Ah yes. This was the movie that convinced me that Jean Reno (Empire of the Wolves, 2005)is one of Europe’s best actors. Equally as comfortable in high-octane action roles as he is in comedic roles such as this. Classed as an America film, it was directed by English man Paul Weiland (City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly’s Gold, 1994). This is not the most important movie of the 20th century and does not overly challenge us with deep insights into the human condition but it does entertain. You will laugh (deliberately), possibly cry but certainly enjoy this movie. This is another one of those “under the radar” movies which deserves to be remembered, watched and appreciated.
For Roseanna is a bitter-sweet comedy, set in a small Northern Italian town. Our Hero, Marcello, Loves his wife and will do anything for her, theirs is a happy marriage, which unfortunately has been touched by more than its fair share of sadness. After the loss of their only daughter some years earlier, they are now faced with the news that, Roseanna (Mercedes Ruehl, Doubt, 2013) is dying, her heart can give out at any time. Marcello who adores his wife, will do anything for her. The only problem is that he has to do anything. There is one very serious issue. More than anything Roseanna wants to be buried in the same graveyard as her daughter and there are only three graves left. The graveyard is full, there is no room for expansion.
There are a couple of options to solve this, firstly buy the land next to the cemetery and expand. This of course is the obvious solution, except for one issue. The owner of the land knows exactly how important the sale is to Marcello and point blankly refuses to sell the land; many years ago was in love with Roseanna, but she had only eyes for Marcello, decades later he still burns a torch for her and refuses to allow Marcello a final happiness, he still regards him as his love rival.
Added to this is Marcello’s one man mission to save everybody in the village. Not from any altruistic love for humanity but rather to ensure there is a grave left for his wife. This mission obviously causes some great comedic moments which also manage to add to the emotion of the total production.
So, faced with caring for his dying wife, ensuring the town-folk don’t die and trying to get the land for the cemetery, Marcello is under pressure. So much so that Roseanna decides he needs help and so enlists her sister Cecilia (Polly Walker, John Carter, 2012) to not only help around their bar, but also to “take care” of Marcello once she is gone. Marcello is having none of it.Marcello is running himself into the ground trying to make life as easy as possible for his wife, while saving the locals from their various dangers, often to the amusement of the villagers.
As Marcello struggles to find a solution for his ailing wife, there are multiple challenges thrown their way, with Marcello and Roseanna deftly overcoming them and never losing sight of the future. As with all good movies, there is a twist near the end, one which perfectly compliments the overall production and finishes the movie off nicely.
A good movie can be like a good meal, made of simple, but perfect ingredients, well produced with care, the end product is unassuming but excellent. That’s what this movie is like. Ask anybody to name a few Jean Reno movies and the usual selection will appear, but look to his credits and you’ll notice a number of films you may not recognise, the vast majority of them excellent, this first among them.
From 1997, the film is set in the dying days of the old Soviet “empire” in what was then Czechoslovakia. It is about 15 years since I first saw this film and it still brings a smile. Directed by Jan Svĕrák (Dark Blue World, 2001) and staring his brother Zdenek SvĕráK. It was written by Zdenek and Pavel Taussig. Our hero is Louka (Jan SvĕráK, Empties 2007). Louka used to be a cellist with the Czechoslovak Symphony Orchestra but was removed for reasons falling somewhere between deliberate and mistake, this was in the days of bureaucratic decisions being made by the technocrats regardless of the effects. Light-hearted and warm it tackles the events of the time in a manner which might just bring your finger to your eye to wipe away something…nudge nudge. You will laugh.
Being unemployed, our confirmed bachelor, must have an income. He manages this by performing at weddings and funerals. He also supports himself by painting tombstones. In with all of this is his relationship with his on/off girlfriend. Between performances which to say the least, he has no interest in, he talks with his friend the gravedigger. It is here that he learns of a way to make some money fast; marry a Russian bride so she gets her visa out of Russia. Sounds like it could be done, so he agrees.
The arrangements are made and before long, Louka is married to his Russian bride. At this stage we could say they lived happily ever after, but then there would be no film, in fact things go down-hill at an appreciable rate. His Russian bride has her heart elsewhere, namely with her boyfriend I West Germany. Before long she leaves Louka and heads to Germany leaving her son, Kolya behind. Kolya goes to live with his grand-mother for a while but she dies and the authorities decide the child must live with his step-father; Louka
After some resistance, from all side, Louka and Kolya begin to settle down together with room being made in his dingy garret flat. The fact that neither of them speaks the other’s language doesn’t help either. As they progress slowly coming to terms with each other, fate throws another spanner in to the works, Kolya contracts meningitis which requires specific medication for him. This all brings the situation for the two into focus with the authorities. Louka is threatened with prison.
As the world is about to come tumbling down around him, events in the outside world gather pace and the old regime is swept away by the Velvet Revolution. This together with the events in Germany, Kolya’s mother is able to be reunited with him. Things end well for Louka also, he and his girlfriend soon have a new family member to care for.
This is an easy going film, looking at life from the point of view of somebody who despite having things go against him, is determined to get on with things. There are some great moments of simple verbal and situational comedy scattered in here, which make it a cut above the rest. Dig it up, watch it and feel better about life.
A south Korean movie, directed by Bong Joon-ho (The Host 2006) based on the screen play by Kelly Masterson (Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, 2007) and Bong Joon-ho. The world has been destroyed by attempts to stop global warming which have gone totally wrong. Faced with the growing threat of global warming, an experimental new approach was developed, which entailed seeding the upper atmosphere with a chemical (CW7) to overcome the effects of global warming.
One of the first things you notice about this film is the cast. I have to admit, it is probably not the cast I would have picked, but that said, I would have been wrong. The casting works well and I wouldn’t change any of them. Behind the scenes, there is some discussion about The Weinstein Company taking out about 20 minutes of the film to suit western viewers. The movie is based on a French graphic novel “Le Transperceneige”.
The film opens in the train, but with a narration giving us the history of the efforts to stop global warming which ultimately resulted in the destruction of civilisation by virtue of the CW7 working too well and forcing the world in to an ice age. We quickly learn that those on the train have been on it for 17 years, entirely self-contained. Life is dystopian for many and carefully managed and controlled overall. The train itself is a huge affair purposefully built by an eccentric transport mogul who had no confidence in the CW7 solution so he built a special train which linked in to the world’s rail transport system and provided a place of refuge for the select few, constantly travelling around the world, never stopping.
Never stopping has a price. In order to keep the train moving the passengers are carefully ordered. First class, standard and economy. We learn about the workings of the train and its society from the huddled masses in economy. As bad as conditions are, we are told they are “the lucky ones” as they got on the train and are still alive. For seventeen years these people have been in the windowless back carriages at the tail of the train. Things are not good. People are huddled in to any corner they can find. The background is explained to us through the eyes of those trapped in the back. There have been up-risings in the past, all of which have failed. One of the key aspects of the uprisings is getting out to the armoured carriages in to the next carriages on the train. The people are fed a stable diet of protein pars to keep them alive. The protein bars are provided by the “Train” We also notice that although these third class passengers are in rags there is a fully uniformed security force and also train crew.
Chris Evans (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, 2014) plays the part of Curtis, he is the leader of the would-be rebellion. He must decide when to act and how to. Key to their plan is rescuing Namgoong Minsu (Kang-ho Song, The Host, 2013) who is the security expert who designed the security systems for the train, keeping the carriages separate. The only problem is that he is a drug addled prisoner in the train’s prison carriage. Curtis together with his Lieutenants; Edgar, his second in command (Jamie Bell, Man on a Ledge, 2012)) sporting a strangely passible Irish accent who is the no-patience action man; and Gilliam, the older sage, respected by all and carrying the wounds of previous encounters. Discipline is savage, beatings are regular and extreme, often involving loss of limbs. Other rebellions have failed, they have looked at why and hopefully have a plan to overcome these issues. In to the mix of this we see the “overlords” using these third-class passengers as nothing more than a resource to be taken from.
At one scene we see one person taken t the front of the train to provide musical entertainment for the upper classes. We later see him and others who have been taken, their minds’ washed to be compliant and subservient. Meanwhile children are being taken to the front and nobody knows why.
Authority on the train is in the person of Minister Monroe (Thilda Swinton, Adaptation, 2002) who is the voice of authority, endlessly engaging in a passive aggressive dominance over those in third class. Eventually when they notice that the guards on the carriage actually have no ammunition in their weapons, the passengers rise-up. Using weapons and tools they made, they make their attack, first to the jail carriage where they rescue the security expert and his girlfriend. Using their skills they move forward first past the prison carriage, then they take the food and water carriages, revealing some of the nasty truths involved in life on the train. After a series of often bloody battles, against firstly the guards, then axe yielding black clad figures to then more armed guard and some very nasty people along the way. Eventually they make their way forward, glimpsing along the way how the rest of the upper-class passengers live. Ultimately they arrive at the Front, and meet Mr Wilford (Ed Harris, the Way Back 2010). Here talking with Wilford they rebels get an idea of just how perverted life has become on the train.
