one of the best catchphrases ever: “Yippie ki-ay, motherfucker”, it’s a movie that will keep on having a great reputation and winning over audiences with each new generation.

Rating: 9/10 – a tense, exciting, action movie that has a down-to-earth appeal amongst the gunfire and explosions; Willis and Rickman elevate the material and make it sing, just like Dean Martin.

Mini-Review: The Zero Theorem (2013)

22 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Drama, Mathematical equations, Matt Damon, Review, Sci-fi, Terry Gilliam, Tilda Swinton

D: Terry Gilliam / 107m

Cast: Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Mélanie Thierry, Lucas Hedges, Matt Damon, Tilda Swinton

Another dystopian fable from the mind of Terry Gilliam, The Zero Theorem bears a strong relation to Brazil, but lacks that movie’s charm and deft characterisation. Here, Waltz plays Qohen (not Quinn) Leth, a company man who is asked by Management (Damon) to solve the Zero Theorem, a mathematical formula which posits that everything amounts to nothing, or zero. With the help – or is it hindrance? – of Bainsley (Thierry) and Management’s son, Bob (Hedges), Leth does his best to solve the puzzle.

Made on a predictably small budget, the movie flirts more with ideas than it does engage with them, and there’s a delicate romance in there as well, but it’s all kept in check by the type of narrative ambiguities that make movies like this such a struggle to enjoy and connect with. Gilliam can do this kind of thing in his sleep now and while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, it does seem to limit him as a filmmaker; ultimately it’s the visuals that strike home rather than any emotional heft the story may contribute (one visual conceit is the black hole that represents Leth’s inner turmoil…or is it his soul?…or his demons? Who knows?). It’s a shame then that The Zero Theorem zips along at a good pace, and the laughs, when they come, are very good indeed. Waltz plays the baffled, slightly obsessive Leth with a keen eye for the absurdities his character has to endure, while Thierry makes for an appealing heroine. It’s Thewlis though who steals the movie, mugging throughout but with all the best lines to excuse him. With an ending that reinforces the similarities to Brazil, the movie leaves one thinking that maybe for his next project Gilliam should tackle something that doesn’t depend on weird props and special effects to get itself noticed.

Rating: 6/10 – disappointing and hollow, The Zero Theorem shows Gilliam’s imagination running riot once again, but at the plot’s expense; scattered with flashes of brilliance but too few to elevate the material.

George and the Dragon (2004)

21 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Action, Dragons, Fantasy, James Purefoy, Medieval times, Michael Clarke Duncan, Patrick Swayze, Piper Perabo, Review, Tom Reeve

aka Dragon Sword

D: Tom Reeve / 93m

Cast: James Purefoy, Piper Perabo, Patrick Swayze, Michael Clarke Duncan, Bill Treacher, Jean-Pierre Castaldi, Rollo Weeks, Paul Freeman, Caroline Carver, Simon Callow, Joan Plowright

After fighting in the Holy Wars, knight George (Purefoy) returns home to seek a quiet life and settle down on a small parcel of land. To this end he seeks out King Edgar (Callow). But the King’s daughter, Princess Luna (Perabo) has been abducted, and in return for the land he wishes, George agrees to help search for the Princess alongside her betrothed, Garth (Swayze). While the rescue party, accompanied by faithful retainer Elmendorf (Treacher) and adventure-seeking youngster Wryn (Weeks), look for the Picts they suspect have taken Luna, the truth is far stranger. Luna is actually holed up in a cave looking after a dragon’s egg, having been abducted by the mother (who she calls Adelaide for some reason). Luna is determined that the egg will hatch and when she is rescued by George, she thwarts his repeated attempts to destroy it. An uneasy alliance is formed between them as George agrees to help Luna get the egg out of harm’s way long enough for the baby dragon (who she calls Smite for some reason) to hatch. As they travel they must contend with the machinations of Garth, several bands of Picts, and an approaching band of mercenaries led by the dastardly El Cabillo (an uncredited Val Kilmer) who have heard there is a reward for the Princess’s safe return. Cue sword fights, chases, a comic priest (Castaldi), an easily swayed Mother Superior (Plowright), and a brief appearance by Bill Oddie as an innkeeper, not to mention an adequately rendered dragon and its offspring.

Despite being a Euro-pudding of a movie – Germany, the UK and Luxembourg were all involved in the movie’s production – George and the Dragon is a light-hearted romp that doesn’t take itself too seriously, has a surfeit of knowing performances (Purefoy has the movie’s measure completely), a winning line in obvious, hokey pantomime humour (watch out for the woman fixing her thatched roof when George arrives at the village where his father (Freeman) lives), and a convincing medieval feel courtesy of the (largely) Scottish locations. Enjoying themselves as much as Purefoy, the rest of the cast give their all, and the script by director Reeve and Michael Burks is geared to provide each character with enough screen time to shine in their own right, as well as entertain the audience.

There’s nothing new here, obviously, but it doesn’t matter. It’s a simple tale simply told but with enough verve and skill to offset its modest budget. Reeve, better known as a producer, keeps the various plot strands and storylines clearly outlined, and frees his cast to inject the kind of earnest frivolity this kind of movie thrives on. The photography by Joost van Starrenburg shows off Scotland and Luxembourg’s scenery to great effect, and the physical and special effects are integrated seamlessly (well, except for the shot of the dragons splashing about in a lake).

On the minus side, Perabo’s allowed too many modern day inflections and references in her performance, and Swayze looks ill throughout; his wig doesn’t help either. And that’s about it. Nitpickers may find other things to complain about but that would be doing the movie a major disservice. It’s not the best movie ever made but George and the Dragon is fun, entertaining, and a more than pleasant way to spend ninety minutes.

Rating: 7/10 – an entirely enjoyable surprise of a movie that’s much better than it looks; for once, a “guilty pleasure” you can tell all your friends about.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

The Monuments Men (2014)

21 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Cate Blanchett, George Clooney, Ghent Altarpiece, Hidden treasures, Hugh Bonneville, Jean Dujardin, John Goodman, Madonna of Bruges, Matt Damon, Nazis, Review, Stolen art, True story, World War II

D: George Clooney / 118m

Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, Bob Balaban, Dimitri Leonidas, Justus von Dohnányi, Holger Handtke

When you see the phrase “Based on a true story” at the beginning of a movie, there’s an expectation that what you’re about to see really happened, and in the way that it’s portrayed. But the key word is “based”. The word serves as a get-out clause for filmmakers the world over, so that when anyone criticises a movie for its accuracy they can say it’s not meant to be taken as a de facto retelling of events but as an interpretation.

With The Monuments Men, actor/director and co-scripter Clooney has taken a relatively unknown tale from World War II and – forgive the clumsy analogy – used broad brush strokes to bring it to the screen. Playing Frank Stokes, we first see him in 1943 canvassing President Roosevelt about the importance of finding and safeguarding the huge amount of art that the Nazis are plundering across Europe, as well as asking for the military’s cooperation in avoiding unnecessary damage to important historical buildings and monuments. Asked by Roosevelt how many men he needs, Stokes tells him six.

The six men are Americans James Granger (Damon), Richard Campbell (Miurray), Walter Garfield (Goodman), and Preston Savitz (Balaban), plus Brit Donald Jeffries (Bonneville), and Frenchman Jean Claude Clermont (Dujardin). All six have the skills and the experience Stokes needs to identify, trace and recover the stolen art, and two pieces in particular: Michelangelo’s Madonna of Bruges and Jan van Eyck’s Ghent Altarpiece. Splitting up to cover as much ground as possible the men set about tracing various treasures and seeking the cooperation necessary to avoid the continued ruinous bombing of buildings such as Monte Cassino. In this respect, and despite clear orders from Roosevelt, they find themselves rebuffed at every turn. They have better luck tracing the routes the Nazis are using to hide everything, but they still always seem to be one step behind.

In Paris, Granger is put in touch with Claire Simone (Blanchett). She has a detailed list of all the artwork and treasures that were stolen by the Nazis in Paris, as well as who they belonged to and where they were to be taken. Using this list, Stokes and co are able to discover the locations the Nazis chose to hide everything. With the war now drawing to a close they face a race against time to reach the treasures before the approaching Russians.

The story of the Monuments Men and their achievements makes for a thrilling read but on screen it’s a different matter. Clooney and co-scripter (and long-time collaborator) Grant Heslov have fashioned a story from the facts that has all the hallmarks of a rush job. Character development is perfunctory and relies on the actors to fill in the gaps by using established traits: Dujardin flashes the winning smile seen in The Artist, Murray rehashes his bucolic approach to Lost in Translation, and Goodman continues to play the same role he’s played for the last ten years. In a way it’s a clever approach, a kind of cinematic shorthand to help introduce the characters quickly and then get on with things, but other than the fact that these men all knew (or knew of) each other before coming together, we don’t really get to know them. As Stokes, Clooney takes a back seat, giving himself a couple of rousing, authoritative speeches, and generally directing traffic – that’s not a criticism, there is an awful lot of poring over maps and working out which direction to take. Damon and Blanchett struggle to make her initial distrust of Granger credible, while Bonneville’s turn as the plucky Brit using the mission to overcome his drink problem, though one of the (slightly) better performances, is undermined when you realise his drink problem isn’t going to reoccur and jeopardise things.

The movie also jumps about quite a bit as it attempts to cover both time and distance. The events shown take place between 1943 and the end of the war. Some scenes, particularly Garfield and Clermont’s encounter with a sniper, seem included for no other reason than they might prove exciting, but this rarely works out. Clooney tries to instil a sense of urgency, but the timescale defeats him every time. Even towards the end with the Russians right around the corner and the Madonna of Bruges to be rescued, there’s just no excitement to be had. And when the team are put in harm’s way, it’s hard to be concerned because a) you don’t care enough them (see previous paragraph) and Clooney’s direction doesn’t stretch itself enough to provide any tension.

What you have then is a strangely flat movie that never really takes off but which, thanks to both the art and Phedon Papamichael’s wonderful photography, looks good and is handsomely mounted. Clooney does have a good eye for composition, and he uses the camera to good effect throughout but by the end it’s not enough to distract from the disappointment that will have already been felt. There’s also some misguided humour, along with a few too many one-liners (there are times when the movie skirts perilously close to coming across as a kind of Ocean’s Seven). One moment, though, that does deserve a mention: Campbell, having received a recording from his daughter, hears it played over the camp tannoy system while in the shower. As his tears mingle with the water from the shower, it’s an instance of emotional beauty in amongst all that glorious art.

Rating: 6/10 – a missed opportunity, too lacking in focus and without a cohesive script; a great story that will hopefully be revisited at a later date.

Grand Piano (2013)

20 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alex Winter, Classical concert, Elijah Wood, Eugenio Mira, John Cusack, Missing fortune, Pianist, Review, Sniper, Thriller

D: Eugenio Mira / 90m

Cast: Elijah Wood, John Cusack, Kerry Bishé, Tamsin Egerton, Allen Leech, Don McManus, Alex Winter

A Hitchcockian thriller with a preposterous MacGuffin at its centre, Grand Piano is set at a classical concert that sees the return to the stage after five years of pianist Tom Selznick (Wood). Selznick hasn’t played in all that time because he choked at his last recital, failing to complete a piece by his mentor Patrick Godureaux called La Cinquette. Now, having been persuaded to return by his actress wife Emma (Bishé), Tom has to face both his fears about playing, and once he’s begun playing, a sniper hidden somewhere in the building. The sniper, Clem (Cusack), wants Tom to play every note of the concert perfectly or he will kill Emma; in particular he wants Tom to play the same piece he couldn’t complete five years before.

The reason for Clem wanting Tom to play that particular piece is revealed at around the halfway mark, and has the potential to make some viewers give up there and then. Up until that point, the script has made a good job of keeping both Tom and the audience in the dark about Clem’s intentions and the reasons why he’s doing it all. It’s also done a good job of slowly increasing the tension as Tom tries to find a way of stopping Clem while keeping both himself and Emma alive, and still completing the concert. Depending on your response to Clem’s motive – and this reviewer found it to be too complicated for its own good – the inherent implausibility in the whole endeavour will either cause you to say au revoir to Tom’s predicament, or keep going out of curiosity as to how everything will be resolved.

My advice, though, is to stick with it. Grand Piano is one of those thrillers where the very unlikelihood of what’s transpiring is irrelevant (Speed anyone?). Thanks to some inspired direction by Mira and a wonderfully nervy performance by Wood, Grand Piano succeeds where perhaps it shouldn’t. From the moment where Tom finds notes from Clem written on his score sheets, the movie shifts up a gear, tightening the screws (or should that be piano strings?) with each new twist and turn. Mira proves himself a supremely confident director, orchestrating the action with style and not a little panache. He knows when to keep the camera moving, even if some of his pans are a little dizzying, but he’s more effective when he keeps the camera static; he makes a virtue of it when Tom begins to play La Cinquette, keeping the camera at a respectful distance and allowing Wood to show off his moves for a good two minutes. It’s a bold move, holding up the action for a solo piano piece, but it works; you’re waiting for the moment where Tom froze last time, hoping the difficulty of the piece won’t trip him up again.

Mira also fares well with his cast, eliciting strong performances from all concerned. As mentioned already Wood puts in a great performance, his initial stage fright giving way to panic and then to desperate resistance before finding a way out of his predicament. When he finally confronts Clem, the script is clever enough not to make him into an instant action hero, and his solution to their fight is entirely credible. As the villain of the piece, Cusack’s performance is mostly a vocal one, as for most of the movie he’s just a disembodied voice in the earpiece he makes Tom wear. Despite this restriction Cusack is more effective under these circumstances than he is when he finally confronts Tom; somehow his physical presence in the movie – while entirely necessary – still feels like a bit of a letdown. It’s not Cusack’s fault, and yet given how good he is as just a threatening voice, maybe it is.

Of the supporting characters, most are underwritten in comparison with Tom and Clem, but they’re there to serve the story’s momentum rather than stand out. Ashley (Egerton) and Wayne (Leech), as friends of Emma are annoying and dim in equal measure, while Emma herself is required to do little more than look constantly worried about her husband. More interesting, and given better motivation and dialogue are Tom’s friend and conductor Norman (McManus) and Tom’s assistant (Winter). Norman is larger than life and shows more faith in Tom than Tom does himself. It’s a small part but McManus plays him with just the right amount of brio and concern. As Tom’s assistant, Winter has a larger role than at first expected, but shows what a talented actor he is, keeping his character’s motives and actions pleasantly off-kilter.

The script, by Damien Chazelle, has its flaws, not least that McGuffin, but it’s structure is sound and it keeps the viewer wanting to know what’s next. There’s some florid dialogue in there on occasion but the cast handle it well, and there’s a satisfying conclusion. But ultimately this is Mora’s picture, and if it wasn’t his guiding hand on the baton, then this could have turned out a lot, lot worse.

Rating: 8/10 – a bravura piece of filmmaking that has a hypnotic effect on its audience; thrilling and exciting in equal measure, Wood’s convincing performance adds greatly to why the movie works so well.

Mini-Review: House of Bodies (2013)

20 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alex Merkin, Deaf teenager, Horror, Internet site, Murder investigation, Peter Fonda, Queen Latifah, Review, Serial killings, Terrence Howard, Thriller

D: Alex Merkin / 78m

Cast: Terrence Howard, Peter Fonda, Alexz Johnson, Harry Zittel, George Katt, Queen Latifah, Francisco A. Pino, Juliana Harkavy, Elizabeth Brissenden, Karlee Eldridge

Alternating between a police interview with convicted serial killer, Henry Lee Bishop (Fonda) and events taking place in the house he used to live in, House of Bodies plays with notions of what is real and what isn’t and does it in quite a clever manner. While the interview, carried out by Detective Starks (Howard) moves on, it becomes clear that events in the house are taking place before the interview so we’re treated to a framing device around an ongoing series of flashbacks. It’s an awkward structure at times, with initial scenes appearing disjointed and confusing. Once the movie hits its stride though, things become more clearcut, and the reason for the interview is brought into sharper relief.

Bishop’s house is being used as an internet site where members can log on and see recreations of Bishop’s original killings. Run by Tracy (Brissenden), she employs three other girls, Kelli, Tisha and Ambra (Johnson, Harkavy and Eldridge) to play the victims and Ambra’s boyfriend Darryl (Pino) to play Bishop. With each murder room set up with a video link and the requisite props, Tracy hopes to make a killing of her own. On Kelli’s first night it becomes clear someone else is in the house with them; watching online is deaf teenager Kyle (Zittel). He strikes up an unlikely relationship with Kelli and when he sees what’s happening (by hacking into the live feed – as all teenagers could), he tries to warn her.

House of Bodies has a neat premise but for a horror movie that sets up its serial killer as a particularly bloodthirsty monster, it’s quite tame when the killings are shown. There’s very little tension during these sequences, and too much time is spent with Kelli and Kyle while the murders are taking place. As an executive producer, Latifah adds another string to her bow by popping up a couple of times as Kyle’s online support worker, while Howard and Fonda give the movie a boost by making some very clunky dialogue sound better than it is. Johnson and Zittel give it their best, but sadly the rest of the cast all seem on auto-pilot. Merkin directs the interview scenes with confidence but lets himself down when things switch to the house, leaving the viewer stranded and waiting for the interview to resume.

Rating: 5/10 – a movie of two parts, with the worst part taking up too much of the (admittedly) short running time; if you’re new to the horror genre you might enjoy this, but if you’re not, you’ll be quickly disappointed.

Air Bud Series (1997-2003)

20 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Air Bud, American Football, American Soccer, Andrea Framm, Baseball, Basketball, Beach Volleyball, Caitlin Wachs, Cynthia Stevenson, Disney, Drama, Family movies, Fernfield, Josh Framm, Katija Pevec, Kevin Zegers, Reviews

Disney’s Air Bud series is a mostly entertaining quintet that is aimed squarely at a family audience, although parents might not be as enthralled as their children will be. The first two movies received a theatrical release, while the rest were released direct-to-video. After the last movie, Disney decided to shift the focus to Buddy’s offspring, and the Air Buddies franchise was created. While that series continues to endure – the eighth in the series is due for release in 2015 – looking back over their predecessors reveals a series that for the most part tried to maintain a simple, unfussy approach to the stories, and kept Buddy’s sporting activities as credible as possible.

Air Bud (1997)

D: Charles Martin Smith / 98m

Cast: Michael Jeter, Kevin Zegers, Wendy Makkena, Bill Cobbs, Eric Christmas, Nicola Cavendish, Shayn Solberg, Brendan Fletcher, Norman Browning

Like a lot of low-budget Disney fare from the Nineties, Air Bud is a likeable tale of a young boy, Josh Framm (Zegers) coming to live in the small town of Fernfield and befriending an apparently stray dog. The twist here is that the dog, a friendly golden retriever, is, like Josh, a whiz at playing basketball.

The dog is christened Buddy and after a few mishaps on the way to convincing his mother Jackie (Makkena) to keep him, Buddy helps Josh regain the confidence he lost when his father died the year before. And when the school basketball team finds itself a player short, Josh repays Buddy’s help by getting him on the team. Needless to say, Buddy proves to be a star player and it’s onward to the championship final, where… well, you can guess the rest.

But there is a fly in the ointment, in the form of Buddy’s real owner, Norm Snively (Jeter). Norm is a clown, and at the movie’s beginning you see just how bad he is at it; only Buddy wins any applause from the children’s party they’re at. Norm wants Buddy back and sues for custody. Cue a courthouse sequence that is both funny and funnier still, largely due to loopy Judge Cranfield (Christmas).

The cast as a whole is uniformly good, with Christmas being matched by the excellent Jeter. Zegers – just thirteen but appearing in his eighth movie – gives an affecting performance even though he’s largely required to be moody and defensive for the first half of the movie. The script avoids the usual syrupy sentimentality that so often mars Disney’s attempts at family fare, and Smith’s direction enables the cast to do just that bit more with characters that might otherwise have appeared as paper-thin stereotypes.

Of course, Air Bud was the first of five movies, and if you watch them back to back you’ll notice some interesting continuity issues that crop up as the series continues. In this movie, keep a close eye on Makkena; this is her only appearance in the series, and it’s worth noting how the producers kept her replacements looking much the same. Also, look out for the location of the town marker: there’s no prizes for guessing if it’s still in the same place in Air Bud: Golden Receiver.

Rating: 6/10 – a pleasing start to the franchise with winning performances and a slightly goofy nature; but shame on Disney for putting another dog altogether on the poster!

Air Bud: Golden Receiver (1998)

D: Richard Martin / 90m

Cast: Kevin Zegers, Cynthia Stevenson, Gregory Harrison, Nora Dunn, Perry Anzilotti, Robert Costanzo, Shayn Solberg, Suzanne Ristic, Alyson MacLaren, Jaida Hay

Having excelled at basketball, this time around Josh tries out for the school football team after finding out he’s got a pretty good throwing arm. When the team’s star quarterback is injured, guess who steps up to take his place? You can’t? Hmmm… Buddy joins the team as well (the football powers-that-be seem to have the same lack of restrictions about players from a different species as the basketball powers-that-be have). He’s a great catcher of the ball (naturally), and together they help the team reach… the championship final!

When it comes to the sports side of things, Air Bud: Golden Receiver is all very predictable, and it looks to have been a deliberate move on the producers’ part. It’s only in Air Bud Spikes Back that the sport is the whole of the plot; here it’s secondary to Jackie (Stevenson) and her romance with new local vet Patrick (Harrison). Josh isn’t sure about the relationship, and while he doesn’t go quite so far as to try and sabotage it – he does actually like Patrick – there are still enough wobbles along the way before everything works out as smoothly as expected. There’s also a third storyline involving a couple of Russian circus owners who are stealing animals for their show, and want Buddy for their star attraction. They make a couple of attempts to abduct him but fail so that Josh and Buddy can make it to the championship final – which is when Buddy finally gets dognapped. Cue a frantic race against time to rescue Buddy and win the game.

While there was an element of slapstick in the first movie, it was legitimised by having the villain be a clown. Here the two Russians, Natalya (Dunn) and Popov (Anzilotti) are so inept and so stupid they make a great case for involuntary euthanasia. Why the producers decided to make them so stupid is a mystery as their inanity hurts the movie tremendously; rather than adding humour to the movie, they just leave the viewer wishing their scenes had been cut out altogether. Where humour has been successfully added is at the championship game, where in an inspired move, Tim Conway and Dick Martin play two match commentators, foreshadowing the type of one’s barmy/one’s serious interaction seen in movies such as Best in Show (2000).

On the more serious side of things, the romance between Jackie and Patrick is handled well, and both Stevenson and Harrison keep it all grounded. They both underplay the emotional aspect effectively, so much so that when Patrick has to decide whether or not to take up a job offer out of state, you’re never quite sure if he’s going to stay or not.

The script – Russians aside – is effective and expands on Air Bud while keeping the core elements that made that movie work so well. Buddy and Josh still make for an attractive couple – there it’s been said! – and Martin’s direction keeps the action moving along nicely.

Back in Continuity Corner, Stevenson fits the mould created by Makkena, but now remember Harrison and see how his looks pan out with his successors in the rest of the series (and two of the Air Buddies movies). And as for the town marker, isn’t it in a different place this time, a bit nearer to the centre of town, perhaps? Hmmm…

Rating: 6/10 – an effective sequel let down by its simpleton villains; well-staged and amusing with good performances all round.

Air Bud: World Pup (2001)

D: Bill Bannerman / 83m

Cast: Kevin Zegers, Caitlin Wachs, Dale Midkiff, Chilton Crane, Brittany Paige Bouck, Miguel Sandoval, Shayn Solberg, Chantal Strand, Martin Ferrero, Don McMillan, Duncan Regehr, Patricia Idlette, Fred Keating

With the predictability of the Air Bud formula firmly entrenched from the outset – dog and master find they have a natural aptitude for ball-based sports and lead local team to a championship final with even further predictable results – the producers had begun to look at ways of focusing more on the characters rather than Buddy himself. That said, with Air Bud: World Pup, Buddy has a larger role than in Air Bud: Golden Receiver, and the movie, while still as predictable as all the others in the series, is one of the more enjoyable entries.

Here, Buddy meets Molly and promptly falls head over paws in love. Soon he’s sneaking out at night and returning the next morning. Only Josh’s younger sister Andrea (Wachs) notices as he passes her window on his way out each night. Could Buddy be spending some lurve time with Molly?

Meanwhile, Josh is beginning a fledgling relationship himself with Molly’s owner, Emma (Bouck). She and her father (Regehr) have just moved to Fernfield from England and Emma is keen to try out for the school soccer team. When the team proves to be a player short (and then another), guess who steps in to make up the numbers and take the team to the championship final? (You can’t? Really…?)

There’s a lot to enjoy here. Josh and Emma’s romance is handled well but stops short of their having any actual physical contact (not even a kiss, producers? Come on!). Zegers and Bouck are a good match and they have a relaxed chemistry together; their scenes are nicely played. Wachs is good too as the now (much) older Andrea. She and best friend Tammy (Strand) discover the reason for Buddy’s nocturnal excursions, and play a larger part in the general storyline. All of which relegates Jackie (Crane, subbing for Cynthia Stevenson but given very little to do in comparison) and (now) stepdad Patrick (Midkiff) to the sidelines. Sandoval is good as Coach Montoya, and this movie’s villains, Snerbert (Ferrero) and Webster (McMillan), are perhaps the least annoying in the series as a whole; McMillan at least displays an aptitude for comic timing.

There are various subplots: the team is temporarily suspended from the tournament because of Emma and Buddy’s participation; the villains’ plot to snatch Molly which prompts the standard race against time to get Josh, Emma and Buddy to the final in time; Josh’s friend Tom’s attempts to impress Emma; and Emma’s dad’s financial problems.

On the continuity front, Crane makes for a low-key Jackie, and only resembles Makkena and Stevenson in long shot; the movie opens with Jackie and Patrick getting married; Jay Brazeau reprises his role from the first two movies as a referee, while Frank C. Turner (a bailiff in Air Bud) reprises his role as a linesman in Air Bud: Golden Receiver; Andrea ages at least six years from the time of the previous movie; Midkiff looks completely unlike Gregory Harrison; the front of the Framm house has grown balconies; and that pesky town marker is now in the centre of town.

This was to be the last Air Bud movie where Josh would take centre stage. It would also be the last Air Bud movie where there was as much focus on the characters, or any attempt to develop them further. It’s a shame as, predictability aside, the series has been enjoyable and fun to watch.

Rating: 6/10 – perhaps the best entry in the series, though a little too reliant on the type of obvious humour that would scupper future instalments.

Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch (2002)

D: Robert Vince / 93m

Cast: Caitlin Wachs, Cynthia Stevenson, Richard Karn, Molly Hagan, Patrick Cranshaw, Chantal Strand, Jay Brazeau, Frank C. Turner, Doug Funk, Kevin Zegers, Shayn Solberg

From this point on it’s easy to dismiss the Air Bud series as a series gone too far, and certainly this entry fails to add anything appreciably new to the format. Instead it takes away a major character, Josh, and bumps his younger sister Andrea into the main role. Josh is off to college, leaving Andrea feeling left out while Jackie (the returning Stevenson) and stepdad Patrick (Karn) concentrate on new addition to the Framm household, baby brother Noah. Looking for something to occupy her time she lets best friend Tammy talk her into trying out for the school baseball team. Unlike Josh, Andrea isn’t a natural and only makes it onto the team through Tammy’s intervention. As the season progresses, she proves time and again how bad she is until Buddy helps her in the same way he did with Josh in the first movie. Andrea improves her game, takes over from the injured Tammy – up tip now the team’s star player – and gets Buddy on the team as well. They get all the way to the championship final and… well, you know the rest.

As usual there are villains that are up to no good, this time around in the form of Professor Siles (Brazeau) and his accomplice Carlton (Turner). Siles is intent on kidnapping Buddy and his offspring in the hope of isolating the “super gene” that makes all of them so good at sports. Then he can sell it to “professional athletes all round the world”. One by one they abduct four of Buddy’s puppies – Shooter, Zack, Duke and Striker – and Buddy before being brought to justice by Sheriff Bob (Cranshaw) and Andrea and Tammy.

On the minus side, Brazeau and Turner’s constant mugging becomes tedious quite quickly, the proceedings are more predictable and more banal than usual, the performances stilted, and the baseball matches are filmed with an underwhelming approach that would only be topped by the approach in Air Bud: Spikes Back. Producer Vince, making his debut as a series director (though he was previously responsible for the MVP: Most Valuable Primate movies), lets things drift along without any real pace, and Buddy is criminally underused.

However, there are some things to like. The photography, by Glen Winter, is the best in the series, giving Fernfield and its environs a pleasing glow, while the inclusion of villain helper Rocky the Raccoon gives the movie a different “ahh” factor from Buddy and his crew. Also, there is one short scene where Shooter’s owner reports him missing to Sheriff Bob that is as funny as anything in the whole series; the set up isn’t new but it is bulletproof.

On the continuity side, sharp-eyed viewers will be wondering what happened to the other two puppies seen in Air Bud: World Pup; third stepdad Karn bears no resemblance to previous stepdads Harrison and Midkiff; the front of the Framm house is back to its usual façade; and that darned town marker is back out on one of the roads into town, though now on the opposite side.

Rating: 5/10 – a poor sequel that badly needed some energy to raise it up; a muddled script and indifferent direction haven’t helped either.

Air Bud: Spikes Back (2003)

D: Mike Southon / 87m

Cast: Katija Pevec, Cynthia Stevenson, Edie McClurg, Tyler Boissonnault, Jake D. Smith, Patrick Cranshaw, Nicholas Harrison, Chantal Strand, Malcolm Scott

The last in the Air Bud series – before the Buddies took over – sees our erstwhile canine hero showing an aptitude for beach volleyball. The movie also shows just how tired the series has become.

With Josh now out of the picture(s) altogether, the focus falls entirely on Andrea (Pevec) who’s devastated to learn that her best friend Tammy (Strand, the only cast member in all five movies) is moving to San Diego. Andrea desperately wants to earn enough money to visit Tammy and so starts up a business as a dog sitter, with predictably disastrous results. Then new neighbour Connor (Boissonnault) introduces her to the less-than-exciting world of beach volleyball, and wouldn’t you know it, the local team needs new players and are heading for the championship final, where the prize is… a trip to California! Will Andrea and Buddy help win the championship, and will will Andrea get to visit best friend Tammy in San Diego? Is Kevin Zegers lucky not to be in this movie?

There is also the inevitable subplot involving a couple of incompetent buffoons posing as villains. Here it’s Gordon (Scott) and Justin (Bishop), a couple of would-be jewel thieves out to steal a large diamond on display at the Fernfield museum. They can’t get past the lasers protecting the diamond but once they see Buddy winning an agility contest, they know he’ll be able to snatch the gem. Of course, they put this move off continually until the day of the championship final, thus necessitating the ritual last-gasp chase and rescue sequence series’ die-hards have come to know and love.

There is a difference here in that Buddy rescues himself this time, and arranges for the villains to land themselves in the matchstick clutches of Sheriff Bob. These two are still not the biggest idiots in the series – that honour still goes to Natalya and Popov from Air Bud: Golden Receiver – but they are painful to watch.

And so is the rest of the movie. This is by far the worst in the series, and there are several reasons, all emanating from the tired script. The characters are mere cyphers now; whatever made them interesting or sympathetic in the previous movies has been systematically erased. Pevec is bland and so too is Boissonnault; there’s supposed to be chemistry between them but they come across more as brother and sister than as a potential couple. Mom Jackie and stepdad Patrick (Humphreys) are reduced to walk-on parts, being shipped off to a veterinary convention for most of the movie, and while the introduction of Gram Gram (McClurg) initially seems promising – she’s there to look after Andrea and Noah (Smith) while Jackie and Patrick are away – she’s given so little to do other than dote on her parrot and look sad when he disappears that it’s a waste of McClurg’s talent. The direction by Southon (normally a DP) lacks focus and drains the movie of any energy it might have had, and the volleyball matches are repetitive and lifeless; the script can’t even keep track of the scoring properly.