We are told as the film progresses that the key to survival is balance. There is plenty of food (for the privileged) the key is balancing the demands with supply at the right times and seasons. This even stretches to the punishment of the third class passengers, it is calculated that 74% must die. We have become used to video games producing tie-in movies, however this is a movie which almost feels like a video game despite not having one at its origin. Each Carriage is essentially a new level with new associated challenges for the rebels to overcome.
This movie could have been too busy, with so much cramped in to so tight a space, both physically and emotionally, but the characterisation works, Evans’ Curtis is very underplayed, what we know of him comes from revealing moments as the movie progresses, to ultimately a character we have confidence in as a leader. Swinton’s Monroe is a nasty piece of work showing nothing but disdain for the passengers through her passive aggressive control. We see just how lose control is later on as she is used to lead the rebels through the train. Those upper class people they pass are largely disgusted by what they see, interrupting their on-going lives. The food shortages present further back are not seen here.
The only obvious weakness that presents itself, is a slight continuity issue; where having established that the guards are out of ammunition we later see a full use of ammunition as the rebellion gathers pace, perhaps it is rationed to certain areas. The other slight weakness is the issue of blockages on the line, is it only now that these are causing problems, are they normal with the rebellion deflecting away from essential management of them?
When we eventually meet Wilford, having already gotten a background on him we see a person who is immediately comparable to “Christof” the show’s producer and “God-like” character. We see the same calm omnipotence here. There Characters are perhaps a little too similar, given the respective plots. Very smartly we are shown not just his power but also how fragile it all is, perhaps his character is more comparable to The Wizard from The Wizard of Oz (Frank Morgan). His power is based on what people think of him. Minister Monroe’s character shows us how the train’s front has almost taken on a mystical, even religious aspect, with Wilford being almost worshipped.
That said, this is an excellent movie with an excellent cast, Evans, gives one of his best roles, Swinton is almost unrecognisable, Bell and Hurt support magnificently. It should be pointed out that even additional supporting cast duties are taken up by well-known character-actors more than capable of supplying what is needed.
In the last scenes we see a polar bear; does this signify freedom, danger or the sub-text that the bear looks fed and, if it is fed, there is life of some sort, where there is life; there is hope. As viewers, Bong, quite deliberately allowed us to get to know those people surviving at the back of the train and what they have to endure, are we allowed to hope for their future.
In the interests of full disclosure, Alan Turing has been a hero of mine ever since college. This movie focuses primarily on the events surrounding Project Ultra and the breaking of the Enigma machine code. This film can be watched in isolation without knowing much about the great man, but knowing anything about him greatly adds to the movie. Alan Turing was not an easy man to work with due to his character, but by all accounts a person who could be worked with, once you got to know him.
The subject of this film was a state secret until the 1970’s and it was not until the 1980s and 1990s that his work here was fully appreciated. The title of the movie is taken from one of his pre-war papers on machine intelligence. I should at this stage point out that Alan Turing is regarded as one of the founding fathers of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, bio-mathematics and is credited with building the first machine that we today would consider a computer. His untimely death at the age of 41 has left the world wondering what more could he have achieved.
The cast is first-class and lead by Benedict Cumberbatch (August Osage County, 2013), who plays a powerful Turing, even down to the cheekbones. Cumberbatch through his Sherlock has proven to be an actor capable of pulling off the most complex characterisations. The difficulty with Turing is that he is a real person, with mannerisms remembered by people so no room for movement. This is also seen in how the movie treats history itself.
Credit must be given to the Director Morten Tyldum (Head Hunters 2012) and writers Andrew Hodges (the book) and Graham Moore (screenplay) for managing even if only by reference to place other factors in to the movie. We see the work of the Polish Scientist of the 1920s in breaking an earlier version being used as inspiration. Even to the end we can see posters and sketches on his wall at home which relate to the pioneering work he did on the mathematical theory of embryology.
Keira Knightly (London Boulevard, 2010) give a bravura performance of the hard put-upon Joan Clarke, the only woman in the group – who had to be kept secret and apart from the rest of the all-male group. Indeed the movie also handles well the undercurrent of prejudices and morals which prevailed at that time. She manages to play perfectly against his character, the two of them working well together. Charles Dance (Game of Thrones, 2011-2015 plays the part of Commander Denniston, the officer in charge of Bletchley Park and the person who has to fight against Turing. The humour of the situation is seen in one of the run-ins Turing and Denniston have; asked who was the Commander’s commanding officer, Denniston replies “Churchill”, Turing promptly contacts him to argue his case.
Matthew Goode plays Hugh Alexander, the man who was originally to lead the decryption efforts, but was replaced by Turing, here we see the personalities at work and how they can come together. The use of Mark Strong (Robin Hood, 2010) as the MI6 officer overseeing the activities is an interesting dramatic trick as it allows us to place the Ultra efforts within the overall theatre of war. There are emotional scenes when the team realise they cannot warn potential victims of what they found, because it would give away their secret, this has been an interesting ethics question for many years and nicely and succinctly done here.
We know the story, so there is no need to go through the plot. The story of Turing’s personal life is largely told through flashbacks and flash-forwards to when he is being investigated. If I have a tiny criticism it is how they try to make out that the arrest originated from the police wondering what he had to hide, given his blank (deliberately emptied) war record, was he another of those Communist spies? This movie showed the scientific and technical brilliance of Turing, giving the audience just enough of the technical knowledge necessary (judging by the age profile of the cinema audience where I saw it, I suspect most of the audience was already very familiar with the technicalities).
Overall an affecting movie which despite what might be considered by some (not me) to be a rather boring subject matter, you will be swept up in the progress of the film, you will get to know the characters and you will wait to see the machine working.
The campaign to pardon Turing and have him take his place in history has been active for many years, this hopefully will go some way to giving the great man the recognition he deserves.
A good, fast-flowing movie that cleverly gives the audience a look at these historic events and people without flooding us with technicality. This shows the top-secret work of a small group of people, perhaps never really expected to succeed, and certainly not achieve what they did. Excellent movie. 8/10
Cousin Marv (James Gandolfini, Enough Said, 2013), runs a neighbourhood bar, which he used to own until about 10 years previous, when the Chechen mob took it from him. He is aided in running the bar with his cousin Bob ( Tom Hardy, Locke, 2014) who is calm quiet individual, who might be taken for being slow of the mark, but may not be a quiet as he seems. The bar is a mob “drop” bar where once selected for a given night, is the drop point for mob bookies through the city. One particular night, with no special drops, the bar is raided and about $5K stolen. As a result of a head injury to one of the staff, an ambulance is called and so the police. Bob let’s slip that one of the robbers had a broken watch, this turns out to be a vital clue. The detective, Torres (John Ortiz, Fast and Furious, 2006) who is assigned the case turns out to be a regular mass goer in the same church as Bob. Being a detective, he has noticed Bob never takes Communion, he asks Bob about this, but gets no answer, is there something deep and dark in Bob’s past?
As he is dealing with the fall-out from the robbery, he comes across an abandoned and injured puppy in a woman’s rubbish bin, through rescuing the puppy, he gets to know the woman in question, with a delicate fledgling relationship begins. Before it can develop, things take a negative turn. It turns out the puppy was owned by a local thug, Eric Deeds, (Blood Ties, 2013) who also happens to be the ex-boyfriend of the woman in question, Nadia (Noomi Rapace, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, 2009). Deeds has been recently released from prison/psychiatric hospital and is widely believed to have cold-bloodily killed a former gang leader and general all-round nasty thug some years ago, this belief has given Deeds a reputation he is happy to live up to.
It soon becomes clear that there was something more behind the robbery, Bob tries to steer a straight line, surviving by keeping his head down, minding his own business and doing nothing to annoy the Chechens.
At first glance we see parallels to the character Hardy played in Lawless (2012) in both cases we see a man getting on with life, quiet and thoughtful, a thinker. Hardy is to be acknowledged as playing two similar roles but managing to give completely different characters; Forrest was confident and sure is what he was doing, he did not speak because he did not need to. Bob on the other hand comes across as a man not so sure of himself, even taking on the “Responsibility” of the puppy is a matter of concern for him.
AS the plot develops and pressure starts to mount, we learn there is to be an added complication; the bar is to be the drop bar for the mob on Super-bowl night, the biggest money night of the year. Will it be robbed again? One of the original thieves was found and executed with the money returned. However our friend Deeds is involved somehow. As the situation develops, Bob takes precautions to first and foremost protect himself. The night of the big match arrives, and things get complicated, caught up between Deeds, Nadia who is forced there by the more and more deranged Deeds needs to be protected and against all of this is the underlying threat to his dog, which he is not taking lightly. The night unfolds with nothing going to plan. Secrets are revealed, and justice meted out, but to whom.
Hardy is the star of the show, once again transforming himself to the role, Gandolfini plays to his type (excellently, as was his way).