Woeful as it is, Air Bud: Spikes Back still manages to raise the odd chuckle but by the movie’s end the level of fatigue on display, and affecting the viewer, is overwhelming. On the continuity side, Humphreys is a much older Patrick; Pevec bears no resemblance to Wachs or even Alyson MacLaren; the puppies from the previous two instalments are nowhere to be seen (or even mentioned); Harrison moves up from being an umpire in Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch to being the team coach here; and the town marker… is nowhere to be seen.

Rating: 4/10 – saved from a lower score because of the production values and because the sight of Smith trying to bath a Great Dane is a minor moment of inspiration.

All reviews originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

Mini-Review: Oldboy (2013)

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Drama, Elizabeth Olsen, Hollywood remake, Imprisonment, Josh Brolin, Revenge, Review, Samuel L. Jackson, Sharlto Copley, Spike Lee, Thriller

D: Spike Lee / 104m

Cast: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Sharlto Copley, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Imperioli, Pom Klementieff, James Ransone, Max Casella, Linda Emond

There are times when you just know that the phrase “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” is going to apply to an upcoming remake or sequel, and that what will eventually hit cinemas – if the movie’s that lucky (or has enough money behind it) – is going to be as disappointing as sunbathing during an eclipse. It’s a very rare remake indeed that comes out as well as the original, and that’s mostly because those originals are lightning-in-a-bottle moments. From Gus Van Sant’s ill-advised and unexpectedly dull shot-for-shot remake of Psycho (1998) to the current vogue for remaking what seems like every horror movie from the Eighties, remakes are the lazy filmmaker’s way of keeping busy. And so it proves with Oldboy, Spike Lee’s remake of Chan-wook Park’s modern classic.

Even with Lee and writer Mark Protosevich saying they’ve gone back to the original manga that Park based his movie on, this version still fails on so many levels. The main character, Joe Doucett (played with his usual intensity by Brolin) is unlikeable from the start, so any sympathy we might have for him is dispensed with before he’s even held captive. There’s a cartoonish performance from Samuel L. Jackson as chief gaoler Chaney that comes complete with blond ponytail and which sits at odds with the rest of the performances, and the tone of the movie as a whole. When Joe meets Marie (Olsen) she gives him her number almost straight away in case he needs any help; yes, she’s an aid worker but would she really do that (but then how would the rest of the movie develop if she didn’t)?

The villain of the piece is played with pantomime bravura by Copley, and the only thing that’s missing from his performance is a bit of moustache-twirling (his vocal styling is quite irritating too). The sequence where Joe takes on Chaney’s goons with just a hammer now looks over-rehearsed and lacks any visceral quality. And the revelation of why Joe has been released is given a mock-opera makeover that resists any emotional engagement by the viewer because, in the set up, it appears that Copley’s character is able to install surveillance equipment wherever Joe goes and in advance of his knowing he’s going there.

In short, the movie relies on contrivance after contrivance and gives the viewer nothing to connect with. As a reinterpretation (which sounds more like prevarication than anything else), Oldboy ends up being like a mime interpreting a song: you wonder what was the point.

Rating: 5/10 – proficient on a technical level with excellent photography courtesy of Sean Bobbitt, Oldboy strips away the cultural depth of Chan’s version and gives us nothing in return; even judged on its own merits it’s still a movie that doesn’t work.

Antboy (2013)

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ask Hasselbalch, Denmark, Kenneth Bøgh Andersen, Nicolas Bro, Oscar Dietz, Radioactive ant, Review, Samuel Ting Graf, Superhero, The Flea

D: Ask Hasselbalch / 77m

Cast: Oscar Dietz, Nicolas Bro, Samuel Ting Graf, Amalie Kruse Jensen, Cecilie Alstrup Tarp, Caspar Phillipson

Based on the books by Kenneth Bøgh Andersen, Antboy is Denmark’s first superhero movie, a “small” tale about twelve year old Pelle who gets bitten by a radioactive ant.

Pelle is one of the ordinary kids, he doesn’t stand out in any way, he’s not particularly noticeable, and he has a crush on Amanda (Tarp), a girl in his class who, in classic fashion, doesn’t even know he exists. One day after school he sees two bullies harassing comic book nerd Wilhem (Graf). He intervenes, which saves Wilhelm, but leads to Pelle’s being chased by the bullies. He evades them by hiding in the garden of an empty house. Just as the coast is clear he is bitten by an ant. Pelle passes out, and when he comes to, he goes home without a clue that everything has changed for him, and that he now has superpowers.

The next morning Pelle’s new powers begin to manifest themselves: his hand sticks to a milk carton, he has incredible strength, his sense of smell is heightened, and perhaps most worryingly of all, he discovers he can pee formic acid. With Wilhelm noticing some of these things, it isn’t long before the two of them are finding out the extent of Pelle’s powers and deciding he needs a superhero costume to go with them. And so, after dismissing Antman because Pelle isn’t married (or a man), Antboy is born, and he quickly becomes a hero in his local community, apprehending muggers and saving people from car crashes.

Which proves to be a good thing as soon there’s a super-villain on the loose, The Flea (Bro). The Flea is the scientist who was responsible for creating the ant that bit Pelle, but who now has replicated the same formula but using – you’ve guessed it – a flea instead of an ant. He kidnaps Amanda and it’s up to Antboy and Wilhelm, aided by Amanda’s sister Ida (Jensen), to rescue her and bring The Flea to justice.

If you’re already thinking “blatant Spider-Man rip-off” then put it to the back of your mind and move on. Antboy does take the basic template of the Spider-Man story but then riffs on it in its own, unique way. For a start, and thanks to Pelle’s age, we’re spared the teenage angst that comes with Peter Parker’s story, and there’s none of that “with great power comes great responsibility” baggage either. Instead, Pelle grows in confidence and enjoys being a superhero. He retains his secret identity without putting others at risk all the time, and he develops a bit of a crush on Ida (there’s also time for a bit of payback on the two bullies). It’s this guilt-free approach that helps make Antboy so enjoyable.

The casting is a plus as well. Dietz has a cherubic face and surprisingly expressive eyes; when he has his Antboy mask on you can still see how he’s feeling. He’s a very confident young actor and doesn’t appear daunted by the material in the least. In fact, he makes it all look easy, and the movie, while never dull, always picks up a bit when he’s onscreen. As his sidekick and chief costumier, Wilhelm, Graf sports big glasses and a grave manner throughout, and is more Alfred than Robin. It’s a little bit worrying that Wilhelm is so handy with a sewing machine, and that he has one in his room, but it’s a nice touch nevertheless, and anyway, what superhero origin story doesn’t have the odd idiosyncrasy? Bro, who looks too much like Timothy Spall at times, is a fun adversary and has pleasingly low-key reasons for his villainy (no destroying the world for him), and his costume is quite impressively detailed. Jensen and Tarp are given little to do in comparison, but as the focus is quite rightly on the boys, this is unavoidable; the short running time doesn’t help either.

As directed by Hasselbalch, Antboy is a superior entry in the superhero arena, with deliberately simple and effective special effects, and a charming approach to what it would mean to a pre-teen if this were to really happen. The script, by Anders Ølholm, is entertaining and precise, and the characters are clearly drawn and well fleshed out by the talented cast. There are plenty of humorous moments, and the encounters between Antboy and The Flea are well-orchestrated. With its slender running time, Antboy packs a lot in and leaves the viewer wanting more, so the expected sequel (due by the end of 2014) will come around with not a moment to spare.

Rating: 8/10 – an engaging treat for those superhero fans who might like to see a less darker, more simple movie than we’re being treated to at the moment; winning in all departments, Antboy shows how a lot of imagination can be achieved on a low budget.

Homefront (2013)

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Action, Clancy Brown, DEA agent, Drug dealing, James Franco, Jason Statham, Kate Bosworth, Review, Sylvester Stallone, Thriller, Winona Ryder

D: Gary Fleder / 100m

Cast: Jason Statham, James Franco, Izabela Vidovic, Winona Ryder, Kate Bosworth, Marcus Hester, Clancy Brown, Rachelle Lefevre, Omar Benson Miller, Frank Grillo, Chuck Zito, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Austin Craig

Adapted by Sylvester Stallone from Chuck Logan’s novel of the same name – and once considered as the basis for a Rambo movie – Homefront finally makes it to the big screen with fellow Expendable Jason Statham in the lead role instead.

With its throwback style reminiscent of Seventies action movies such as Walking Tall, and Gator, Homefront settles into a familiar groove from the start, with undercover DEA agent Phil Broker (a badly bewigged Statham) having infiltrated drug dealing bikers The Outcasts. When an attempt to bust them goes wrong, it leaves Outcasts kingpin Danny T (Zito) swearing revenge on Broker and his family. Two years on and Broker has recently moved to the sleepy town of Rayville; in the meantime his wife has died and he’s left to bring up their nine year old daughter Maddy (Vidovic) all by himself. A playground altercation with bully Teddy Klum (Craig) – Maddy gives him a bloody nose – leads to Teddy’s mom Cassie (Bosworth) seeking revenge. She enlists the help of her brother, Gator (Franco), a local meth dealer. When Gator finds out about Broker’s past he decides to let the remaining Outcasts deal with him; using his girlfriend Sheryl (Ryder) as an intermediary, Gator works out a deal where the Outcasts will distribute his drugs nationally in exchange for Broker’s whereabouts.

With its surprisingly leisurely pace, Homefront is a formulaic and professional Hollywood action movie, competently made, with no surprises and reminiscent of every other stranger-comes-to-town movie you’ve ever seen. It allows Statham to stretch his acting muscles a little, sets up Franco as the baddest badass on the block only to renege on the deal two thirds in, puts Brown in uniform as the dishonest sheriff in Gator’s pocket (but does nothing more with it than that), gives Bosworth a chance to release her inner skank for a while, and sidelines Lefevre as Broker’s potential love interest at around the halfway mark. Stallone’s script is full of these undeveloped story lines, and character arcs that are either cut short or allowed to peter out, all in order to allow more time for the action beats and the extended section where the Outcasts are brought back in. It’s this part of the movie that is the most disappointing as the running time is padded out unnecessarily: Gator tells Sheryl to contact Danny T’s lawyer (Vince), Sheryl contacts him, he speaks to Danny T, Sheryl reports back to Gator, Sheryl meets Danny T’s lieutenant Cyrus (Grillo), and then the Outcasts travel to Rayville. It all takes way too long, and all to set up the final showdown between Broker, Gator and the bikers which ends up being a two-part affair (and poorly edited at that).

While it’s always good to see Statham kick ass – a fight at a gas station is probably the movie’s highlight – here he’s asked to be conflicted about his violent abilities. It’s not entirely successful, focusing as it does on the effect Broker’s activities have on Maddy. The problem is that Broker has taught Maddy self-defence already (that’s how she gives Teddy a bloody nose) and is really pleased with her for standing up for herself. And yet when he has to defend himself and Maddy witnesses it, she acts horrified and troubled. This raises the question of whether she knows what Broker did for a living (after all she’s old enough to know); it’s never referred to, though, and remains just another loose end in a movie that litters them like confetti.

The deficiencies of Stallone’s script aside, Homefront at least looks good, its Louisiana locations shot in that slightly rosy glow beloved of so many cinematographers (here Theo van de Sande), and Statham acquits himself well. Vidovic is captivating, Franco and Ryder do their best with roles too underwritten to care about, there’s too little screen time for Brown, and for once, the “black sidekick/friend/new acquaintance” (Miller) doesn’t get killed in the crossfire, but actually kills one of the bikers when they attack Broker’s home. The only real surprise is Bosworth, raging at the mouth, swearing like a motherf*cker, and fit to explode from the anger she has pent up inside her. Sadly, the script requires her to undergo a sea change, and this unfortunately robs her character of any further credibility, but for the first thirty minutes or so she steals the movie completely.

Rating: 5/10 – a misfire on so many levels, Homefront suffers from an unpolished script and lacklustre direction; technically solid with a couple of good fight scenes involving Statham (which you’d expect anyway), this never really matches up to its potential.

Triassic Attack (2010)

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Colin Ferguson, Dinosaurs, Emilia Clarke, Fantasy, Kirsty Mitchell, Native American, Review, Sci-fi, Steven Brand, SyFy

D: Colin Ferguson / 87m

Cast: Steven Brand, Kirsty Mitchell, Raoul Trujillo, Gabriel Womack, Emilia Clarke, Jazz Lintott, Christopher Villiers, Nathalie Buscombe, Vladimir Mihailov

Another in the long lame of SyFy movies, Triassic Attack is, on paper at least, one of the most wretched ideas they’ve come up with. Angry at the sale of ancestral lands to the local university, Native American Dakota (Trujillo) decides to put things right by summoning the spirit of the Great Protector. But the ritual goes awry and the skeletons of three dinosaurs housed in the local museum come alive and wreak havoc in the surrounding area, endangering all and sundry. And that is basically that. The skeletons appear all over the place, the local sheriff (Brand) looks dour and unhappy throughout (as well he should – turns out Dakota is his father), his estranged wife Emma (Mitchell) allows their daughter Savannah (Clarke from TV’s Game of Thrones) to be put in harm’s way time and time again, and any viewer watching this farrago should be warned of the danger to their health: they’re likely to break several ribs and hurt their jaw when it hits the floor repeatedly.

Now, before we move on, let’s get these very valid points out of the way: 1) the skeletons depicted aren’t of creatures that lived in the Triassic period; 2) they roar and bellow despite having no vocal cords or lungs; 3) they move around easily despite not having any eyes; 4) when two are “destroyed” at the same time, the pieces reassemble together to create a flying dinosaur that never existed in any historical period; and 5) the ROTC cadets seen in the movie appear to be equipped with both Bulgarian uniforms and a Russian anti-tank weapon.

Of course, Triassic Attack is rubbish. You might even say it’s ordure of an extremely high order. It’s been cheaply made, with a cast that struggles to engage with a script that really does seem to have been cobbled together from that cynical experiment involving monkeys and typewriters, and the direction is leaden, uninspired, and often absent. There are worse SyFy movies out there – check out Camel Spiders (2011) if you don’t believe me – and the premise is so ripe for mickey-taking it’s actually unfair. And yet…

Despite everything, it’s a fun movie to watch. The attack sequences are laughable yet enjoyable at the same time. Even though they’re incredibly silly, there’s still an underlying primal threat there that comes from seeing anyone attacked by such creatures (skeletal or otherwise). The characters are a fraction above one-dimensional, and the acting (Womack’s spirited comedy turn aside) another fraction below competent. The locations are attractive – though the town itself is marvellously short of proper buildings or residents – and the scenery compensates for a lot of the other detractions. There’s a hissable university bureaucrat (Villiers), music that swells and falls in complete ignorance of what’s happening on screen, the climax is better than expected, and the movie shuffles along at an agreeable pace that doesn’t allow it to outstay its (negligible) welcome. It all adds up to a silly movie that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, and actually doesn’t set out to be.

Rating: 4/10, silly, stupid, brainless movie that should put a smile on your face even though it’s really, really, really bad; the title alone tells you all you need to know.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

Mini-Review: Thanks for Sharing (2012)

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Addiction, Drama, Gwyneth Paltrow, Josh Gad, Mark Ruffalo, Patrick Fugit, Pink, Relationships, Review, Sex addiction, Stuart Blumberg, Therapy, Tim Robbins

D: Stuart Blumberg / 112m

Cast: Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Josh Gad, Joely Richardson, Patrick Fugit, Alecia Moore, Carol Kane, Emily Meade

Initial expectations or perceptions would peg this as a romantic comedy, but in actuality this is a low-key drama with comic highlights (mostly provided by Gad). Focusing on Adam (Ruffalo), five years sober as a sex addict, his sponsor Mike (Robbins), and newbie Neil (Gad), Thanks for Sharing follows each addict as he tries to rebuild a particular area of his life: Adam begins a new relationship with Phoebe (Paltrow), Mike has to deal with the return of his ex-junkie son Danny (Fugit), and Neil has to want to be honest with himself and others.