It is a firm 3 star show, nothing overly wrong with it, a lot right with it, but just missing that little extra to make it stand out. Also the role of Detective Torres role comes across as under played. Yes the detective put “two and two “ together to realise the secret of an old mystery and yes he develops a relationship with Hardy but it seems almost like an add-on, maybe suffering a little in editing. There is a certain something missing for some of the film, but noting serious.
Atmospheric and well set, it will keep you entertained. Written by David Lehane (Mystic River, 2003) we can see how Lehane again is able to use the edginess of the situation to move along the story and give a sense of menace to the background which does not need to be overly stated.
This is one of those movies that allows you to just sit back and enjoy it. The plot is straight forward a small fishing harbour in Newfoundland is dying, there are only about 120 people left in the harbour (it is not a village!) and they need to do something about it. That something hinges on there being a doctor in the harbour community.
In the middle of all this is Murray French, (Brendan Gleeson) one of the locals who lives his life in the harbour, like all the other men of the village, he is on the social welfare. The routine of welfare payments and cheque cashing punctuates the life of the town. As it happens a petrochemical reprocessing plant is looking to open, but has not selected a site yet. The towns-folk need to act fast. The latest person to leave is the mayor. In the absence of the mayor, Murray steps in and becomes town mayor, assisted by Simon (Gordon Pinsent, Beachcombers 1975-1978) a neighbour who fully understands what needs to be done and Henry Tilley, (Mark Critch, Republic of Doyle, 2010-2014) who is the local bank manager/clerk, who is very conscious of being only one step away of being replaced by an ATM. The big stumbling blocks are the need to have a resident doctor in the Harbour and the $100K “personal assurances” that the head of the petrochemical company wants. It to the mix is Murray’s view of ethics, he’s very much a “end-justifies
What follows is the discovery of a doctor, who might be persuaded to stay for a month and then possibly longer. Sound familiar? I could be cruel and say this movie is largely unoriginal simply throwing a fresh twist on a plot that has been done excellently a number of times previously. Not least of all, the Gold standard for any such comedy: Whisky Galore, (1949, Alexander Mackendrick) where we see the village come together to plunder a ship full of whisky which has come ashore. The more immediate comparison would be with Doc Hollywood (1991, Michael Caton-Jones) where our hero is sentenced to work in the town as a doctor for a short while following a minor car accident. As with This movie, our hero (Michael J Fox, Back to the Future, 1985). There is also one particular sequence where they are trying to “inflate” the harbour’s population, that reminded me of Ward Bond’s call in The Quiet Man (John Ford, 1952) for his parishioners to shout like good Protestants, as the Anglican Bishop was passing through (to save the Anglican Minister’s parish by having the Bishop think it is somewhat larger than it is).
So, you may be tempted to say we’ve seen it all before. That would be a mistake. What we have here is first class situational comedy. Taylor Kitsch (John Carter 2012) plays Dr Lewis, the up and coming young plastic surgeon whose career has hit a pump by being found with cocaine – as it happens by the former mayor, now working as a customs official, he has an idea!
With that, the town begins to tidy itself up so as to make it look like a place he would want to stay. What follows is a series of rolling jokes like the cliff-top cricket match, the phone monitoring and a dozen other standing jokes. Which all combine to make this a very entertaining movie with gags for all of the family.
What makes this movie work is a concentration on the senses, Director Don McKellar (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, 2010) uses Douglas Koch’s cinematography to its fullest capturing the rugged beauty of the location and of the Harbour, the richness of colour adds to the positive nature of this movie. As well as the visuals, the script itself is razor sharp, much to the credit of Michael Dowse and Ken Scott. Whether or not this is a good thing, the sound track supporting the movie also got itself noticed and favourably.
Sit back and enjoy a light-hearted situational comedy which will leave you feeling as if the world is not all that bad. I’m not going to go through the movie gag-by-gag, but suffice it to say this is a tightly directed ensemble production which works well on every level. Before I finish, in case you think I forgot it, yes there are parallels with the Bill Forsyth’s 1983 classic “Local Hero”, in both cases the movie sets out simply to entertain, and it both cases they did perfectly.
I was tempted to give this a perfect score, I have not laughed with a movie as I did with The Grand seduction in a long time. Nothing is perfect so 9/10.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this is more of a visual art-work than an entertainment movie. It was written and directed by Shane Carruth (Primer 2004) who also stars in the co-lead role of Jeff. Treating it as a movie I would classify it as a sci-fi romance, but only barely just. We are given glimpses of information that may or may not add to the plot. The first thing to say, is that you cannot watch this movie like an ordinary cinema offering hoping to do nothing more than entertain. Upstream is a story, visually as well as through words, It might take more than one watching to fully appreciate the movie. Throughout the movie there are a number of visual clues and prompts placed in to the scenes, if noticed/seen they add to the understanding plot and the movie.
This movie is about the unseen powers directing us, including the power of attraction. Does the power of attraction take over a couple and their perception of the world outside? Do their experiences together begin to merge into one shared history? Once of the key characters is a young lady called Kris (Amy Seimetz, The Sacrament, 2013). She is kidnapped and forced to consume mid-altering/controlling bugs (more maggots), these may be associated with a particular plant, though the scenes with the plant may be out of time sequence. She is held in her apartment where her kidnapped sets her to do a number of tedious meaningless tasks over and over, once he is happy she is truly under his control, he manipulates here into going to the bank and essentially giving him everything, done to her house. This and the various other acts, ruin her life, these are actions she has no memory of, but must live with the consequences.
As if life had not already thrown enough curb-balls at her, she now finds herself linked to a man called Jeff (Carruth), their paths cross a number of times and they begin a relationship, there is something wrong, deep down both know this but cannot identify what. There is a link, for some reason they can share the same childhood stories, she is able to correct a detail in a story of his childhood he is telling, after a number of events such as this, they bring the issue to a head. Kris confronts Jeff wanting to know why he is confusing his memories with hers, or is he?
To further complicate things, we come across a man who is playing strange sound clips (taken from everyday life) into the ground. He has what looks like an isolated pig farm, he also grows maggots, the same maggots Kris has inside her. Through the sounds Kris eventually ends up at the farm where he transfers the maggots from Kris to one of his pigs. Again here we begin to see attraction between two of the pigs. We also see a connection to a plant, does it have a toxin, what is the importance of the colour blue?
You will probably have to watch, emphasis on “Watch” this movie a couple of times to get all of the visual clues from it. I would like to tell you the plot, but I would have to know what it was first. This is a close to unique movie, it is not for the lazy viewer. Give it the attention it deserves and you will enjoy it. If you are the type to enjoy a mug of cocoa or some pop-corn with your movies, make sure you have them before you sit down, because this is not the movie you can simply watch in the background. To write any more would just be added guesswork, this movie is visually appealing, tightly scripted and is either:
0/10 – if you get worked up by the complexity, or
9/10 – if you don’t get all worked up by the complexity.
The great thing about Dead Snow is that it follows the formula necessary for such productions and sticks to it. Possibly one of the most influential Nazi zombie snow movies ever made. You get the gist. When making a movie in a genre that has been hackneyed to death (sorry!) , as you may know, there is a formula for these movies – an abandoned cottage , or dark basement/castle or some other deserted/creepy place. A handful of students ranging from the sporty to nerd, male and female – you’ve seen the movie, you know what I’m talking about. Anyway, in this case we got a group of Norwegian students, up in the mountains, miles away from civilisation and nothing there for them except their cabin. Plans all made for a busy weekend of “studying”. I’m not mentioning what happened in the outhouse, you’ll have to watch for yourselves.
The film was directed and written by Tommy Wirkola (Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, 2013) he also gave himself a cameo role as one of the dying zombies. Our seven heroes are all settled when they have a night visitor, who has a simple warning for them “there’s an evil presence here”. The first thing you notice when watching is that there’s not much of an original thought here, but it is done well. There’s even a reference to “Friday the 13th”. They learn of the Nazi past and the missing soldiers believed to have frozen on the mountains. Not long after, we get introduced to our resurrecting zombies, disturbed by the students. In the course of this all the usual happens, they split up, one has to amputate his own arm and so on.
The ensuing zombie chase to kill our Norwegian friends provides us with all the glorious blood splattering, intestine spewing gore expected of such a movie. But it is done so well… There are a few directors who have managed to perfect this sub-genre (zombie Horror movies), Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead 1981) and George Romero (Night of the Living Dead, 1968) are the obvious examples. Wirkola knew what he wanted and went for it.
The plot is as it is – holidaying teenagers alone in a cabin discover an evil nasty (in this case Nazi Zombies) and then spend the best part of 90 minutes largely failing to escape them, indeed not only failing to escape but also perhaps failing to survive. There are of course some glaring plot holes, but these are made up for by the one of the students who actually knows his movie trivia and drops in the appropriate one liner when needed, a good writing move.