The movie pitches its highs and lows effectively, even if there’s nothing particularly original on display here, and the different story lines are each given sufficient space to involve the audience and draw them in to each characters’ plight. Ultimately though, the movie lacks any appreciable depth, and what few dramatic moments there are have been done more persuasively elsewhere. That said, the script has some good one-liners and the cast does well with the material over all; Ruffalo and Paltrow have a definite chemistry together, and Moore (better known as the pop singer Pink) almost steals the movie. Blumberg’s direction is efficient without ever being spectacular, and the movie keeps the audience’s attention throughout thanks to the quality cast.

Rating: 6/10 – a pleasant enough way to spend a couple of hours but too lightweight to make more than a passing impression; a great cast let down by a script that needed more focus.

The King Is Dead! (2012)

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Australia, Bojana Novakovic, Comedy, Dan Wyllie, Gary Waddell, Neighbour from Hell, Review, Rolf de Heer, Slacker, Stoner

D: Rolf de Heer / 106m

Cast: Dan Wyllie, Bojana Novakovic, Gary Waddell, Luke Ford, Lani John Tupu, Roman Vaculik, Lily Adey, Michaela Cantwell, Anthony Hayes

When science teacher Max (Wyllie) and his accountant wife Therese (Novakovic) move into their new home, they are unprepared for the nightmare that is their neighbour, King (Waddell). An addled, often-stoned slacker with dubious friends and a habit of having loud late night/early morning parties, King is the kind of neighbour who would drive any normal sane person to the brink of desperation… and so it proves with Max and Therese.

At first they try and ignore the nightly disturbances and the antisocial behaviour, the screams and the shouts and the loud music, and what sounds like a woman being attacked. But when they begin to report these incidents to the police, and warn King that his behaviour is unacceptable, then things take a darker turn than even Max and Therese could have anticipated, and what begins as a distinct Aussie comedy of manners becomes something much darker and less comfortable to watch.

While the premise is familiar – what would you do when confronted with the neighbour from Hell? – what director de Heer (Ten Canoes, Bad Boy Bubby) does is take that basic premise and uses it to explore a variety of different, and often unexpected avenues. At one point, Max and Therese are burgled during the night, and while their suspicions naturally steer in King’s direction, there is no evidence to connect him to the robbery. But this, and a few more disturbances, sees them not only plotting their revenge, but finding themselves in a situation they are completely unable to deal with.

There is much to like about The King Is Dead! As the put-upon couple, Wyllie and Novakovic have a winning chemistry together, and while we as observers might find them a little too middle-class in their outlook and aspirations, this is a movie as much about class as it is about how to deal with an annoying neighbour. As the offending King, Waddell brings a much-needed pathos and underdog sincerity to the role, making the character less of a bad guy and more misunderstood. The dynamics between the trio are well-handled and all three are recognisable, sympathetic characters we can relate to.

As noted above, the movie starts off as a comedy of manners, and there is much that will remind viewers of Mike Leigh’s work, especially in the opening scenes; the music is also reminiscent of Leigh’s work. There is plenty of humour, and much of it is to be found in the way that Max and Therese attempt to deal with King and his friends’ behaviour without losing their understanding and sympathy for someone they view as less fortunate than themselves. Fortunately, they don’t descend into pomposity or self-pity. Rather, they attempt to take matters into their own hands, and this is when the tone of the movie begins to shift.

Deciding to rid themselves of the problem of King once and for all, Max and Therese devise a couple of plans that backfire on them before coming up with a “last resort” idea: framing King for another “robbery”. Here we enter, briefly, thriller territory, and then… well, then things take another, entirely different turn, and the tone becomes darker and more unsettling. This proves to be a step too far in terms of the narrative and doesn’t really work; it also leaves the movie’s ending feeling weak and slapdash. That said, it’s a brave move, but one that needed to be given more consideration.

De Heer is a confident director and impresses with his handling of both the characters and the fractured community they live in (keep an eye out for the old Sicilian man played by Giuseppe Lo Faro who thinks Max should “burn the lot of them”). The photography is low-key but effective and the music suits the changing moods throughout. If the movie struggles on occasion in maintaining the right tone then it’s because of the frequent changes in tack that the movie comes up with. Still, this is a well-crafted movie, with plenty to say.

Rating: 7/10 – another intriguing movie from Down Under, The King Is Dead! poses some interesting questions, and refuses to let its characters become, or behave as, stereotypes.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

Death of a Superhero (2011)

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aisling Loftus, Andy Serkis, Animated sequences, Cancer, Drama, Ian Fitzgibbon, Review, Suicide, The Glove, Therapy, Thomas Brodie-Sangster

D: Ian Fitzgibbon / 97m

Cast: Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Andy Serkis, Aisling Loftus, Michael McElhatton, Sharon Horgan, Ronan Raftery, Ben Harding, Killian Coyle, Jessica Schwarz

Donald (Brodie-Sangster) is fifteen and suffering from cancer. He’s also a talented artist and draws pictures of an unnamed superhero, but while this aspect of his life allows him to express his (mixed) feelings about his illness, it’s the opposite of how he deals with his parents (McElhatton, Horgan), his teachers, and the succession of psychiatrists they take him to see. Angry a lot of the time, Donald struggles to make sense of his feelings and tries hard to regain control of his life. He flirts with suicide, clashes with authority figures, and only begins to make sense of things when he meets new-girl-in-school Shelly (Loftus) and art therapist Adrian King (Serkis).

Death of a Superhero is a brave attempt to show us a teenage cancer protagonist who isn’t bravely coping with his illness, or making a supreme effort to live a “normal” life, or offering intuitive support to other sufferers his age. Instead, Donald is angry and afraid and resistant to the good intentions of his parents and the people around him. His artwork is appropriately dark and disturbing, and features a villain called The Glove who invades his dreams; and in one particularly effective scene, Donald’s body. As he begins to come to terms with his illness, Donald also learns to take part in his own life again.

As played by Brodie-Sangster, Donald is a drifting soul, unsure of how to react to the people closest to him, or how to deal with his emotions. Brodie-Sangster is entirely convincing, his demeanour perfectly expressing Donald’s feelings without any intrusive sentimentality. As his unconventional therapist, Serkis is solid if a trifle too laid back, while Loftus impresses as the object of his burgeoning affections. The rest of the cast offer equally solid support, and are ably marshalled by director Fitzgibbon. The script – adapted by Anthony McCarten from his novel of the same name – is strangely unmoving, but given the less than humorous subject matter this doesn’t detract from the overall effect. The characters are well-defined, and the drama is never allowed to descend into melodrama.

The animated sequences have a power all of their own but are used sparingly so as not to overwhelm the “human elements”, and they serve as indicators to Donald’s emotional moods. (The Glove is a great villain though; it would have been good to see more of him.) The film’s focus does change towards the end as Donald’s friends try to ensure he loses his virginity, and while this lifts the movie out of the bleak territory it inhabits mostly, it’s at odds with the movie’s overall tone (even if it is a welcome shift).

Rating: 7/10 – an unsparing look at teenage mortality and the efforts of one young man to make sense of what’s happening to him; ultimately life-affirming and affecting, Death of a Superhero succeeds where many other movies have tried something similar and failed.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

My Top 10 Movies – Part Nine

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Civil War, Buster Keaton, Clyde Bruckman, Comedy, Kevin Brownlow, Marion Mack, National Film Theatre, Review, Silent film, The General (1926)

The General (1926)

D: Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton / 75m

Cast: Buster Keaton, Marion Mack, Glen Cavender, Jim Farley, Frederick Vroom, Charles Henry Smith, Frank Barnes

A lot of my earliest movie memories are of watching silent comedians such as Charlie Chaplin, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, Harold Lloyd, and Laurel and Hardy. When I was growing up, their movies were a major part of the programming during the mornings on the UK’s BBC 2 channel, along with the Flash Gordon serials, Tarzan movies, and later, Charlie Chan features. Silent short films were often included in the schedules as filler, but for me they were more welcome than most of the feature length, talking pictures that were shown. The Tarzan movies starring Johnny Weissmuller seemed interchangeable after a while, and when Andy Hardy and Dr. Kildare entered the fray, their small-town dramatics quickly felt repetitive. No, it was Chaplin et al. who were my preferred choice, and I did my best to make sure I didn’t miss any that were shown (this was before the advent of video).

At first, it was the antics of Laurel and Hardy that I liked most. Then, I saw a short called The Haunted House (1921), followed (a few days later) by One Week (1920). Now I was asking myself, Who is this Buster Keaton? (And why don’t the BBC show more of his movies?) I kept checking the schedules for any more Keaton movies, eventually seeing only a half dozen or so more. It was frustrating, especially as I now knew he’d made feature length movies as well; where were they when a budding cineaste needed them?

Here my memory becomes a little less reliable. I know that College (1927) was the first of his features that I saw, but when The General came along, that moment is lost in the mists of early onset Alzheimers. But it was a pivotal moment, because like the true aficionado of silent film that I believed I was – I wasn’t Kevin Brownlow, but as a self-taught teenager, I didn’t think I was doing too badly – when I saw The General I knew I was watching Keaton’s masterpiece, the movie he will always be remembered for above all his other movies.

What I liked straight away was the level of detail, the lengths that Keaton and his co-director, the (for me) much underrated Clyde Bruckman had gone to in order to recreate the American Civil War, and to re-enact a famous event from that period. So often comedy exists in its own little “bubble”, a place where a joke or a gag can have the most effect. But here, Keaton uses the War as the grounding for all the jokes to come, all the visual gags and physical stunts, so that when you’re watching them they don’t seem as far-fetched as they would do if they were presented purely by themselves. For me, there will never be a greater physical stunt/gag than when he sits on the train’s cowcatcher and flips railroad ties out of the way of the approaching General; knowing this was done for real with no camera trickery involved just makes it all the more impressive (and frightening if it had gone wrong).

There’s a subtlety to The General, as well, a sense that Keaton was aiming higher by making the comic elements arise organically from the overall mise-en-scène, along with the romantic and action elements. Having taken an event from the War that a lot of people would either still remember or be well aware of, he takes what was, ultimately, a tragic tale, and elevates it. In the process he provides us with an uplifting, surprisingly emotional experience that makes us laugh and urge him on, and it’s all done with a seeming effortlessness that we know can’t have been the case. And I don’t think Keaton’s stoic features have ever been used to better effect than here. He’s often accused of being expressionless, but in The General you’re never in any doubt as to how he’s feeling, or what he’s thinking. Again, it’s the subtlety that makes this so fascinating to watch.

A few years ago, I took a friend to see The General at London’s National Film Theatre. It was having what they like to call an Extended Run, playing several times a day for around six weeks. My friend has a passion for movies but he’s very much a “modern day” moviegoer; he likes the sturm und drang of today’s multiplex fare. With this in mind I thought it would be a great idea to take him to see The General. He had some reservations, not least because it was a silent movie, but because it was so far out of his comfort zone (even the fact that it was “only” seventy-five minutes long didn’t entirely persuade him he would be fine). And while we waited for the movie to start he was visibly nervous (I wish I’d been able to video this). When the movie ended, he turned to me and said, “That was incredible. I can’t believe how incredible that was.” Vindicated, and feeling on top of the world for seeing the movie for the first time on the big screen, I couldn’t help but feel that here was the true strength of Keaton’s masterpiece: that it can captivate and envelop anyone who comes to it.

Rating: 9/10 – not just a comedy, The General works on so many levels it’s almost embarrassing; one of the finest silent movies ever made, and as breathtaking today for its perfection as it was back in 1926.

Mini-Review: Filth (2013)

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Black comedy, Drama, Drug addiction, Eddie Marsan, Homophobia, Irvine Welsh, James McAvoy, Jamie Bell, John Sessions, Jon S. Baird, Racism, Review, Sex addiction, Sexism

D: Jon S. Baird / 97m

Cast: James McAvoy, Jamie Bell, Eddie Marsan, Martin Compston, Imogen Poots, John Sessions, Shirley Henderson, Gary Lewis, Kate Dickie, Joanne Froggatt, Jim Broadbent, Emun Elliott

Freewheeling, offensive, scabrous adaptation of Irvine Welsh’s novel that pushes so many boundaries it’s hard to keep track of them all. No politically incorrect aspect is ignored: homophobia, sexism, racism, substance abuse – all indulged in to within an inch of the script’s life. McAvoy is Detective-Sergeant Bruce Robertson, angling for promotion to Detective-Inspector, but saddled with the small matter of the murder of a Japanese tourist to deal with first. Add to that the manoeuvrings of his fellow Detecive-Sergeants – Poots, Lewis, Bell and Elliott – as well as a subplot involving his wife (Shauna Macdonald), and the mystery of who is making obscene phone calls to fellow lodge member Bladesey’s wife (a panting Henderson), and Bruce has got his work cut out for him. It’s a shame then he has such a dependency for drugs, booze and illicit sex. As the pressure on him builds and he becomes ever more desperate to secure his promotion, Bruce’s world slowly but surely falls apart, and in the process, he starts to see things that aren’t there: from his younger brother Davey, killed in a childhood accident, to increasingly bizarre sequences involving his doctor (Broadbent).

This is a potent adaptation, with plenty of energy and ‘they-didn’t-did-they?” moments of humour. McAvoy continues to cement his reputation as one of our finest young actors (okay, so he is 34), while amongst the supporting cast, both Marsan (as Bladesey) and Sessions (as Robertson’s boss) shine in their respective roles (it’s particularly good to see Sessions back on the big screen, and in a comic role as well). Baird directs with confidence and integrates the fantasy sequences with aplomb; he also manages the cast effectively and with a firm eye for avoiding caricature. There are times when the movie isn’t for the faint-hearted (“Have you started yet, baby cock?”), but anyone with a fondness for the novel or a penchant for politically incorrect humour will have a ball, especially when it comes to the photocopier game. Much better than you might expect and driven by a powerhouse performance by McAvoy, Filth is a breath of often rancid air that is all the better for not pulling its punches.

Rating: 8/10 – with a title that is far from ironic, Filth lives up to its name but is often searingly funny; a descent into one man’s nightmare that isn’t afraid to look into the abyss and then tell it to f**k off.

Jaws of Justice (1933)

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Canine hero, Drama, Jack Perrin, Kazan the Wonder Dog, Lost gold, Murder, Review, Robert Walker, Ruth Sullivan, Spencer Gordon Bennet

D: Spencer Gordon Bennet / 58m

Cast: Kazan the Wonder Dog, Jack Perrin, Robert Walker, Ruth Sullivan, Gene Toler, Lafe McKee, Lightnin’ Teddy

While the animal hero genre has taken a bit of a satirical bashing in recent years – “What’s that, Champion/Skippy/Lassie? Little Timmy’s fallen down the well/mineshaft/stairs?” – this movie from a simpler, bygone era has a certain charm about it that makes it more enjoyable than you might expect (or believe).

The plot is straightforward enough: when old timer ‘Seeker’ Dean reveals he’s found the location of a “lost lode” that will make his fellow townspeople rich, his only proviso is that he won’t tell anyone where it is until he’s spoken to the Canadian government about it (it’s never made clear why he needs to do this). However, he does tell semi-adopted youngster ‘Kickabout’ (Toler) where the lode is and swears him to secrecy (‘Kickabout’ is mute so this isn’t difficult for him). Dean’s daughter, Judy (Sullivan) is being romanced by “writer” Boone Jackson (Walker); Jackson offers to drive Dean to his meeting with the government but on the way Dean discovers Jackson’s in the employ of some land-grabbers who want the lode for themselves. A fight ensues and Dean is killed. Questions follow. Will Dean’s body be discovered, or will he still be regarded as missing, even though a year passes? Will the location of the lode be revealed? Will Jackson marry Judy, even though she’s really attracted to Mountie Sergeant Kinkaid (Perrin, billed as Richard Terry)? Will ‘Kickabout’ ever stop trying to matchmake between Judy and Kinkaid? And will Kazan do much more than jump in and out of – and through – windows during the course of the movie?