It should be pointed out that these are no ordinary zombies, they are Nazi zombies and as such are a determined bunch (either that or hungry), chasing victims up trees (forcing the victim up the tree), of course in her case if she had not being wearing a bright red jacket in snow, or climbed up the only tree with a crow’s nest – the trouble with disturbing crows is that they make noise, al lot of it. Telling them to sush is not very productive or helpful when there is a zombie just below you. On the bright side, when falling off a cliff, their intestines are more than strong enough to catch and hold on to (take note in case you ever find yourself in a similar situation).
You will note that I’m not listing off the world famous Norwegian movie stars who played the hapless victims, being honest, they were fodder, for script and zombies. Some people have damned this movie as derivative and unoriginal, sure, but was it meant to be new and original? I will however credit Ørjan Gamst as Colonel Herzog (who will be in the sequel). This movie is not about Shakespearian monologues, or slow sweeping vistas Ang Lee would be proud of. No the camera work is rationed, each second of screen time is there for a reason, ala Guilermo del Toro. I’m going to stop on this point right now. Well just adding that in fairness this movie was not done on a huge Hollywood budget, but managed to use its finances well and produce a well-crafted offering. Just because a movie is not big-budget doesn’t mean it has to look cheap and dated.
This movie works quite simply because it is a comedy, designed to put a smile on our faces and not take itself too seriously. That said I’ve developed serious bouts of the giggles at other horror flicks but often because they were so poorly produced, regardless of budget, they were always going to be bad. What makes this movie actually watchable is that it was technically made well, all things considered.
The plot is thinner than the ice they are on and like most things in the frozen Norwegian mountains, needs time to warm up, but after about the first 15 minutes things get lively with the appearance of the zombie Nazis. Leave your brain in the bedroom, and just sit back and enjoy. Yes, it is derivative; no, it is not very original; but maybe you’ll enjoy it.
There’s not much more you can say about students being chased around a deserted mountain by zombies. Just as Cabin Fever worked because of its satirical approach, this works because of a similar approach, but no so much satire as light-hearted homage to those movies which went before it.
Three stars – a respectable score, especially given the starting point.
Possibly the best movie made by John Ford with John Wayne, and possibly one of his best stop. Indeed The Searchers, quite probably ranks among the best Westerns ever made, and possibly one of the best, or influential movies ever made. Some might say one of the most controversial also. The acting, cinematography, scrip and plot all come together for a classic
Opening a few years after the close of the American Civil War, where he fought with the Confederacy, Nathan Edwards (John Wayne, She wore a Yellow Ribbon, 1949) returns to the family home, his sword in hand. We are not directly told what he did in those years since the war, but he has a bag of gold, the origins of which are unknown. The homecoming is not without tensions. Some years previously he rescued a young boy from Comanches and left him at the home with Ethan’s brother, effectively the boy is his adoptive nephew. Immediately Nathan remarks how the boy could be mistaken for a half-breed, there is a tension between the two throughout the film, the causes of which can vary from mentor/student, to begrudgery and racism, it is sometimes hard to tell which is which.
While home, news comes through of raids on neighbours homesteads, the local Texas Ranger Captain, Sam Clayton (Ward Bond, Rio Bravo, 1959) calls and asks for help with volunteers to join the search. While out it becomes clear that the raids were a diversion, returning home to the farms, we find the Edwards’s home burnt down, and all dead except the girls, who are missing. The Rangers, after a brief burial service officiated over by Rev. Clayton, go in search of the Comanches in question, they come into contact with suspect Indians but after skirmishes, there are too few Rangers left to be effective. Nathan goes on with his “nephew” Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter, Star Trek, 1986) and his older niece Lucy’s fiancé Brad Jorgensen (Harry Carey Jr., Big Jake, 1971), after a while they find Lucy, dead and having been raped, Brad in a fit of anger attacks the Indian settlement and is killed in the process.
As the year progresses, the two are no closer to finding Debbie, they return home to their old neighbours, The Jorgensens (Brad’s parents), here he is given a letter from a trader which might be a clue to Debbie’s whereabouts, here they learn the identity of the Indian who is believed to have Debbie, Scar (Henry Brandon, The War of The Worlds, 1953), a Comanche chief. As the pair travel we learn more about them, The trader who wrote to them originally is killed by Nathan for trying to rob his gold. As they progress they learn an number of Scar’s people have been killed by the Army following an engagement. At this stage our heroes get close to Debbie, where we realise Nathan is more intent on killing his niece rather than rescuing her. She is damaged goods beyond repair. They are unable to get to her. They return home as the light of Martin’s eye is being married to another, and as predicted a fist fight ensues, this is broken by word from the Army (the young Lt. is with Nathan’s old friend Mose Harper (Hank Wardon, The Alamo, 1960) who is “half-crazy). They have found the Indians holding Debbie. Without any other discussion, Nathan leaves for the camp, Martin quickly behind him. The Texas rangers raid the camp, Martin kills scar while Nathan scalps him, once again we see Nathan as a dark figure, guided by his own moral code, as this happens Debbie is fleeing , confused. Nathan chases after her, Martin fearing that Nathan will kill her, chases after them both. As Nathan reaches Debbie, he simply helps her on to his horse and says those famous words “Let’s go home”. The final scene when they arrive home is closed off with that famous closing shot of Wayne walking away through the door.
Beautifully crafted both cinematically and through its script, written by Frank S. Nugent, who was actually Ford’s son-in-law and Alan le May (author of the original book). Watching this today, it is still as fresh as when it was first made. We can also see firsthand the changing attitude of society, not just with the 19th century but with the mid-20th century and today. Within a few short years the way the Native American Indians are portrayed is changed forever, no longer are they the stock-in-trade bad guys.
This is a short enough review, it could be a lot shorter – Excellent movie, one of the best ever made, involving the search for an young girl and the individuals own search for themselves and their values.
One might ask if this movie is an entertainment production or something meant to resemble an art work. Directed by Steven Knight, it is quite different to his last directorial effort (Redemption 2013) but still retains that sense of movement and edge. Starring Tom Hardy (Lawless 2012) as the eponymous “Locke”.
Set on the road to his destination, we are given a movie of Tom Hardy behind the wheel dealing with the consequences of his actions. It opens as he is juggling a number of phone calls to his home, work and contacts. Whatever is going on, he seems to be turning his back on a number of responsibilities, both at home and at work. We quickly learn that there is a major construction job underway with what turns out to be the biggest concrete pouring in Europe due in the coming hours, he should be supervising it, instead he is leaving it to one of his men. We see that he is also bailing on his son, not watching the big-match with him.
Locke has made decisions and now he needs to deal with them, he needs to live with them. he is about to have child, but the mother is not his wife. What we see is a man “on the edge”, possibly both figuratively, as much of the film is him trying to control his life and events surrounding him, while at the same time shot completely in the car, with only occasional changes of view to allow the viewer to survive, we watch him correct a mistake, one which cannot really be dealt with in isolation. The use of the car and the phone show how events, though seemingly not connected are often impacted by each other, purely because of the slightest connection, the slightest common denominator, Locke.
If you’ve seen Hardy in works such as Lawless (John Hillcoat, 2012) or Bronson (Nicholas Winding Refn, 2008) or even the current Peaky Blinders on TV which was created by Steven Knight you will know he is a very physical actor, he is also an actor who has learned to use his body, his face, to control the character, to communicate the message and emotion of the scene. There is a scene in Peaky Blinders where new recruits to the criminal enterprise are being briefed, one makes a joke he should not have, Hardy disciplines him by seriously injuring the person standing next to him and them giving a sermon on discipline, you could feel the menace.
From the calls we learn that Locke, is not just some employee, he should be central ot the work being carried out on the site, we hear from his instructions that he knows what he is talking about, indeed it is this very knowledge and the advice he is giving to his junior that tell us just how much he should not be in the car to London right now. Without ever leaving the front seat he brings us in to his life. We could argue that the car is a metaphor, some kind. He and his life are going somewhere at speed, it is not somewhere that he planned to go, but it is something he must do. Just as in life he is trapped by his decisions, so too is he in the car, he is stuck behind the wheel, controlling the journey, on the phone trying to control life.
We can compare this film to recent efforts such as All is Lost (J.C. Chandor, 2013) or Buried (Rodrigo Cortés, I’d go with Buried. This film has been described as a “Dramatic thriller” or just a “thriller”. We might say it is neither, perhaps more one-man melodrama, but personally I would describe it as a thriller, in so far there is an ending, we don’t know what it is but we are along with Locke to see what it is. The use of the car is an interesting tool because it allows Knight to give us an ever changing back-drop, one against which he can display the mental tribulations he is going through. The phone conversations not only tell the story but also allow for his reaction, they are also the story.