For such a short running time, Jaws of Justice packs a lot in, and while some of it is painful filler – shots of Kazan waiting for the next instruction from his off-screen handler, Kinkaid smiling gormlessly at Judy in apparent adoration over and over again – the plot ticks over with surprising efficiency, albeit in a clumsy, melodramatic way. The fight between Dean and Jackson shows McKee to be a bit sprightly for his age, Perrin looks like he’s not been told this is a talkie, Sullivan sports one of the worst fringes this side of Lloyd from Dumb & Dumber (1994), and the two main interiors are the same set but with or without a huge fireplace. Nevertheless, it’s still a fun piece, not least because of the below-par acting, or the stilted dialogue, but because like pretty much all b-movies from the period, they were cheaply made and the casts and crews were simply doing their best with the material(s) at hand.

But what about Kazan the Wonder Dog? How does he fare in his first starring role (he made two more movies before retiring)? Well, he’s no Rin Tin Tin, but he does have a certain screen presence, and he is prepared to launch himself onto the back of poor old Walker on a couple of occasions, as well as being flung through the air into a wall (I’m not sure if that was done by a stunt double or a dummy; probably a dummy). There’s also the fantastic moment when he jumps through a window and the sound of breaking glass is added a second or so afterwards. He gets shot too, which allows him to show off his crawling-on-his-belly-then-rolling-over routine. It’s cute, and while it wouldn’t have won him an animal Oscar, the whimpering he does as well sells it convincingly.

Gentle mockery aside, Jaws of Justice is a passable way to spend an hour, and its stock characters and plot contrivances are predictable (and even banal), but it’s entertaining in the way that only this type of movie can be. Bennet’s direction is serviceable, the outdoor locations are picturesque, and to cap it all, there’s an exciting climax that shows Kazan has asbestos paws.

Rating: 5/10 – enter into the spirit of things and Jaws of Justice will only disappoint when it ends too soon; still, it’s one for aficionados of this sort of thing, and anyone who believes animals are smarter than humans.

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

15 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

AIDS, AZT, Craig Borten, Drama, FDA, HIV+, Jared Leto, Jean-Marc Vallée, Jennifer Garner, Matthew McConaughey, Review, Ron Woodroof, True story

D: Jean-Marc Vallée / 117m

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Jared Leto, Denis O’Hare, Steve Zahn, Michael O’Neill, Dallas Roberts, Griffin Dunne, Kevin Rankin

It’s 1985. Rock Hudson has recently died from a new, mostly unheard of disease called AIDS. Quickly attributed as a “homosexual” disease, and with all the accumulated prejudice that goes with it, what would you do if you were told you were HIV+, that it was too far advanced, and you had only thirty days to live? Live on in denial? Put together a bucket list and work your way through it? Admit yourself into hospital and let the doctors do their best? Or would you do something completely unexpected? Say, bribe a hospital employee to get you an experimental drug called AZT? And if you did, what would you do if that drug was cut off from you? Would you then travel to Mexico to get some more? And all in the last two days of your predicted remaining lifespan?

Well, if you were Ron Woodroof you’d do all that, and more. As played by Matthew McConaughey, Ron finds salvation (of sorts) in Mexico thanks to Dr Vass (Dunne). Vass treats Ron with a combination of ddC and the protein peptide T, and lets him know that AZT isn’t effective if a patient has other health issues e.g. drug addiction. With AZT being pushed by the US medical establishment, Ron decides to bring Vass’s drugs into the US – where they are unapproved but not illegal – and distribute them to fellow AIDS sufferers. Back in Texas, he sets up the Dallas Buyers Club; for a monthly membership fee of $400, anyone who is HIV+ can get the same drugs that are keeping Ron alive, and for free. However, it’s not long before the FDA begins to look into what Ron is up to, and tries to stop him from supplying the drugs, even though they are proven to be non-toxic and beneficial to both Ron and the people he provides them for.

Also during this time, Ron meets a transgender AIDS sufferer called Rayon (Leto). Ron is initially guarded around Rayon but in time comes to view her as a friend as well as a partner in the club (Rayon’s contacts help boost the club’s membership). With support from his former physician, Dr Saks (Garner), but antipathy from her boss, Dr Sevard (O’Hare), as well as FDA agent Barkley (O’Neill), Ron continues to find loophole after loophole to allow him to supply the drugs his members need. It’s only when the FDA gets the law changed so that unapproved drugs are also illegal, that Ron faces an uphill struggle to keep the Dallas Buyers Club going.

Dallas Buyers Club does what a lot of really good movies do: it starts off slow, is a little bit predictable, and makes you wonder if all the hype isn’t unfounded; it’s good but it’s not that good. The acting is good, the direction is more than proficient, the script is several notches above the usual level, and then… somehow, the movie just takes off like a rocket. In cinematic terms this is what happens once Ron wakes up in Mexico and finds himself still alive after thirty days. The movie not only moves up a gear, it maintains that level of excellence throughout the rest of its running time. Make no mistake, Dallas Buyers Club is one of those movies that grabs your attention and then doesn’t let go.

High praise, indeed, and all thanks to screenwriter Craig Borten, who interviewed Woodroof for the purpose of writing a screenplay, and who had access to Woodroof’s personal journals. As a result, the script is compelling, dramatic, humorous when necessary, sad, affecting, stirring, compassionate, aggressive, and at times, disturbing. Co-written with Melisa Wallack, Borten’s script keeps the focus tightly on Ron and his constant struggle to stay alive, and the transformation he undergoes from being an opportunist selling drugs to fellow sufferers, to the modest philanthropist he becomes when providing the drugs becomes more important than making a profit. It’s a gradual process, and because there’s no overnight road-to-Damascus epiphany involved, it makes it all the more credible.

Of course, none of the above would have been possible if not for the amazing performance given by McConaughey. McConaughey just keeps getting better and better at the moment, and Dallas Buyers Club proves – if you weren’t already convinced by his work in Killer Joe (2011), Mud and Magic Mike (both 2012) – that his range and skills as an actor are broader and more focused than most people would have expected. He dominates the screen, displaying a maturity and conviction that most actors wouldn’t even get within a thousand yards of. His performance is awe-inspiring. He doesn’t miss an emotional beat, never once takes a misstep in terms of how his character would behave or react, and is always believable. It’s an acting tour-de-force, one of those times you forget there’s an actor playing a role.

He’s matched for commitment and credibility by Leto, who turns in a career best performance. At first, he’s unrecognisable, such is the transformation he undergoes in the movie, but the commitment and the emotional vulnerability he brings to the role is staggering. For a movie to have one such performance in it is amazing enough; when there’s two, it’s astounding.

There is a downside, however. With McConaughey and Leto on such incredible form, it leaves their fellow cast members left way behind. It’s not their fault, as the script keeps Ron at its centre, and he is the focus of almost every scene. Against the pyrotechnics McConaughey brings to the role, actors such as Garner and O’Hare, and the underused Zahn, can’t help but seem a little less interesting or appear less worthy of our time. Garner’s character, in particular, seems only there to allow us to get to know Ron a little bit better, as if we don’t know him well enough already, or as if we need to see his casual, more relaxed, more charming side, instead of the determined, tenacious side we see throughout the rest of the movie.

But while the performances and the script are first-class, what about the direction? Well, Vallée does an impressive job here, his confidence in the material and his cast showing through in every scene. He has a wonderful sense of space as well; watch the scenes set in the motel rooms where the club is set up and see if the framing doesn’t allow for more to be going on than there should be. It’s a delicate touch, and keeps the movie continually interesting from a visual perspective. He also knows when to switch from one character to another in a scene – something some directors never get right – and when to place a reaction shot at just the right moment. Vallée’s intuitive style works well here, and it’s hard to imagine another director getting it as right as he does.

Rating: 9/10 – If I’d seen this at the cinema in 2013, it would have been in my Top 10 for the year, and probably in my Top 5; a thought-provoking, emotionally draining drama that amuses, inspires, and educates in equal measure, and which – thankfully – doesn’t feel the need to descend into crowd-pleasing.

Mini-Review: Parkland (2013)

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abraham Zapruder, Billy Bob Thornton, Dallas, Drama, Jacki Weaver, James Badge Dale, JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Parkland Hospital, Paul Giamatti, Peter Landesman, Review, True story, Zac Efron

D: Peter Landesman / 93m

Cast: James Badge Dale, Zac Efron, Paul Giamatti, Jackie Earle Haley, Colin Hanks, David Harbour, Marcia Gay Harden, Ron Livingston, Jeremy Strong, Billy Bob Thornton, Jacki Weaver, Tom Welling

Covering events in Dallas, Texas from 22-25 November 1963, Parkland takes a behind-the-scenes look at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the people who were involved both on the day and in the aftermath. From the opening showing Kennedy at Fort Worth before travelling to Dallas to the final scenes involving the burial of Lee Harvey Oswald (Strong), the movie paints an intimate portrait of the men and women who dealt with one of the most emotive events in American history, from the trainee doctors and nursing staff at Parkland hospital – where Kennedy and Oswald were both taken after they were shot – to the President’s Secret Service detail led by Forrest Sorrels (Thornton), to Oswald’s brother Robert (Dale) and mother Marguerite (a frightening Weaver), to the local FBI office who had Oswald there only a week before, and most effectively, to Abraham Zapruder (Giamatti), the man fated to film the death of a President.

All these stories coalesce to make Parkland an engrossing, gripping drama where some of the smaller details have the greatest effect: the sheer number of people who gather in the emergency room where Kennedy is worked on; Robert Oswald asking a member of the press to be a pallbearer; Zapruder asking a lab technician for three copies of the film, one for the Secret Service, one for the FBI, and one for himself; and Jackie Kennedy clutching something in her hand that proves to be a piece of her husband’s skull. First-time director Landesman juggles the various story lines with an ease that belies his lack of experience, and the cast raise their game accordingly; Giamatti in particular is a standout. A fine addition to that sub-genre of American history movies, the JFK era, Parkland impresses with its level of detail and its clearcut approach to what is still a very contentious event.

Rating: 8/10 – studious and compelling in equal measure, Landesman’s debut draws you in and never lets go.

Mini-Review: Monsters Wanted (2013)

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Asylum Haunted Scream Park, Brian Cunningham, Chainsaw Pete, Documentary, Haunted House attraction, Joe Laughrey, Louisville, Monsters, Review, Scares, Shawna the Dead

D: Brian Cunningham, Joe Laughrey / 89m

With: Richard Teachout, Janel Nash, Kenneth Schell, Dusty June

Engaging documentary about a scare theme park in Louisville, Kentucky that is put together every September/October and runs for a week at the end of October. Headed up by Teachout, Nash and Schell, the park in 2011 when this was filmed, is trying to add two new scare experiences to the two they have established already. Doubling the size of the park proves to be a logistical nightmare, from organising auditions for potential staff who’ll dress as zombies or other creatures, to building the new attractions – often by themselves which is sometimes the scariest thing of all – to dealing with bust ups between the crew, and all with the realisation that they’ve overspent on their budget.

What Monsters Wanted does really well is show the determination to get the show(s) up and running, and the hard work the “management” team themselves put in: even on opening night they’re all still rushing about setting things up and/or dealing with problems. And yet there’s a wonderful sense of brotherhood that infuses the movie. Everyone, whether tired or frustrated or facing the following year with little or no money, pulls together and shows clearly how much fun they’re having, from Chainsaw Pete (who always manages to inflict at least one minor injury on a co-worker with his chainsaw each year) to Shawna the Dead (who bangs nails into his nasal cavities), to the head trio. The love involved in the project is infectious. The attractions aren’t shown in that much detail, which is a shame as it would have been nice to have seen if all the trouble and effort had really been worth it, but it’s the only mis-step in an otherwise enjoyable movie.

Rating: 7/10 – giving a niche attraction an effective spotlight, Monsters Wanted has charm to spare, and is completely involving; a minor gem.

Ender’s Game (2013)

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Abigail Breslin, Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Colonel Graff, Drama, Ender, Formics, Gavin Hood, Harrison Ford, International Force, Orson Scott Card, Review, Sci-fi

D: Gavin Hood / 114m

Cast: Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld, Viola Davis, Ben Kingsley, Abigail Breslin, Nonso Anozie

Adapted from Orson Scott Card’s novel of the same name, Ender’s Game places us at a time in the future when Earth has been attacked by an alien race called the Formics. Having repelled them but with the threat of their return looming, an International Force has been formed to address the issue and prepare for the Formics return. Believing that children with the best tactical minds will provide the best possible offence agains the Formics, a Battle School has been set up in orbit around Earth. Taking part is Andrew “Ender” Wiggin (Butterfield). Watched over by Colonel Graff (Ford), Ender shows promise but is weighed down by feelings of guilt and self-doubt brought on by being a “third”; his older brother and sister have both attended the training programme but failed to make the grade. But Graff fast-tracks his progress, seeing in Ender’s tough, unwavering approach to dealing with combat situations the key to defeating the Formics.

At Command School, on the edge of the Formic territory, Ender confirms Graff’s opinion of his abilities and under the tutelage of war hero Mazer Rackham (Kingsley). Ender takes part in several simulated attacks but doesn’t always come out on top. With one last simulation left in which to prove himself, Ender has to use all his skills to defeat Rackham’s programme.

With Card’s novel having gained so much prestige over the years, and with Card himself regarding it as unfilmable for so long, his involvement in this production is baffling. Under Hood’s guidance, Ender’s Game is something of a disappointment, dragged down as it is by flaccid pacing and a script that lacks tension throughout. The opening sequence, with its Formic attack looking too much like an outtake from Independence Day (1996), lacks the level of excitement required to make the Formic threat a viable one for the audience. It’s a short sequence and they’re defeated almost straight away, so where’s the threat that everyone’s so worried about?

The rest of the movie never really resolves this issue, or makes the Formics anything other than a glorified boogeyman, and while this later proves to be the point, the fact that there’s so little actual “threat” undermines the movie and takes away a lot of the intended drama. As it is, we’re left with war simulations set in zero gravity, Graff insisting Ender is the “one” at every turn, a video game (with some worryingly Nineties graphics) that may or may not be reflecting Ender’s inner emotional turmoil, and an increasing sense that the movie is more padding than substance. It all looks good, and the zero gravity sequences are well-staged but as there’s no doubt that Ender will triumph each time, even those sequences fail to excite as much as they should.

Hood’s adaptation ultimately undermines the cast and gives them little to do except spout clumsy lines of dialogue, or struggle to find an emotional through-line. Ford, in particular, is saddled with a character so badly written he’s a hair’s-breadth away from being one-dimensional. Secondary characters such as Viola Davis’s Major Anderson and Ender’s sister, Valentine (Breslin) fare even less well, given only limited screen time and even less opportunity to make an impression or a valuable contribution to the plot. But it’s Ender himself who comes off worst, portrayed by Butterfield as a martinet in short pants, a little Napoleon who has no empathy for anyone but Valentine, and whose attempts at concern for others comes off as stilted and unconvincing. Faced with a leading character that the audience has trouble identifying with, Ender’s Game fails to engage on an emotional level, and the movie is reduced to a series of video game-style simulations and war games that are muddled in execution and less than thrilling.

Given that Card’s novel came under fire for its violence, and this adaptation strays away from any graphic depictions, there’s still the underlying theme of genocide propping up the plot. Poorly handled at the movie’s conclusion, this theme would have added more depth to proceedings if it had been brought more to the fore, and much earlier on. Instead, we have a movie that is more family-oriented and possessed of much less bite.

Rating: 4/10 – not a complete disaster but close enough as to make very little difference; adaptations of sci-fi classics rarely turn out well and Ender’s Game does nothing to disprove the theory.

My Top 10 Movies – Part Eight

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Algeria, Algerian War of Independence, Criterion collection, Decolonialization, Drama, France, Gillo Pontecorvo, History, Jean Martin, Review, The Battle of Algiers, True story

The Battle of Algiers (1966)

Original title: La battaglia di Algeri

D: Gillo Pontecorvo / 121m

Cast: Brahim Hadjadj, Jean Martin, Yacef Saadi, Samia Kerbash, Ugo Paletti, Fusia El Kader

In the late Nineties, I became aware of the Criterion Collection. If, like me, you have a broad liking for cinema, then the movies in the Criterion Collection will capture your interest from the moment you first set eyes on them. I can’t remember now which Criterion DVD was my first purchase, but there were several I had my eye on, including Seven Samurai (1954) and The Seventh Seal (1957). I built up my collection, and then in 2004 I was browsing through their listings and I saw the title The Battle of Algiers. Knowing nothing about it, I did some research and found it was about the Algerian War of Independence which took place between 1954 and 1957. It was a period of recent history I knew nothing about, but as I discovered just how highly regarded it was, the movie jumped to the top of my “must-have” list.

However, despite my initial enthusiasm, it was a while before I actually bought the movie’s Criterion edition, and even longer before I finally sat down to watch it. It didn’t take long before I was berating myself for being so tardy; the movie was astonishing. It was like watching a documentary, its shooting style almost like the audience was eavesdropping on events as they happened; it was mesmerising. And it was incredibly instructive and informative. By the movie’s end I had a much clearer understanding of the Algerian struggle for independence, and France’s response to it. It was shocking in many ways, and deliberately so. The movie left no room for doubt: both sides had been capable of carrying out atrocities in their efforts to achieve their ends. It was this fairness in presenting events that caught my attention as well, Pontecorvo’s decision to not take sides but to pass judgment when necessary on both the Algerians and the French.

Afterwards, like the really best movies (and all the rest in my Top 10), the movie stayed with me. I also watched all the supplemental material on the Criterion DVD, something I rarely did back then, or do even now. And the more I thought about it, the more I found myself wanting to watch the movie a second time. And so, a couple of weeks later, I did, and even though I’d seen The Battle of Algiers so recently, it was like watching it for the first time. The amateur cast (albeit largely dubbed) were amazing to watch, their personal experiences infusing their performances, and offering a trenchant contrast with Martin’s professional interpretation of the composite character Colonel Mathieu. The soundtrack made more of an impression also, with Pontecorvo’s decision to include the sounds of warfare as punctuation in certain scenes proving a master-stroke.

Watching the movie again reinforced my belief that cinema can both educate and inspire as well as entertain. Even though The Battle of Algiers is not an easy watch, and there are scenes that push the level of barbarity both sides employed, it works best as a document of those tumultuous times and the efforts each side made to win the conflict. The documentary-style approach serves as a framework for the political and personal stories the movie focuses on, and provides a structured point of access for the casual viewer. There’s so much information provided that some of it will most likely be missed but Pontecorvo’s mastery of the material ensures that every action, reaction or decision is clearly explained along with its consequences.

It’s a bold, complicated movie that, for its time, pulls no punches and offers, by turns, a committed yet dispassionate view of terrible events. It’s no surprise the movie came under fire when it was released, but it’s a measure of its power that various bans have failed to dilute its effect over the years.

For me, it makes my Top 10 by virtue of its unflinching approach and the way it draws the viewer into a world that most of us can’t imagine. After watching it for a second time, the movie stayed with me for an even longer time, and although I’ve only seen it a third time since then, the impression it made on me has lasted for twenty years, and that’s definitely an achievement worth noting.

Rating: 9/10 – superb recreation of a terrible period in Algerian and French history that doesn’t pull any punches or treat events shown with anything less than intelligence; a masterpiece of filmmaking that remains effective and relevant even today.

Marvel One-Shots (2011-2014)

09 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer, Agent Carter, Agent Coulson, Agent Sitwell, All Hail the King, Ben Kingsley, Chitauri weaponry, Clark Gregg, Dominic Cooper, Drew Pearce, Eric Pearson, Hayley Atwell, Item 47, Jesse Bradford, Justin Hammer, Lizzy Caplan, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Maximiliano Hernández, Reviews, Roxxon, Sam Rockwell, Short films, The Consultant, The Mandarin, Tony Stark, Trevor Slattery, Zodiac

Created as a way of expanding the Marvel Cinematic Universe, these short films feature minor and/or new characters from said universe, and have been made with the aim of showing what can, and does, go on outside of Marvel’s feature films. It’s a clever, fun idea that allows fans of the movies a further glimpse of (mostly) established characters but in set ups that wouldn’t have fit in with the movies but provide a riff on them at the same time. To date there are five such short films, with Marvel planning more in the future.

The Consultant (2011)

D: Leythum / 4m

Cast: Clark Gregg, Maximiliano Hernández, Robert Downey Jr, William Hurt

Set mostly in a diner, Agents Coulson (Gregg) and Sitwell (Hernández) discuss the World Security Council’s plan to have Emil Blonsky aka The Abomination released to join the Avengers initiative. With both agents aware that Nick Fury has no wish for this to happen, they try to come up with a plan to sabotage Blonsky’s release. To do this Sitwell decides the best course of action would be to send the one man that General Ross (Hurt) would be so annoyed by that the whole idea would be stalled before it got started, namely Tony Stark (Downey Jr). Agent Coulson is reluctant but agrees. We then see the footage from the end of The Incredible Hulk where Stark meets Ross. Sitwell and Coulson meet again at the diner and we discover their plan has worked and Blonsky will remain in prison.

The Consultant is a neat, concise addendum to both Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk and shows how S.H.I.E.L.D. orchestrates things from behind the scenes. With pleasing performances from Gregg and Hernández allied to witty, informative dialogue, the movie establishes a lot in a short space of time, and thanks to Eric Pearson’s tightly constructed script, makes a virtue of its brevity. Strangely, the inclusion of footage from the end of The Incredible Hulk actually undermines the cleverness of the movie’s structure (and besides which, we’ve seen it before).

Rating: 8/10 – a well-crafted, concise addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe that works on various levels and all to good effect; a great introduction to a series of movies that complement Marvel’s main features.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer (2011)

D: Leythum / 4m

Cast: Clark Gregg, Jessica Manuel, Jeff Prewett, Zach Hudson

Set before the events seen in Thor, this sees Agent Coulson travelling to Albuquerque, New Mexico. When he stops at a gas station, he finds himself caught up in a robbery attempt. Disabling the robbers with ease – and a couple of Matrix-inspired moves – he leaves and carries on with his journey, leaving the sales clerk (Manuel) still astonished at what’s just happened.

With Agent Coulson appearing a little nerdy in the previous movies, it’s fun to see him kick some butt, and with more than a little style. Gregg is obviously having fun too, and his dialogue is delivered in a dry, deadpan style that adds to the enjoyment. Of the five short films so far released, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer has the least relevance to any of the movies, and does come across as a bit of a throwaway piece. But it is entertaining, and again, Eric Pearson’s script is a model of economic storytelling.

Rating: 7/10 – enjoyable on a superficial level and providing Agent Coulson with the chance to show off his moves, A Funny Thing… hits the spot with the accuracy of a bag of flour; and true fans will have spotted that the gas station is owned by Roxxon, a name that may have some relevance in the future.

Item 47 (2012)

D: Louis D’Esposito / 12m

Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Jesse Bradford, Maximiliano Hernández, Titus Welliver

Occurring in the wake of the battle of New York, Item 47 introduces us to Bennie and Claire, who have not only found one of the forty-seven Chitauri weapons that fell out of the sky during the battle, but have also got it to work. Looking to make their life more comfortable, they use the weapon to rob banks. Naturally, the use of alien technology in these circumstances comes to the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents Sitwell and Blake (Welliver) are assigned to the case. Leaving Blake to his computer programmes, Sitwell reveals he has a lead on the couple and is about to apprehend them. When he tries to do so, the motel room they’re staying in is destroyed along with all the stolen money. Realising that Bennie having worked out to use the Chitauri weapon could be an asset to S.H.I.E.L.D. Sitwell recruits him, and Claire, who becomes Blake’s assistant. (There’s an advance nod here to Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV series, with Bennie and Claire close matches for the show’s Leo and Skye.)

With its longer running time, and introduction of three new characters, Item 47 shows Marvel gaining confidence in its One-Shot “division”, and feeling comfortable about broadening the scope of its remit. With multiple locations and more acknowledgments to Avengers Assemble crammed in than seems feasible, the movie still manages to keep it simple throughout and again, thanks to a cleverly constructed script by Eric Pearson (give this man a feature-length movie!), is entertaining and grabs the attention from the start. Caplan and Bradford make a great team, Hernández stakes his claim to a larger role in a feature, and the humour is as well-played as in the previous shorts. The only stumble is a clumsy reference to Agent Coulson’s demise, but it’s a momentary lapse and more awkward than out of place.

Rating: 8/10 – a winning mix of sci-fi and S.H.I.E.L.D.-related humour, Item 47 proves a quantum leap from its predecessors; bright, funny, with great special effects, this shows Marvel increasing in confidence and showing everyone else in the superhero field how it should be done.

Agent Carter (2013)

D: Louis D’Esposito / 15m

Cast: Hayley Atwell, Bradley Whitford, Dominic Cooper, Tim Trobec, Neal McDonough, Shane Black (voice only), Chris Evans

A year after the events shown in Captain America: The First Avenger, we find Peggy Carter (Atwell) working for the Strategic Scientific Reserve, a task force dedicated to dealing with similar threats to those encountered during World War II which led to Steve Rogers’ (apparent) demise. Stuck compiling data while her male colleagues are routinely given field duties – but not always succeeding in them – Peggy finds herself alone in the office one night when the case line rings. The mysterious Zodiac has been located but time is of the essence. Ignoring the recommendation that five or six operatives are required, Peggy heads off to retrieve Zodiac and show her misogynist boss, Flynn (Whitford), that she’s just as good, if not better, than the rest of the agents. She completes the mission, and when Flynn challenges her the next day, he’s forced to eat his words: the case line rings and Flynn has to relay a message from Howard Stark (Cooper) that Peggy is to come to Washington and help him run S.H.I.E.L.D.

Easily the best of the One-Shots, Agent Carter bristles with invention, wit, style, a great performance from Atwell, and yet another razor-sharp script courtesy of Eric Pearson (seriously, the man can do no wrong). With an attention to period detail that grounds the action without drawing attention to it, and a fluid camera style courtesy of DP Gabriel Beristain, Agent Carter looks and feels like it could be part of a feature-length outing. There’s been lots of talk about an Agent Carter TV series, but on this evidence a movie would be a much better idea (and allow a look at the origins of S.H.I.E.L.D.). With cameos from Howard Stark and Dum Dum Dugan to keep the fans even happier, Agent Carter is a joy to watch from start to finish.

Rating: 9/10 – a perfect example of Marvel’s ability to pick the right cast, and put them in a storyline that rewards its audience no matter how many times it’s viewed; superb on every level and perhaps the best Marvel movie so far… of any length.

All Hail the King (2014)

D: Drew Pearce / 14m

Cast: Ben Kingsley, Scoot McNairy, Lester Speight, Sam Rockwell, Matt Gerald, Allen Maldonado

Doing time in Seagate Prison, and happily affected by the perils of being a national celebrity, actor and one-time Mandarin impersonator Trevor Slattery (Kingsley) is being interviewed by documentary filmmaker Jackson Norris (McNairy). With help from his “butler” Herman (Speight), Slattery has managed to maintain his notoriety while in prison and many of the inmates regard him as a star; they even ask him to quote lines from the videos he made as the Mandarin (“You’ll never see me coming”). With the interview proving a hit and miss affair – Slattery is evasive and rambling and self-serving in almost equal measure – things begin to take a worrying turn when Norris starts talking about the Ten Rings terrorist group, and its links to the real Mandarin. Oblivious to the implication of what Norris is telling him, Slattery remains unaware of the danger he’s in even when Norris kills the guards with them and tells Slattery he’s going to meet the Mandarin in person.

And that’s where All Hail the King ends. It’s a little unsatisfactory, and while Kingsley returns to the role of Slattery with the same mischievous glint in his eye that he had in Iron Man 3, the structure of this particular One-Shot is not as effective as Item 47 or Agent Carter. The problem lies mainly with the content of the interview, which like its interviewee, rambles all over the place for around five minutes before abandoning its own agenda in favour of the unexpected twist that Norris is there to abduct Slattery so he can face the music elsewhere. With a script by director Pearce (who also co-wrote Iron Man 3) that isn’t as cohesive or sharp as those by Eric Pearson, All Hail the King isn’t as successful as its predecessors, and struggles to keep its focus. The expected humour is there, and there is a terrific cameo from Rockwell as Justin Hammer, bemoaning Slattery’s celebrity status (and in the movie’s best moment, likening him to the offspring of… well, I won’t spoil it, but it’s the best joke in the whole movie – hell, in all the One-Shots), but these two positives shine out while the rest of the short is more mundane. (And for the eagle-eyed out there, yes that is Captain America’s shield tattooed on the back of Slattery’s neck, and yes Seagate Prison is where Marvel’s Luke Cage was created.)

Rating: 7/10 – a misstep rescued by Kingsley’s performance and Rockwell in pouting mode; not as clever or as well thought out as the other One-Shots but, thankfully, not entirely a dud either.

Romulus and the Sabines (1961)

09 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Early Rome, Georgia Moll, History, Il ratto delle sabine, Italian film, Mylène Demongeot, Peplum movie, Review, Roger Moore, Romulus, Sabine women, Scilla Gabel

Original title: Il ratto delle sabine

aka The Rape of the Sabines

D: Richard Pottier / 98m

Cast: Roger Moore, Mylène Demongeot, Folco Lulli, Georgia Moll, Scilla Gabel, Luisa Mattioli, Marino Masé, Claude Conty, Nietta Zocchi, Francis Blanche, Walter Barnes, Rosanna Schiaffino, Jean Marais

Following on from the same year’s Romolo e Remo, Romulus and the Sabines is a roughly faithful retelling of the rape of the Sabine women, when the men of Rome, under their king Romulus (Moore), kidnapped the women of neighbouring Sabine in order that they could have wives and so ensure Rome’s future growth and prosperity. (The term “rape” should really read “abduction” as that is the literal translation of the original Latin.)

As the movie begins the men of Rome are bewailing their lack of women. Looking at the motley band of extras the Italian filmmakers have come up with for the movie, you’d be forgiven for thinking, pity the poor women who have to deal with that lot. After a few examples of King David-like problem solving, Romulus is informed that intruders to Rome have landed nearby. During the skirmish that follows, a woman, Dusia (Gabel) is discovered. She makes her escape, only to be found by Romulus later on. Within moments they have fallen in love and Romulus is helping her hide in a cave. Romulus sends ambassadors to the Sabine king Titus (Lulli) asking for the Sabine women to be given over to Rome. Titus refuses, leading Romulus to plot their abduction at a festival held by the Sabines. Distracted by wine provided by the Romans, the Sabines have little chance to stop the abduction of their women, including Titus’s daughter Rea (Demongeot).

Romulus, upon seeing Rea, promptly forgets all about Dusia, and falls head over heels in love (again). The Sabine women are given their pick of the Roman men, and the future of Rome is secured. While all this is going on however, Dusia, who has found a secret entrance into Rome and seen Romulus making googly-eyes at Rea, frees Rea and then helps the Sabines to enter Rome and mount an attack.

There are anomalies here, of course. The character of Dusia never existed (she’s a stand-in for Tarpeia, the daughter of the governor of the citadel on the Capitoline hill). When the Sabines attacked Rome it was after two other tribes had already failed in the same endeavour. And it was the new brides of Rome who stopped the battle by coming between the opposing sides and reconciling them (here the battle is stopped in a different way but the outcome is the same). If you know your early Roman history, then I’m sure there are even more things that are anachronistic or just plain wrong, but as the movie is intended primarily as entertainment rather than as a faithful recreation of events, the filmmakers can probably be excused their remissions and embellishments.

What is harder to forgive is the sight of Moore with one of the silliest hairstyles seen in any peplum movie. Amazingly, Moore was thirty-four when he made Romulus and the Sabines, but he looks ten years younger and has the curly hair of a teenager just learning to use a comb. Whenever he’s on screen – and that’s approximately sixty per cent of the time – it’s all you can focus on. Even Gabel’s heaving bosom doesn’t attract the eye as much… well, okay, maybe it does. There are early examples of the raised eyebrow school of acting, as well as completely unconvincing attempts to act tough or angry. It’s actually difficult to properly gauge Moore’s performance as he alternates between entering into the spirit of things, and looking as uncomfortable in a short skirt as only a grown man can. (This was Moore’s first Italian movie, and he would make only one more, Un branco di vigliacchi (aka No Man’s Land), the following year.