This is not a movie about doing the right or wrong thing, this is a movie about consequences, having done wrong, he is now trying to do right. What is more shocking is that to one of his interlocutors on the phone, he is “the last person in the world” who would have been expected to do what he did. We see his integrity trying to fight through. Yes he did wrong, “only once” but the once is the key part, what comes before that once, means nothing, what comes after are the consequences. One might also suggest the building site he is leaving at a critical time is analogous to his family, again he is leaving them to be elsewhere. He talks about foundations of the building and projects he has worked on, his family also needs foundations and he may have undermined those foundations.
I recently gave an opinion on “Under The Skin”, this is also something similar, both movies are tightly focused on one person, every other person or conversation is there to add to the vision of what we see concerning that key character. Both are possibly in alien lands, with little introduction or understanding of them, we the viewer is required to learn as we progress and to judge, are these good or bad people (if you can call Scarlett Johansson’s character a person). We do however get a glimpse of the influences behind the man with his discussions with his late father. This mental exercise, carried-on out loud for us again shows how he is trying to do the right thing and balancing his moral compass through his experiences with his own father.
It is only fair to credit Haris Zambarloukos (Thor, God of Thunder, 2011) who is generally regarded as one of the top practitioners of his art. It cannot be east to work to create a movie scape which keeps us for the best part of 90minutes when you have only one subject. Zambarloukos does this, his focus on hardy, not just from the front but also side on are perfect, as to are outr glimpses of the world go by, whether it is industrial plants or even the row of lights trailing in to the past.
This is a movie for adults, in so far as the content and style will not keep kids or people with an attention span less than 5 minutes.
Jonathan Glazer (Sexy Beast , 2000), is not one of the world’s most prolific directors, but what he does produce is always noteworthy and of merit, even if it requires you to work with him. Under the Skin is such a movie. One of the first things to make itself obvious in the film is the use of light and colours, either the extreme whiteness (and also black) of her environment, an area without seems or borders, we see only light, or in the scenes of what we take as her lair, we see a dark void absent any obvious light source, or surfaces. The opening sequence takes us from the sterile bright white of an alien environment (or consciousness, we don’t know) to the dull, dreary urban motorway scenes of our aliens (we take the bike rider as being another alien) driving around mainly urban Scotland. While the picture painted by her travelling is not one of joy and happiness but rather a cold searching. The atmosphere, the scenery and even some of the people encountered along the way, are not the type that you would put on a “Visit Scotland” poster, they are real and ordinary with nothing much to sell them.
How long she is on the planet we don’t know, but she is able to drive a Transit van and communicate in flawless English (for what little dialogue there is in the movie). Scarlett Johansson (Her, 2013), play what is a challenging role brilliantly, her acting is visual, with little chance to add to scenes through dialogue. She seems “comfortable in her skin” or so to speak, yet she spends her days driving around looking for people who will not be noticed missing too quickly. As we see her driving it becomes obvious she’s is driving for a reason, she is hunting. Like a spider, she lures her victims to her, first chatting to them to get them in to her van and then into her “lair”. Her lair is a dark void, in the same sense of the white scenes were of a white void, with no obvious dimensions which swallows up her victims.
The film is almost silent, with any dialogue sparse and only as needed, at least 70% to 80% of the movie is non-dialogue. After the usual initial small talk we see her with her victims, back in the “eternal void” while we think we are used to the void, we see that there is more to it. Her mail victims never reach or connect with her, indeed as they approach her, they are subsumed into an liquid, best described as akin to embryonic fluid. She walks over it as if it is solid, it is only as her later that the realise that the liquid is a storage area, not visible from above, but from within. We are not told if this is her natural environment or some type of psychological analogue of what is happening. One thing you will notice is the cold emotionless performance by Johansson. We observe her from an emotional distance, we’re along for the ride, but not part of the experience. If you are looking for an action packed shoot-em-up, go look somewhere else, If you are looking for a lost Kubrick, then it will suit you perfectly. We are only allowed to observe this movie, always kept at a safe distance. As the movie progresses we get the feeling she is less familiar with her surroundings, or at least less comfortable, indeed the scene in the woods shows just how alien she is, literally and figuratively.
The dialogue, where it happens is clipped and pared back to the bare minimum, only used for what is needed. Indeed one of the movies pivotal parts is where here latest victim is descending in to the liquid and sees another older victim, now disfigured by his time in the liquid. Rather than recoil, the new victim makes his way to the other and without words they reach out and touch. The connection to the other, whoever they are is preferable to isolation.
One cannot help but wonder if the dark area and fluid, and even the bright white scene are her natural environment, the place where she is calm and safe, a place of isolation. Whereas out and about on Earth she is surrounded by dimensions, noises, colours, sounds and tastes etc. This environment is alien to her, just as her’s is to us. We also notice the difference in styles of person, the talking youths eager for her company, these are ordinary people, using ordinary lines, but still against her silence.
In some senses it reminds of (Upstream Colour (Carruth, 2013), the visuals are a significant part of the story, even surpassing the dialogue. We are also left to discover the movie as it progresses, working out the clues and interpretations as we move along. Aliens (in Earth based movies) generally fall into one of two categories, the big nasty evils one who want to destroy us, or the cute one, usually lost or homesick, Here we might have a mixture of both, or do we. We have a creature which looks like is will do no harm, but we know the skin she inhabits is not her own and like a spider, the males she beguiles are lured to her lair and trapped.
It is hinted by visuals that she is not alone and that there are other aliens, but this is never confirmed, such is the movie. This is not a movie to fill a wet Saturday evening, no you watch this only if you are willing to work at it and take in all it has to deliver.
This is a work which has been well assembled, superbly acted by Johansson with cinematography which not only compliments the acting but is a necessary part of the story, of the work. Not the easiest movie to watch, but not the worst by any measure, indeed it is one which rewards the effort.
Written and directed by John Michael Mc Donagh, this is the second of a loosely based trilogy. The subject matter is not connected, rather locations associated with McDonagh’s background. The first installment was “The Guard” (2011). Described as a black comedy, it might be better described Dark thriller with a touch of dark humour thrown in.
Although described as “dark” this is a very entertaining movie, which from the start drags in the viewer and keeps us alongside to the very end. Brendan Gleeson’s character is that of Father James, the local parish priest in a small rural parish in Sligo. Boarding the coast, there are some fantastic backdrops (having spent two years living in the area, I can say the scenery is every bit as photographed for the film. Fr. James we learn came to the Priesthood later in life, after his wife died. As with any normal person, he has his daemons, he is open about his hard drinking ways in the past, now he controls his life and habits. As “normal” as he is, the villagers, his parish, are what can best be described as an “odd bunch”.
The film opens in confession, here we learn that one of his parishioners was abuse as a child by a priest. In the parishioner’s quest for vengeance, he has decided to kill a priest, not just any priest, but a good priest, someone people will notice. He is told he has just over a week to live, they even make an appointment for the following Sunday on the beach. We are not clear if he actually knows who his killer is. Following a discussion with his less than helpful Bishop (David McSavage), the Bishop feels that the confession was not valid, as absolution was not present and so he should report the issue.
Instead Fr. James uses the week to put his house in order and try find a way to stop what is going to happen. In to the mix comes his adult daughter (Kelly Reilly, Sherlock Homes, 2009), recovering from a suicide attempt. We see through her that his relationship with her has been strained over time and in deed still shows some stress marks but they know they have something to work out and so do. They treat each other as adults.
Over the coming days, we see Fr. James deal with his parishioners, the wife beaten by her lover, the lover who has no remorse and even the cuckolded husband, who is quite happy for his wife to have an affair, as it takes the pressure off him and basically they can get on with life. As part of his ministering to his flock he visits an old American writer who is living in a remote area accessible only by boat. While bringing the old writer his messages, he makes a request for a gun (Walter PPK). After some banter Fr. James says he will try and see what he can do. In the course of the next day he pays a visit to the local Police Inspector, to borrow a gun. The inspector is at home, with a male prostitute. Fr. James is not fazed by this or the prostitute’s behaviour. The prostitute is played by Owen Sharpe, I mention this because of his recent role in “’71” playing the young IRA killer, a completely different role, both done well.
As the week goes on, he has to deal with his curate, Fr. Leary (David Wilmot, Vikings 2013) who is not exactly the caring type, more concerned with image rather than substance. Fr. James is rather blunt in his opinion of him as a priest. Indeed one of the defining characteristics of Fr. James is his bluntness. When we see him with the financier on the edge of arrest (Dylan Moran, Black Books, 2000) who is trying to put things right (in his own way). Fr. Leary fawns to Moran’s character, while Fr. James just basically sees through the acts and gets down to business naming a figure and looking for the check.
As the week goes on, we start to see things taking a chilling turn, with his local church being burnt down and even his pet dog killed, we are not told who is responsible for these acts. We see the tensions mount to breaking point, while we also see moments of clam and belief, no more so that the French couple of holiday who were involved in a car crash, the husband is killed, while the wife escapes unhurt, we see in her a person of Faith and in so doing also see his Faith, it is real to him.
He has no airs and graces, when one of the village odd-balls, Milo Herlihy (Killian Scott, Love/Hate 2010-2014) sees Fr. James in church to ask for his advice regarding women; the conversation turns surreal. He basically has urges, possibly to violence , to control these urges he has decided to join the army, which he is convinced is full of psychopaths anyway and so should be a natural home for himself, Fr. James attempts to bring him back to reality by suggesting he read certain magazines, only to have milo say he has already tried them. What we see is a man casting no judgements and genuinely trying to help. His chats with the atheist (and cynical ) doctor, (Aidan Gillen, Love/Hate 2010-2013) also give us an insight to his view on life and his outlook on things in general, while at the same time not forcing a believe or rationalisation on the other person.
In dealing with his parishioners and even his daughter (and by extension himself) we do see a “good Priest”. Fr. James’s character is no Saint, he has his flaws and weaknesses like any person. He is essentially a person who is trying to help is parishioners without overstepping. However the various scenarios thrown up by the locals work at both levels, firstly allowing for a local and immediate (personal response) but also causing us to see the reaction of a kind and compassionate man, even if one who does not suffer fools to gladly.
Among all of the local community there is one who stands out, the altar boy, Mícheál (Mícheál Óg Lane, the Guard, 2011) he stands out for one reason, essentially he has reprised his role in The Guard, as a comic foil for Gleeson. This time it is a little more subtle but equally as good.
This movie shifts to a climax which can only end one of two ways, Fr. James alive or dead. A good man alive or dead. What we saw was a week in the life of a small parish, all seemingly tranquil and calm while below the surface there is violence, loneliness, suffering and pain and only one man has an idea as to what extent the people of the village are suffering in their various ways, just as he is dealing with his own daemons.
It is felt Gleeson might get an Oscar nomination for this role, he deserves it
This is perhaps one of the more under-appreciated movies out there. Originally made in 1995 as a HBO TV movie, it has since gone on to win a cult DVD following since its release. The movie is set against the background of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which parallels the case as in runs over a period of about 7 years. The movie is based on true events, the extent to which is always up to question. People are dying, children are being murdered and the police are getting nowhere. One junior forensic detective , Viktor Burakow (Stephen Rea, V for Vendetta, 2005) believes they have a serial killer. He takes his opinion to his Superior, Col. Fetisov (Donald Sutherland, Space Cowboys, 2000) who although reluctant to believe Burakow, reports the possibility to the local Communist party officials over-looking the work of the police. They are emphatic that there are no serial killers in Russia. End of discussion. It may have been the end of the discussion, but not the murders. The murders sting out over a number of years. In the early years of the investigation Burakov’s biggest hurdle was the Communist party who would not admit to such crimes in Mother Russia. The local officials ordered the rounding up of others who they saw as degenerates and likely suspects. Non had anything to do with the murders, more dead-ends, more time wasted. Burakow never gives up the search, often on his own and against the wishes of the Party. Josh Ackland (firelight, 1997) is the stalwart party official holding things back, loyal to the end.
As the murders progress and Burakow’s progress and resources continue to be limited, we get to know the murderer, Jeffrey DeMunn, The Shawshank Redemption, 1994) and what is driving him. What holds Burakow up against the others is his willingness to continuously challenge the system in order to have the resources necessary to do his job. His relationship with Fetisov, though friendly and professional most of the time is often fraught with tension. Fetisov is the person who has to deal with the party officials in Moscow and locally. Despite his continually limiting Burakov and calming him down, he actually has his back. Over the years when all seems lost, Burakov out of the blue gets his resources, he even gets promoted and has staff assigned. Fetisov, who, although often locks horns with Burakov over his demands ultimately supports him all along the way. What Fetisov brings to the affair is his ability to manage the situation. As the Soviet Union fell apart, he knew which vacuums to step in to and how to control the situation working it to provide the support Burakov needs. It is telling that the support is not just in terms or resources but also directly to Burakov. He is Fetisov’s man, he is the person to lead the investigation . Lead it he does, with little or no equipment he struggles but never gives up, however long it takes Burakov will keep hunting with whatever tools he has available As this happens we are conscious of the years and victims passing through his hands, through dogged police work, forensics and finally having access to the experts and testing he needed, the team slowly begin to make progress. As the investigation progresses and they zero in on their suspect, they need to get to know and understand him.
To this end Burakov manages to persuade his superiors to allow him bring in a phsyco-analist in the form of Dr. Alexander Bukhanovsky (Max von Sydow, Minoroty Report, 2002) who profiles the suspect and helps to track him. Bukhanovsky’s report on the profile of the killer, gives Burakov the insight he needs. Old fashioned police work allows them to progress. Burakov eventually has authorisation to put men in areas likely be attractive to the killer, it works. Once they have their suspect, they need the evidence to convict him, the need to know if he is sane enough to stand trial. The murderer, Chikatilo, is a cool calm character who has not given them much to go on. Bukhanovsky must work his magic, talking with their murder suspect, getting to know him and what drives him. They eventually manage to get our murderer to reveal, the bodies of many of his victims. This is a thriller to an extent, it is also a police procedural, but it is more than these, it is a good solid drama expertly crafted; written and directed by Chris Gerolmo (Certain Prey, 2011). From the very start we are introduced to Burakov as a person, we are encouraged to feel his frustration and smile when we see how Fetisov has been toying with him. Indeed the person who we thought would be another one of those party functionaries, turn out to be Burakov’s biggest supporter, even when their backs are to the wall. Fetisov, effectively “takes the heat” for Burakov, despite what the junior officer thinks. What makes this film stand out is the drama, not just the drama of capturing the suspect but the drama and effects of the changing environment, from denial and party politics to acceptance and doors being opened to ensure what needs to be done can be done.
Gerolmo gives us a glimpse of the conditions people were living and working under, while at the same time giving a vision of a society possibly changing for the better, people like Burakov would be allowed to do their jobs. Stephen Rea is under-stated and calm throughout, his character is painstaking and methodical, not one to go out on a limb, unless there was a good reason why and a high chance of success. Von Sydow’s Bukhanovsky gives us the intellectual science that was needed to finally put the pieces together. DeMann’s murder is a master-class in control, he play the part of the serial killer exactly giving vision to the analysis the detectives are painting, as the analysis deepens, the detectives get closer to their man, understanding him, anticipating him. Buy it or stream it, you will not be disappointed in this film. Just sit-back and let it bring you along. Appreciate the acting and the script. The pace never lags, and even in the darkness there are moments of light with the script and relationship between Burakov and Fetisov. A solid 8/10. Possibly 9
I was struggling on how to open, then I realised: this is classic Christopher Nolan (Inception, 2010). Nolan has written and directed this movie and it shows. If you want an adventure movie like Armageddon (A.J. Frost, 1998), then go see what else is available. On the other hand, if you enjoyed Inception or Memento (2000), then you will enjoy this. The movie is set somewhere in the near-future, though when we are left to guess. We are looking at a society which realised it is on the edge of the abyss and needed to act. There are too many people on the Earth and resources are running out. As the movie runs we begin to learn vital snippets of information, like both the India and US space missions went down at the same time. We quickly notice too that the house is not the usual mobile and tablet picture we have become used to. Our hero , Cooper (Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club, 2013) We learn is a farmer, he is working the family farm. Living on the edge of town , he lives with this Father-in-law, (John Lithgow, Dexter 2009) We learn that “Coop’s” wife died of cancer and he is bringing up Tom (Timothée Chalamet, Clown, 2008) who at 15 is looking to his future, and Murph, his 10 year old daughter who is trying to find her way in the world, a bit like her father.
I say this because, they are both technical, very technical. We learn that Coop is a former NASA pilot, from a time when NASA was preparing for flight into the Solar System. Early on we see he is haunted by dreams of a crash and we wonder if he has left NASA due to an accident. This is quickly put aside as we put together the pieces. Many of his neighbours have had to sell-up, their wheat has died, and we are once again seeing a dust-bowl hinterland. They grow corn and are surviving, they have “plenty of corn”. Murph believes she has a ghost in her room because books are falling off the shelf and Coop’s module of the lunar Lander mysteriously fell from the book –case and broke. At a parent teacher conference we learn that Tom has been designated a “Farmer” he is not smart enough for University and the University is limited in the places it can take. Once again we hear talk of limitations, rationing. What really upsets Coop (his reaction gets his daughter suspended for a month) is the news that his old text books are now banned because they have now been rewritten and the Lunar landings and the Apollo missions are being written as great hoaxes to bankrupt the Soviet Union. It seems the human race has turned its back on technological growth and development, only what is essential is being done. All resources are being diverted to food production. Humanity is about surviving.
Against all of this Murph’s hauntings are continuing, after on episode, Coop thinks he has a clue, coordinates. Together with Murph, he head to there. Arriving at the location at night, they are…well they end up deep in a famous mountain. When this happens, they movie was still taking shape, and I have to say Close Encounters of third Kind (Spielberg, 1977) flashed by me at one stage. We quickly learn after some great lines that they are in what is left of NASA. NASA is now a secret government organisation which many people think has been shut down. Resources are needed else where. We learn also that there is no need for armies, they have been done away with (later we learn that it is likely that one of the last functions of the world’s armies was to kill the starving. It is said in passing how starving populations were wiped out. There are too many humans.
Now, this is where the movie is a step above the rest, the one-liners and MCconaughey’s ability to deliver them – as well as others. The script is very sharp. NASA is being led by Professor Brand (Michael Caine, The Dark Night, 2008) who working with his daughter, Dr. Brand, (Anne Hathaway, The Devil Wears Prada, 2006) and a small team of others; is working to seed possible new worlds made available through the appearance of a wormhole near Saturn. It is believed “They” put it there but nobody knows who “They” are. There are about a dozen worlds in systems past the wormhole that may support life. About 10 years ago a group of missions went through the wormhole , each carrying one person , each tasked to send back data and report if life is possible. Most of the signals were negative or have been lost, there are three alternatives; t. Professor Brand, shows Cope around the labs, the Corn is starting to die now also , just like the potato blight in Ireland and then the wheat.
I should point that at this stage my blood-pressure rose slightly, was Nolan/Brand referring to the Famines of 1847 or has there been a new Irish Potato Famine caused by blight, actually there might have been – but okay, all our spuds could die in the morning, we would survive here as A) biodiversity, B) imports. But here’s the rub, this is a Nolan movie, we are expected to think. Already the UN and others is nervous of our overdependence on rice in parts of the world (it is also an environmental nasty) and are trying to replace it with potatoes, which are healthier, and more environmentally friendly. The danger is removing one risk and replacing it with another, we still have not solved blight. I mention this because it seems the blight has been extensive enough globally to have an environmental impact on CO2 levels.
We learn now that the Earth only has a generation or two left before “we all suffocate”. Those that don’t starve will suffocate.
The Coop agrees to go on the missions, along with Dr. Brand and two other. Also along is TARS a cubide robot with various intelligence and human interaction settings. We quickly realise that because of Relativity; Special and General the team may not come back and if they do, because of the wormhole, it will be many years into the future. Murph is heart-broken and does not say good-bye to her dad. Quickly the mission is set and we have take-off. No time is wasted showing us any training. The team are launched and begin their journey to the wormhole, where we learn again resources are scarce, and one of the planets is nearer the wormhole and so time-dilation.
What now follows is an desperate search for a usable planet, back home decades have past, Murph (Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty, 2012) is as old as her father was now when he left, she is working on the NASA team trying to crack the effects of time on a gravitational formula that could enable the launch of a ship big enough to host a population sufficient to sustain life on another planet until Earth is back in balance. The breakthrough may not be possible, Murph makes a discovery. Murph’s discovery is all the more important, because of the declining situation on Earth. Through her return home and the dust filled desolation we see that the situation is growing dire. The family is holding on but barely. The adult, married Tom (Casey Afflek, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, 2013) is struggling. The family is feeling the impact on their health of all the dust. The Slow decline to anarchy is reminiscent of Children of Men (2006)
Looking for the lost missions, they search to see if any of them have survived, one has. It is the original leader of the effort, Dr. Mann (Matt Damon, The Zero Theorem, 2013). Is it possible to launch “Plan A” and provide a home, or “Plan B” – use the frozen embryos to populate a new colony?. At just about no stage do things go as planned. Time is running out, as are all other resources, all options are risks. Eventually they have one last plan. McConaughey, when all was lost, finds TARS again, together they solve a puzzle, the one of Murph’s ghost, there may be a chance after all.
This is a smart movie, a little knowledge of Relativity might be possible – check my earlier blog on the subject from last month – go to Part III if you are in a hurry, and the conclusion is really rushed . This is also a long movie and to be honest it felt it once or twice. Is this an excellent, Top Ten movie, maybe not, is it a very good movie, yes. It reward you along the way. The direction is sharp, the viewer is drawn into the movie, by being drip fed the backstory while at the same time being shown the challenge ahead. This is one of those rare science-fiction movies where the fiction is secondary to the science and to the human impact of what is on-going. The ensemble nature of the cast, ensure they are the focus. Okay, yes, there are parallels to be drawn to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick, 1968) even down to how TARS (Bill Irwin) reminds us of HAL from 2001. That said, I’d rather travel with TARS.
Great cast, great performances, from all. I’ve tried not to give too many of the plot developments. Enjoy.
Unlike most of the usual Dracula movies, this offering focuses on the events which led to his conversion to vampire. The usual version of history is to pain the original Vlad Tapes is to paint him as a sadistic murderer who spent much of his time hoisting is enemies and serfs on to pikes in order to teach any survivors a lesson.
Luke Evans (Immortals, 2014) plays the eponymous role. We see him as a family man, trying the best for his people and his family. We quickly learn that Vlad’s adulthood has been shaped by the pains of his childhood. Like many Christian children in the lands of the Turkish Empire. He had been one of a 1000 child levee taken by the Turks as part of the devsirme system to be raised as a convert to Islam and a member of the Janissaries, the Empire’s elite guard. After a number of years he managed to return to his father (it is not clear whether he escaped or was allowed to return home). It is thought from the film that given his royal birth, his time of service was for a fixed period rather than for the other boys who were for life.
The film quickly opens with Turks in his principality (which is in the area controlled by the Turks) being killed mysteriously. He tracks the source of the killing to a “monster” living in a cave at the top of a particular mountain. When they first go there, they find aging skeletons of previous visitors not dead. Indeed his two companions are killed and he only survives because he manages to get to sunlight.
What quickly follows in the Turks arriving to find what happened to their lost battalion. He is the first major flaw in the system. How come there were so many Turks in his region and he never knew this. The second issue is how come there was a cave and mountain where people are being killed for generations and he never knew about. In the midst of this The Turks turn up with new cash payment demands, the gold is not the issue, the levee for more young is the issue. Indeed the Turks use the “blond” Janissaries to deliver the message and take delivery of the money/children. Vlad refuses, especially as his own son is to be one of those taken. (Vlad’s father, still alive has no issue with giving his grandson and feels it is safest for the country).
Vlad eventually refuses to send his son, goes to the Turks and offers himself only to be refused. The Turks eventually march on Vlad’s Castle, he is forced to move his people to a nearby monastery for protection. They are vastly outnumbered and have no hope of survival. Faced with this scenario Vlad has no choice but to revisit the cave and make a deal with the monster in question. The old vampire gives Vlad his blood on the understanding that the effects last for three days but if he drinks blood in this time his conversion will be permanent.
He never the less allows himself the temporary conversion and sets about to rescue his people. Needless to say he gets back just in time to save his people but only after his wife is defenestrated as per the legends. In his grief he destroys the Turkish army and the legend is born. Overall if the movie tried to style itself after Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 Dracula then he missed the mark, indeed it feels more like Stephen Sommers’ 2004 Van Helsing. This is Gary Shore’s first directorial offering and although adequately put together it does show that it is a first effort.
Overall I found the plot laboured, the script basic and really it felt like an a story tagged up to capture the Dracula legend. For those of you fans of Horror or the Dracula legend, don’t bother with this, it will not add to the mythology. If you want a hour or two of entertainment, then this might suffice. It will not go down in history. Dominic Cooper play a passable Mehmed, but he just had to play a warlord. Charles Dance plays the “Master Vampire”, he is his usual self there. I would have liked some extra back story around this point. Another failing in the film is at the start the vampire could not manage any sun as he came out of his cave, but at the end of the movie we see Vlad in London (as he bumps in to the modern Mirena As he does this we see the Master in the background, neatly dressed and looking a lot more human than he did previously – what happened to cure his aversion for sun –light?
Overall a poor affair getting at most 2/5, and that’s at a push.
There are very few movies which have contributed to the creation of a genre, M is one of these. We see in this movie a nascent Noir setting, we see a dark psychological thriller. Lang’s M (1931) is one of those rare movies which has influenced those coming after it. We see tones of the shadows, the underworld and the police, the fear of society in John Fords, Oscar winning “The Informer” staring Victor McLaglen from 1935.
Once we begin to watch this movie we see the stylisation, indeed do we see shades of F.W. Marnau’s 1922 Nosferatu. The limitation of camera’s and sets in the earlier years certainly helped with the stylisation, we in effect see theatrics on camera, this is not a bad thing. The movie is about contrasts, as we will discuss a little later. From the very start with the children’s games, the shadow on the Police notice etc. this is a movie which is visual, it is the camera more than the script that tells the story. Of course we have to remember, people such as Lang worked their apprenticeships in silent cinema and it shows, positively. Alfred Hitchcock once said you should be able to follow a movie without its dialogue, this is certainly the case here.
Camera play and tome give us power and fear, the camera conveys the mood of the scene, the home ideal, the police offices or even the criminal gangs. We see our villain Hans Beckert is first a shadow, when we see him as a person he is at his weakest, the power is in the shadow, not the light. The camera angles also play into the effects of the cinematography, whether it is the high sweeping shot of the children playing or the shot of Lohmann at his desk in the smoky room with the map to his back (he is a man of power). Just as I mentioned the almost theatrical approach by Marnau in the 20’s I can’t help but wonder if Lang’s use of the shadow and darkness influenced Brava or Argento in their delivery of the Itallian Giallo horror genre. The street scenes such as young Elise Beckmann (Inga Landgut) plays contrast with the scenes of her mother preparing dinner at home. Her playing ball and reading the police notice show the underlying danger, against this her mother goes about her business preparing dinner in the bright, clean and homely apartment. All is not perfect even before she notices her daughter missing, the horror of the murders pays a visit by way of the tension it is causing. The calmness of home is shattered when it becomes clear what has happened, again the contrasts.
Lorre’s Beckert is troubled, he seems to be fighting the evil inside him, a fight he has lost. This film is about the struggle between light and dark, whether it be the dark places within us, the dark shadows of our environment or even the darker aspects of the society we live in. We see the chaleenge of society to police itself and protect itself. As we mentioned M is a first of its kind movie, we see what is to become a psychological thriller, again mirrored in The Informer.
The movie is almost an intrusion into the lives of others. We see the mother innocently preparing dinner in her home safe bright warm and friendly in contrast to the dark shadows and tension of the streets. Frau Beckmann(ellenm Widmann) has an almost silent role except to scream her anguish in the search for her child and indeed the mourning for her. The camera helps the story.
There is fear and despair on the streets. Any man who does not fit in as expected is immediately a suspect, condemmed as the murderer. The Minister orders an immediate arrest. The police deploy the most up to date “scientific” methods to find him. Their efforts begin to have an impact on the ordinary criminals of the city, indeed given this and their own moral outrage, they too begin to look for Beckert. As we see this we also notice the importance of the time, whether it is the need for immediate results or the thieves with their stolen watches, time is ticking, people are dying. As the police work to track him using a mix of “modern” science and old-fashioned policing we see the parallel search by the criminal underworld get under way searching out the evil in their city, an evil far below even their standards, this is an unacceptable evil. The search is organised in grids around the city.
True to form, Lang has Beckert recognised, not by sight but by sound, it is a blind beggar that recognises him from a tune whistled. Another Beggar marks him with an “M” so he can be followed, It is the criminals not the police that eventually find and capture him. He is followed in to an office block as it closes, the criminals take it over as if it were a bank about to be robbed. He is eventually caught. Such is the stylisation of the camerawork that we can see and notice the angular presentation of these scenes inside the symmetrical, ordered office building. He is, as we said, captured and taken to a place where he can be tried by his peers. The police are one step behind but trick “Papa” Lohmann (Otto Wernicke) into revealing where Beckert is to be brought.
When we see Beckert brough to the crowed cellar, he is brought before a tribunal of the city’s criminal class. They are intent in justice at least seeming to be done and even give him a defence lawyer. We see in this scene Beckert’s attempt to plead for his life, he sees himself as much a victim of his illness as the others. There is the semblance of justice, but we all know his life is forfeit. Before he can be finally judged and sentenced by his “peers”, the police, acting on the information they got out of Lohmann, raid the cellar and capture Beckert.
Again the contrast continues; when next we see Beckert he is being brought before a court of Justice. The dark, shadowy rough and curved setting of the cellar is set against the bright, ordered, “square” scene of the court house. Once again the silent-movie pedigree comes through, we never hear the judges speak, the action is purely in the camera-work. The mother’s mourning is all we see, despite him, Beckert, being guilty and for execution her child will not be brought back.
As mentioned, there is a sense of neorealism about this picture, Lang is at pains to show the film through the eyes of ordinary people, not through a “star”. Looking at the film through today’s eyes, we can perhaps understand Beckert’s possible illness, not agree or use it as an excuse for his actions, but we can identify it, the question is, how would his character have been perceived by the audience of the time; his attempts to plea for clemency fall on deaf ears, he must be removed from civil society (whatever that is).
We are perhaps tempted to see this movie through the eyes of history and look for the indicators of the Nazi shadow about to engulf Germany and Europe. We need to remember both Lang and Lorre, fled Nazi Germany. We see society as Lang saw it, made up of powerful and week, good and bad, innocent and guilty, sometimes a mixture of all. We see a struggle between good and bad, both internally and externally within society, both with in groups and between groups or classes. Perhaps this is the type of division which cause the vacuum in Germany at that time, I don’t know. We see what is essentially a filmed stage drama, which has lost none of its appeal and horror over the years.
We all get asked about what our favourite film is. My answer is always, that I don’t have one, movies are like books or chocolates, depending on the time and taste we come across on or two every-so- often which makes us stop and think. I was fortunate enough as a kid/young adult to come across three movies, in some ways similar, in others quite different. Those movies; Casablanca (Curtiz,1942) Roma, Città Aperta (Rossellini, 1945) and “Things to Come” (Cameron Menzies, 1936) all left me wanting to know more. I can remember at different times watching, as a kid, both Things to Come and Roma, I did not know about them before hand, but once I had seen them, they left a mark. As an adult, our paths crossed again and I got to know and appreciate them. These are the movies which first found me and gave me an appreciation of cinematography as an art and medium for an author’s vision.
I was affected by the brutality and shear dystopia of the vision set out by Wells, Korda and Cameron Menzies, it was dark and as a kid, the stuff of nightmares, the bombing of the city initially and then with the sleeping gas by Wings over the World, left me with a chill I can still remember the best part of 30 years later. The poignancy of the air raids stuck with me, perhaps because I was (still am) a child of the cold war, and we grew up with the sword of nuclear conflict hanging over us.
The film opens in an English town/city, at one time it has the magnificent architecture of a capital but also the feel of a small English town, the name of the town is: “Everytown”. This unromantic view for a naming sets the tone for what we have ahead.
It is the Christmas period and our hero John Cabal (Raymond Massey, How the West Was Won, 1962) is talking with two guests, they turn to the subject of possible war. The discussion shows that opinion is divided between the friends . The conversation looks to the future history which may come given the on-going situation, it is even felt by some there that war might be good for society generally, spurring-on technological development. Our host Cabal is a pacifist and does not accept the benefits of war. The theoretical discussion is thrown in to sharp relief when later on Everytown is subjected to what can only be described as a Blitzkrieg attack using planes and tanks reducing the town to rubble.
Looking at these scenes of destruction we might be tempted to guffaw at the special effects and models, but we need to remember this was a ground-breaking vision in 1936, get past the limitations of the period and watch the movie, you will be rewarded for it. We might also not appreciate the forward looking nature of the story itself. We need to remember that the movie is from 1936, the vision from the book even earlier. This movie looks at the world around it and guesses to the future in store, unfortunately it was not too far wrong. The movie is as visual as it is vocal, it is probably the first film, the cinematography of which, left a mark on me. At the time there would have been no other movie which pulled the fears of the time in to such a neat package, giving us a glimpse of what the fears of the time were like. We can contrast it with movies like “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” (1943) which although filmed in war time, sought to show how an individual’s respect for another can overcome the evils of war, society was never allowed to descend to total self-destruction, it is a romanticised comedy of sorts. Things to Come makes no attempt to lighten the message, continuously bringing home the horror of the situation.
The war is not a short affair, dragging on for decades through the 50’s and 60’s, it is total war bringing in everybody including pacifist Cabal who we see later in uniform as a pilot. Even here we see the struggle of humanity over the destruction. Massey shoots down an enemy bomber pilot, but then lands to offer him help. The pilot is dying and as they talk a young girl comes across them, the gas and poison of the attacks is also falling around them, the pilot gives the girl his mask, Cabal rescues the girl and takes her back in his aircraft, leaving the pilot his gun, who after reflecting on saving the girl and in all probability killing her family, shoots himself.
As the war progresses into the 1960’s the cause of the conflict has long since been lost to the fug of war and history. Just as we thought things could not get any worse a new evil is visited upon Everytown , biological warfare in the form of a plague which causes the Wandering sickness, we are never told who the enemy was that unleashed this. Over half the surviving population of the world is wiped out. Any semblance of national government is also gone. The war has reversed and destroyed the technological advances made up until the war started.
The scene next brings us to about 1970, Everytown is in the hands of “The Boss” (Ralph Richardson, Doctor Zhivago, 1965), he is every bit the medieval warlord. Firm and vicious, he has controlled the plague by shooting anybody suffering from it. We see he has designs on a nearby group, the Hill People, he wants to take their coal and shale to make fuel for his surviving planes and grow his little empire. He is a despot in the classical sense.
Into this wrecked Everytown flies a modern aircraft far beyond the biplanes of The Boss, piloted by Cabal himself. He tells us of a new civilisation growing in Basra, Iraq. It is made up of surviving “Engineers and Mechanics” who have come together to form a new society, a new world order, based on science, technology and learning. Cabal is taken captive and forced to work on the Boss’s biplanes to service and repair them. He is assigned another