As for the rest of the cast, Demongeot pouts a lot and provides a one-note performance, while Gabel smoulders as much as is humanly possible without spontaneously combusting. Comic relief is provided by the near-sighted Blanche, and gravitas comes courtesy of Lulli. Pottier’s direction is merely average (this was his only peplum movie), and the photography meets the standards required for this type of movie with this type of budget. The art direction depicts a Rome that is both rich and pastoral – often in the same shot – and the outdoor sequences are filmed with an eye for the beauty of the surrounding countryside. All in all, Romulus and the Sabines is no better and no worse than all the other historical epics being made at the time in Italy. It has its humorous moments, mostly unintentional, but it does a fair job of telling its (mostly) true story.

Rating: 5/10 – despite Moore’s uneasiness in the title role, Romulus and the Sabines isn’t as daft as it might have been; perfect for passing the time on a rainy afternoon when there’s nothing else on.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

Grudge Match (2013)

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alan Arkin, Billy 'The Kid' McDonnen, Boxing, Comedy, Drama, Henry 'Razor' Sharp, Jon Bernthal, Kevin Hart, Kim Basinger, Peter Segal, Raging Bull, Rematch, Review, Rivalry, Robert De Niro, Rocky, Sylvester Stallone

D: Peter Segal / 113m

Cast: Robert De Niro, Sylvester Stallone, Alan Arkin, Kim Basinger, Kevin Hart, Jon Bernthal, Camden Grey, LL Cool J

Thirty years after they fought against each other, ageing boxers Henry “Razor” Sharp (Stallone) and Billy “The Kid” McDonnen (De Niro) are tempted back into the ring for one last bout to decide, once and for all, which of them is the better fighter. When they first fought, Billy won easily. In the rematch, it was Henry who won. A third, deciding fight was planned but Henry refused to fight and retired from the ring. Billy has always wanted a third fight to happen, and when the son of their old promoter, Dante Slate Jr (Hart) offers both men a chance to get back in the ring and settle the issue, it all hinges on getting Henry to say yes. Initially reluctant, but eventually persuaded by the size of the payout – which he needs to pay the nursing home bill of his former trainer Louis (Arkin) – Henry also has to contend with the reappearance of Sally (Basinger), an old flame of his who slept with Billy and as a result, had his child (and awkwardly called him BJ). With Sally attempting to win Henry back, and BJ (Bernthal) becoming a part of Billy’s life, both fighters have to deal with long buried personal as well as professional issues before they can step back into the ring.

As a piece of high concept matchmaking, the idea of bringing together Stallone and De Niro under the veiled banner of “Rocky vs Raging Bull” was probably too hard to resist (though why it’s taken so long for someone to come up with the idea is a little surprising). You can almost imagine the delight on the faces of the studio executives at Warner Bros when the pitch was made to them. You can also imagine that the script was the last thing they would have worried about. And while the whole idea has a whiff of Cocoon-style wish fulfilment about it, the basic plot is augmented with enough emotional and comedic incident to make Grudge Match watchable if not exactly unpredictable. The storyline involving Billy’s burgeoning relationship with BJ (it obviously stands for Butterscotch Jellies), is almost straight out of Screenwriting 101, but there’s enough there to make it affecting in a gentle, enjoyable fashion. Likewise the reawakening of Henry and Sally’s feelings for each other; again, nothing original and with the usual stumbling blocks along the way to true happiness, but done with enough feeling and conviction to keep the audience invested in the outcome.

With its ageing cast required to poke gentle fun at greater glories – Stallone wanting to punch a slab of beef during a training session and being soundly told off for it, De Niro getting heckled at a speaking engagement – Grudge Match never really aims to be as dramatic as the set up might imply. Its notions of family ties and relationships aside, the boxing side of things is played mostly for laughs, particularly when both men agree to provide motion capture for a video game, or when pressed to make a public appearance together. It’s only when the fight finally happens that the comedy is dropped altogether and the two men – both in remarkably good shape – batter each other over twelve rounds. The rivalry, such a big part of the script and the plot, is allowed a proper resolution here, and it’s good to see a way in which both men can be seen to be winners.

This awkward mix of comedy and drama, both lightweight yet curiously satisfying, is saved by the sterling work of its cast. Both Stallone and De Niro are fun to watch, and while neither is stretched (in or out of the ring), they acquit themselves well. As the lost love who wants a second chance, Basinger fares well with an under-developed role, but it’s always good to see her, whatever she’s in. Left with the bulk of the dramatic content, Bernthal is still a fresh enough screen presence that you’re never entirely sure what he’s going to do next, and this helps immensely in his scenes with De Niro. The comedy then is left to Hart and Arkin, Hart edging it with a manic, ADHD-style performance that appears largely improvised and is often very funny, while Arkin replays his crotchety OAP from Little Miss Sunshine (2006) and almost steals the movie.

On the production side, the movie is well-mounted without being spectacular or too visually arresting, and the location work is suitably low-key and reflective of the two fighters’ backgrounds and current circumstances. The movie flows thanks to Segal’s capable direction and William Kerr’s measured editing, and while the photography by Dean Semler is mostly subdued by the wintry colour scheme, it’s still sharp and carefully framed throughout, with good compositions and blocking. Trevor Rabin’s score supports the action almost casually, and there’s fun to be had looking for background references to both Rocky and Raging Bull.

In the end, Grudge Match fails to live up to its potential by choosing to tread some very worn paths, and by failing to decide whether it should be a comedy with dramatic elements, or a drama with comedic moments. The script by Tim Kelleher and Rodney Rothman could have been tightened a little, but it remains what it is: effective in a predictable, sometimes banal way, but falling short of making a solid impression. A shame, then, as the basic premise is a good one.

Rating: 7/10 – not as bad as it could have been but equally not as good as it should have been, Grudge Match won’t win any awards (probably) but it’s a pleasant enough way to spend a couple of hours; a movie that, sadly, in boxing terms is “punching above its weight”.

Devil’s Due (2014)

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Allison Miller, Antichrist, Devil worshippers, Found footage, Horror, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Review, Rosemary's Baby, Tyler Gillett, Zach Gilford

D: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett / 89m

Cast: Allison Miller, Zach Gilford, Sam Anderson, Roger Payano, Vanessa Ray

Newlyweds Sam (Miller) and Zach (Gilford) have their honeymoon in Santo Domingo. On their last night, having got lost wandering around the town where they’re staying, they accept a lift from a cab driver (Payano) who persuades the couple to go with him to a club. Once there, Sam is led down to a cellar; when Zach follows he is knocked unconscious. The next day they return home but without any recollection of what happened in the cellar. Soon after, Sam finds out she’s pregnant. Both are delighted, but what begins as a happy circumstance soon turns sour as problems with the pregnancy make themselves manifest. Sam displays behavioural changes that are worrying, and the couple find their house being watched by strangers in the street. As the pregnancy nears its end, Zach discovers a plot involving the baby that points toward the involvement of devil worshippers and a horrible revelation.

It’s amazing to think now that The Blair Witch Project was released as long ago as 1999. Back then, the idea of a movie made from “found” video footage was inventive and, in the hands of directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, genuinely unsettling. Fifteen years on, and with what seems like a million “found” footage movies having been released in the interim, it comes as no surprise to find that Devil’s Due takes this format and fails to do anything remotely interesting with it. While the idea of someone filming key moments in their life is entirely understandable and credible, filming almost every moment, or taking the camera with them when weird/strange/crazy things happen, clearly isn’t. And yet filmmakers continue to foist unappealing characters making unconvincing decisions on us on what seems like a weekly basis.

So weak is the concept – husband recording his wife’s pregnancy for posterity – and so limited, the filmmakers have to introduce hidden cameras into Sam and Zach’s house in order to provide the movie with enough footage. It’s a given that these movies are contrived, but as this is quite clearly a rip-off of Rosemary’s Baby (1968), you have to wonder why the filmmakers didn’t take a cue from that movie’s subtlety, and dial back on the rampant absurdity. It’s also a shame that Sam and Zach are two of the most annoying, and incredibly dull, characters to be found in any “found” footage movie (though if you’re a fan of the genre, don’t worry, Micah Sloat from the first Paranormal Activity still wears the crown for that one). Even before things turn weird they don’t behave normally, so it’s hard to tell if they’re reacting correctly or that they don’t have any real appreciation for, or understanding of, what’s going on. With Zach being particularly vapid it becomes difficult to tell if Gilford is playing the role as written and with guidance from his directors, or that’s just his style of acting.

There are the usual risible moments throughout: Zach only looks at the footage from the honeymoon several months later (and when it’s too late) to discover something of what happened in the club; Sam’s encounter with some teens in the nearby woods with its Chronicle-style special effects; Sam’s scaring a child half to death and there being no fallout or consequences from that; the local priest (Anderson) serving as a warning of what will happen to Zach if he interferes too much; and pretty much any occasion where the camera is set down in exactly the right place to provide a totally non-scary moment. The hidden camera set ups provide their own sense of absurdity too, and by the movie’s climax their positioning has been forgotten about in order to provide a couple of effective shots that wouldn’t have worked otherwise (cameras in the skirting boards? really, guys? because that’s what it looks like).

With an annoying coda that could mean sequels to come, Devil’s Due is proof if any were needed that the “found” footage sub-genre of horror movies is well and truly played out. If there is to be any way forward for this style of filmmaking then it will need something really imaginative to turn things around. With the Paranormal Activity series having run out of steam by its third outing (but still going “strong”), all Devil’s Due does is make the viewer wish for some real creativity and some real thought to be present in current horror fare, as well as credible characters and most of all, some really good scares. Because there’s nothing like that here.

Rating: 4/10 – a dreadful mishmash of ideas and tangled plotting, directors Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett prove unable to make Devil’s Due anything other than derivative and uninspired; if you’re a fan of Rosemary’s Baby then this is one movie that you’d be best avoiding.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chris Pine, CIA analyst, Drama, Jack Ryan, Keira Knightley, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Costner, Moscow, Review, Spy thriller, Terrorist attack, Tom Clancy

D: Kenneth Branagh / 105m

Cast: Chris Pine, Kevin Costner, Keira Knightley, Kenneth Branagh, Lenn Kudrjawizki, Alec Utgoff, Peter Andersson, Elena Velikanova, Nonso Anozie, Seth Ayott, Colm Feore, Gemma Chan

With franchise reboots seemingly the order of the day in Hollywood at the moment, we shouldn’t be too surprised to find Tom Clancy’s CIA analyst dusted down and given a new lease of life courtesy of parent company Paramount. Twelve years on from the frankly underwhelming The Sum of All Fears, we find our hero not only younger but given the dubious benefit of an origin story. It’s a slightly too comfortable move by Paramount, and while you can understand they might want to make a few more Jack Ryan movies in the future, this is quite a soft, predictable movie for a “first” outing.

We first meet Ryan at college in England on the day of 9/11. The terrible events of that day prompt him to enlist in the Marines and we move on to events in Afghanistan that see Ryan badly injured and needing intense physical therapy so that he can walk again. Here he meets two people who will be instrumental in getting him back on his feet: junior doctor Cathy Muller (Knightley), and shadowy spook Thomas Harper (Costner). Fast forward ten more years and Ryan is working on Wall Street as an undercover analyst working for Harper and looking for financial dealings and transactions that might indicate terrorist funding. He is living with Cathy who knows nothing of his double life. When Ryan discovers Russian accounts that are being hidden from view, he travels to Moscow to investigate. Surviving an attempt on his life, Ryan meets businessman Viktor Cheverin (Branagh) and discovers a plot to destabilise the US economy. To make matters more complicated, there’s a terrorist attack being planned, and Ryan’s girlfriend turns up unexpectedly in Moscow.

While the plotting and characterisations in Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit are fairly simple and straightforward, there’s a disconnect between the high-tech gadgetry and versatility of the modern communications devices on display, against the feel and visual styling that Branagh brings to the fore throughout. This is very much an Eighties spy thriller, with many of the Cold War frills that were prevalent then, and there’s a large debt owed to The Fourth Protocol (1987). The script tries its best to avoid the usual clichés but remains a fairly sterile affair, devoid of any real tension and saddled with the kind of arch-villainy better suited to a Bond movie. (Indeed, Branagh’s character and performance would have looked completely at home during Pierce Brosnan’s tenure.) What elements the movie does pilfer from recent years gives it more of a Jason Bourne feel but without the angst. When Cathy turns up in Moscow there’s a sense that hers and Ryan’s relationship – given such a strong focus in the first third of the movie – is going to continue in the same vein, but the script relegates her to the necessary damsel in distress; and once she’s saved she’s removed from the movie altogether until the inevitable coda (but not before she’s conveniently validated Ryan’s double life, previously a plot point that drove their relationship).

With Cheverin’s financial machinations lacking the flair or excitement that can only be offset by a series of (thankfully) non-CGI action sequences, the movie plays out its showdowns and action beats proficiently enough without giving us anything new or different. (The last third, with its chases through Moscow and Manhattan, also seem to provide a potential cure for back pain: Ryan’s injuries from Afghanistan, still causing him problems today, are forgotten about as he’s thrown around a lot in vehicle collisions and found hanging out the back of a truck.) There’s a distinct lack of tension as well, and the short scene where Ryan determines both the location of the terrorist attack and the person who’ll carry it out, is laughably preposterous. Branagh juggles the various elements to good effect but thanks to the script’s holding back, he can’t quite make things as exciting as they should be.

Pine is okay as the newest Ryan on the block, his youth and inexperience played to good effect until he’s required to don the mantle of action hero. Knightley takes the generic girlfriend role and manages to make it interesting, though she’s hampered by the script’s reluctance to include her character as anything more than attractive window-dressing (it’ll be interesting to see if she returns for any sequels). As the equally generic villain, Branagh fares better as the patriot willing to sacrifice anything to humble the West, but it’s Costner, experiencing a bit of a career revival at the moment, who fares the best. He gives a quiet, unshowy performance that adds some much-needed gravitas to the proceedings, and he dominates each scene he appears in.

Rating: 7/10 – as a reboot, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit shows too much restraint on the action front, and has a plot that is too underwhelming for its own good (even if it does sound a credible threat); if there is a sequel it will need to take some bigger steps if it’s going to compete with the Bonds and the Bournes of this world.

Fred: The Movie (2010)

05 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Children's movie, Clay Weiner, Comedy, Fred Figglehorn, John Cena, Judy, Lucas Cruikshank, Pixie Lott, Review, Viral video, Yellow suspenders

D: Clay Weiner / 81m

Cast: Lucas Cruikshank, Pixie Lott, Jake Weary, Jennette McCurdy, John Cena, Siobhan Fallon Hogan

Created by Cruikshank as a riposte to bloggers – boo! hiss! – who talk about every last thing they’re doing, and the subject of several videos posted on YouTube, the character of Fred Figglehorn gets his first feature length outing, complete with annoying high-pitched voice, yellow belt suspenders, and endearing fantasy sequences.

Fred (Cruikshank) is a fifteen-year-old with an over-developed sense of paranoia, allied to a naive outlook on the world. When his “girlfriend” Judy (Lott) moves to another part of town, Fred believes she’s been kidnapped and he sets out to rescue her, and all so that he can invite her over to his house so they can harmonise (Fred thinks he’s got a really great singing voice; Judy, as played by Lott, definitely has). Along the way Fred meets a variety of strangers, has a number of strange encounters, and even finds himself buried up to his neck in sand. When he finally reaches Judy’s new home, he ends up the unfortunate star of a viral video. To even things up, Fred decides to throw a party… but with his own unique twist on things.

Your tolerance for Fred: The Movie will depend largely on your reaction to that voice. Cruikshank has created a character who talks continually in a high-pitched tone that can easily slice through a person’s cranium at a hundred yards. At times – and Fred could be happy or sad – he screams like a five-year-old girl. He also has a tendency to run around madly waving his hands in the air… and screaming. His singing voice leaves so much to be desired you’ll wonder what Judy will make of it (she’s never heard Fred sing). And you will fully understand why his mom (Hogan) comes home from work and goes for a nap straight away.

But – and this is a very important but – Cruikshank somehow makes Fred endearing and likeable. Despite the rapid speech, the wild face-pulling, and the off-kilter way of looking at things, you soon realise that Fred is fifteen going on seven; he’s a little kid trapped in an adolescent’s body. (Maybe what happened to Little Evan Weiss has stunted his emotional maturity – see the movie to find out what I mean.) Once you realise Fred’s situation then you can sit back and enjoy a movie that’s a lot cleverer than it looks. A major part of why the movie works is the various fantasy interludes, including scenes involving Fred’s imaginary dad (Cena). Cena plays it in his WWE outfit, and even FU’s Fred at one point, but it’s the obvious love and affection he has for Fred that hits home, a wish-fulfillment dad that most kids would pray for. The fantasy scenes also allow Fred to be have in a more adult way, even if they are highly preposterous; they still show Fred as he could be.

There’s a good deal of physical comedy going on here as well: Fred trying to trampoline over a fence; an invisible Fred attacking singing rival Kevin (Weary); Fred trying to dig a hole under the fence. And that’s without some clever one-liners sprinkled throughout the script. Of the cast, Cruikshank inevitably dominates proceedings, and while Lott’s accent wavers from scene to scene she still projects the most-popular-girl-in-school image to perfection (she’s helped by being lit so that she appears to glow in close-up). Weiner offers some deft directorial touches, and the cinematography by Scott Henriksen reflects the highs and lows of Fred’s moods.

Rating: 7/10 – a surprise for the uninitiated, Fred: The Movie is by turns funny, poignant, and sad; a movie that works hard at subverting its audience’s expectations, and by and large succeeds.

Originally posted on thedullwoodexperiment website.

My Top 10 Movies – Part Seven

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alfred Hitchcock, Apartment block, Broken leg, Cornell Woolrich, Drama, Grace Kelly, James Stewart, John Michael Hayes, Raymond Burr, Rear Window (1954), Review, Suspected murder, Thriller, Voyeurism

Rear Window (1954)

D: Alfred Hitchcock / 112m

Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Judith Evelyn

I guess it was inevitable that there’d be a Hitchcock movie in my Top 10, but while the likes of Psycho (1960) and Vertigo (1958) are more highly regarded, for me it’s Rear Window any time and all the time.

I first saw Rear Window in the early Nineties. It was shown on TV, and while I was more than familiar with Hitchcock – and by this time had seen most of his sound features – this particular movie, along with Torn Curtain (1967) and The Trouble With Harry (1955), had evaded me until then. My favourite Hitchcock movie at that stage was Foreign Correspondent (1942), followed very closely by Strangers on a Train (1951). I was looking forward to seeing what Hitchcock would do with the “has he or hasn’t he?” style plot, and how Kelly would be treated, being the first of his blonde heroines (with all that that entailed).

I must admit to having a mixed reaction at first. The movie’s opening, with its slow, voyeuristic peering into the apartments and lives of L.B. Jefferies (Stewart)’s neighbours seemed like an extended piece of scene setting, audacious in its camera moves but serving no discernible purpose (bear in mind I had only a faint idea of the movie’s plot). As each neighbour was introduced I couldn’t help but wonder how much of what we were seeing was relevant to the plot, and which characters were going to prove more important than the others. It seemed obvious Miss Lonelyhearts (Evelyn) would be given a fair bit of screen time, as well as the creepy salesman Thorwald (Burr) with the nagging wife, but how these characters would interact I really didn’t have a clue. (I should admit at this point that I watch a lot of movies where I don’t have any idea of what’s going to happen or what the movie is about; I’m looking for the movie to surprise me.)

Now, this being a Hitchcock movie, I knew there must be some kind of skullduggery about to be committed, and I knew that James Stewart’s character would likely be the hero, and Grace Kelly his romantic interest, but what I wasn’t prepared for, at all, was the movie’s master stroke: that up until the final scene, the whole movie doesn’t stray from Jefferies’ apartment. Everything you see of his neighbours’ activities, and his girlfriend Lisa’s sleuthing, is seen from Jefferies’ perspective. As it dawned on me that Hitchcock wasn’t going to take the camera any further than Jefferies’ window, it also dawned on me that, far from being a cinematic parlour trick, this was one of the cleverest set ups I’d ever seen. Like Jefferies, the audience was confined to that small apartment, and again like Jefferies we too were helpless bystanders (he’s in a hip cast the whole time), involved in the action but removed from it at the same time.

This realisation made so much difference that I found myself agonising over what was happening as much as Jefferies. When he was unable to convince his friend Doyle (Corey) of the likelihood of Thorwald’s guilty behaviour, I was there urging Doyle to see the sense in what Jefferies was saying. And when Lisa appeared in Thorwald’s apartment, I was on the edge of my seat, knowing with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that Thorwald was bound to return home and find her. And then, the worst moment of all, when Thorwald turns and sees…

Rear Window was the first thriller that gripped me, both physically and emotionally, and left me feeling wrung out to dry at its end (where Jefferies suffers a fitting punishment for his “professional” voyeurism). Other movies have had a similar effect since – most recently, Captain Phillips (2013) – but I guess you never forget your first time. The simplicity of the set up was terrific, and full marks should go to John Michael Hayes for building such a mousetrap from Cornell Woolrich’s short story (if you’ve never read Woolrich you’re missing out; his prose leaves you breathless). Between them, Hayes and Hitchcock constructed a movie where watching other people’s lives becomes a litmus test for our own happiness, and where one man’s rescinded involvement provides an unwitting source of redemption for both himself and those he spies on.

I always get the feeling that Hitchcock is regarded as just a purveyor of thrills, and that people miss the psychological elements in his films. Those elements are there in the majority of his movies, but when you mention Hitchcock most people are likely to remember scenes such as the shower murder in Psycho, or the crop duster attack in North by Northwest (1959), or Tippi Hedren under attack in a phone booth in The Birds (1963). But for me, it’s the darker elements that make watching a Hitchcock movie so rewarding. And if you want darker, then watch Rear Window, and see just how much Jefferies is put through the wringer; it’s torture, pure and simple. And that’s just where Hitchcock wants us, and puts us. And for myself, I was glad to be there.

Rating: 9/10 – one of the most memorable thrillers ever filmed and a testament to Hitchcock’s genius and creativity; excellent performances added to a perfectly coiled script and a wonderfully threatening score by Franz Waxman all go together to make Rear Window an absolute masterpiece.

10 Reasons to Remember Philip Seymour Hoffman (1967-2014)

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Actor, Capote, Career, Movies, Philip Seymour Hoffman

Philip Seymour Hoffman (23 July 1967 – 2 February 2014)

Easily one of the finest actors of his generation, Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of those actors who was able to inhabit a role and make you forget there was an actor playing a part. From his earliest performances, Hoffman often made all the difference in a movie, keeping things from becoming bland or entirely disappointing.

My first encounter with Hoffman, like so many other people’s I guess, was in his breakthrough movie, Scent of a Woman (1992). As the conflicted George Willis Jr he brought an intelligence and a conviction to a role that could have been just another supporting role given passing attention by most other actors. Other supporting roles followed – the free-spirited Dusty in Twister (1996), the lovelorn Scotty in Boogie Nights (1997), Brandt, the other Jeffrey Lebowski’s assistant in The Big Lebowski (1998), the sympathetic male nurse, Phil in Magnolia (1999), the resolute Freddie Miles in The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), revered music journalist Lester Bangs in Almost Famous (2000) (a personal favourite), the slimy Freddy Lounds in Red Dragon (2002) – and it seemed that he would always remain the underused, scene-stealing actor everybody liked but who was never given the chance to headline a major movie and show what he could really do.

That all changed, of course, in 2005 with Capote. Hoffman won an Oscar for his performance, and if anyone had had any doubts about his ability to carry a movie, and to deliver a really powerful performance, they were banished right there and then. I saw an actor who had proved time and time again he could deliver terrific performances, but who was stepping up to a whole other level. If you haven’t seen Capote, you’re missing Hoffman’s finest hour; there’s a level of detail there that is just astonishing.

Hoffman followed Capote with what for many may have appeared a strange choice: the villain in Mission: Impossible III (2006), and yet, once again he was mesmerising, acting Tom Cruise off the screen and proving yet again that he could elevate even the weakest of material. But Hoffman had said, “I love a good payday and I’ll do films for fun.” Ultimately though his goal was to do good work, and in that regard he never failed either himself, or us, his audience.

The sad circumstances of his death, coming after his admission in May 2013 that he’d attended a substance abuse centre, is a reminder that even the most talented actors can have their demons. For me, I will always remember him as the main reason for watching several films I might not otherwise have taken a look at, in particular Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007) and A Late Quartet (2012). A great talent, and one that will be sorely missed.

1 – Scent of a Woman (1992)

2 – Twister (1996)

3 – Boogie Nights (1997)

4 – Magnolia (1999)

5 – Almost Famous (2000)

6 – Capote (2005)

7 – Synecdoche, New York (2008)

8 – Doubt (2008)

9 – The Master (2012)

10 – A Most Wanted Man (2014)

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by dullwood68 in Movies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Drama, FBI, Insider trading, Investment fraud, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley, Jonah Hill, Jordan Belfort, Leonardo DiCaprio, Margot Robbie, Martin Scorsese, Matthew McConaughey, Penny stocks, Review, Stratton Oakmont, True story

D: Martin Scorsese / 180m

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Matthew McConaughey, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley, Cristin Milioti, Shea Whigham, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi, Brian Sacca, Henry Zebrowski, Ethan Suplee

Already the basis for the movie Boiler Room (2000), and adapted from the life and experiences of Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), an investment broker who started his career on Wall Street in the late Eighties, and went on to become the head of his own company, selling penny stocks to gullible investors before moving into the big leagues, The Wolf of Wall Street is a modern day cautionary tale about greed, corruption and the pursuit of money.

Having become a licensed stock broker, Belfort begins work on the worst day possible, 19 October 1987, Black Monday. With his company ruined by the fallout, Belfort is forced to start again at the bottom, working for a small investment company that sells penny shares to small-time investors. Seeing the potential in a part of the investment industry that offers a fifty per cent commission on any sales, Belfort starts up his own investment company, Stratton Oakmont. Taking some of the staff from the investment company, he shows them how to persuade reluctant investors into parting with their money, and more importantly, ensuring they never take their money out again, thereby keeping up the exorbitant profits Belfort and his staff are raking in. He meets Donnie Azoff (Hill) who comes to work for him; together they build up the company until they’re at a point where they can compete with some of the bigger Wall Street firms. Their selling tactics and methods bring them to the attention of the FBI’s Agent Denham (Chandler) who begins an investigation into their fraudulent business practices. In the meantime, Belfort’s first marriage collapses; he becomes addicted to drugs, booze and sex; the FBI’s investigation prompts him to spirit his money away to Switzerland; he remarries, this time to Naomi (Robbie), and has two children with her; risks his life getting to Switzerland when it looks as if he’ll lose all his money; sees one of his friends, Brad (Bernthal), go to jail thanks to Azoff’s stupidity; and excess dominates his life completely. When a deal to take a shoe company public on the stock market (and illegally arrange to be the major stockholder) begins to unravel, and his marriage falls apart, Belfort finds himself helping the FBI incriminate his colleagues in order to avoid a long prison sentence.

With occasional breaks to camera, Belfort relates his life of excess with a relish that reflects both his character and, you suspect, a love for the times that hasn’t quite dissipated. Starting as a typically naive young man with bold aspirations, Belfort appears easily swayed when Azoff coaxes him into taking drugs, and he seems equally unconcerned by the ease with which he can swindle unsuspecting investors. While this aspect isn’t properly addressed, it’s not so much where Belfort has come from as what he does once he’s there that the movie is concerned with. The Wolf of Wall Street focuses on the excess of both the characters and the times they were active, a period in recent history (the Nineties) where affluence by any means was a mantra to live by, and if you weren’t rich then you were a nobody.

Working with his usual technical mastery, Scorsese recreates that period with remarkable skill and the level of incidental detail is impressive. The look of the movie is always arresting, and there’s never a moment when the camera doesn’t pick out an impressive detail or something visually interesting. Scorsese also knows when to keep the camera moving, or when to choose an odd camera angle to highlight the mood or emotion of a scene. There are moments when it’s like watching a cinematic masterclass, so sure is Scorsese of his filmmaking prowess and intuition.

Arresting as it is visually, The Wolf of Wall Street stumbles a bit when it comes to the structure of the movie and its content. There are too many extended pep talks that Belfort gives to his staff, too many scenes of drug-fuelled debauchery (we get it – that was the lifestyle), and too many occasions where the core of a scene is repeated but with some variation (Belfort reassuring first wife Teresa (Milioti) that everything will be okay; Azoff and Belfort congratulating themselves on the amount of money they’ve made). There are moments that lead nowhere: Belfort’s butler saying he’s seen Azoff at a gay club; sudden changes in tone: Belfort attacks Naomi when she threatens to leave him and take their children with her; and awkward moments that should be more meaningful: Belfort confessing his addictions to Naomi’s Aunt Emma (Lumley).

Terence Winter’s script, adapted from Belfort’s own memoir, does contain some good scenes, hits a patchy stretch around the two hour mark, and relegates the FBI investigation to a handful of scenes where Denham stares at info-laden whiteboards. Thankfully there are more than enough individual scenes that work – and work brilliantly – to offset the missteps. There’s Belfort’s lunch with first boss Mark Hanna (McConaughey), a mini-classic where Hanna explains the attitude needed to succeed as a stockbroker; McConaughey almost steals the movie with that one scene alone. There’s the scene where Azoff meets Belfort and quits his job upon seeing proof of the amount of Belfort’s earnings; Belfort waking up at the end of a flight to Switzerland and having Azoff explain why he’s restrained in his seat; Belfort’s veiled attempt to bribe Denham during a meeting on Belfort’s yacht – and Denham’s amused response; and best of all, Belfort’s attempts to leave a country club after succumbing to the effects of several out-of-date Quaaludes – it’s the funniest sequence of 2013 and shows that DiCaprio has a surprising aptitude for physical comedy.

As Belfort, DiCaprio puts in one of his best performances, imbuing the man with a vain pride that proves his downfall. It’s no one-dimensional characterisation, and DiCaprio nails the insecurities and the insanity of Belfort’s lifestyle: regarding money as “fun vouchers”; thinking he can seduce Aunt Emma; the aforementioned trip to Switzerland that results in the sinking of his yacht. It’s a raging, tornado-like performance, with DiCaprio towering above his co-stars, eclipsing everyone around him. As Belfort’s loyal “partner in excess” Azoff, Hill sports prominent false teeth and exudes charmless unreliability from every pore. Robbie, fresh from playing the girl who got away in Richard Curtis’ About Time, is superb as Naomi, a simple girl from New Jersey who falls for Belfort but resists the darker aspects of the dream life he builds for them. In minor supporting roles, Dujardin – as a slimy Swiss banker – and Lumley stand out from the crowd, and in the role of Belfort’s father, Reiner provides a calm at the eye of the storm that helps offset the wanton debauchery.

Ultimately, the success of The Wolf of Wall Street depends on whether or not the rise and inevitable downfall of a self-confessed drug addict and convicted fraudster is worth three hours of anyone’s time. The movie is entertaining and convincingly portrays the hedonistic, shallow lifestyle Belfort and his cronies enjoyed, and it’s shot through with humorous moments, and yet the movie appears to revel in the hedonism itself. With a cameo from the real Belfort, as well as only a passing nod towards the thousands of investors who were defrauded, The Wolf of Wall Street could be seen to be saying that Belfort et al were just greedy and selfish, and not so deserving of our approbation. The operative words here, though, are “could be”. Without those occasional darker elements, our sympathy for Belfort would be complete.

Rating: 7/10 – a better collaboration for Scorsese and DiCaprio than the lamentable Shutter Island (2010), The Wolf of Wall Street is striking, beautifully filmed and too eager to have its coke and snort it; less a character study than a valediction of the times, and saved by a handful of smart, knowing performances.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: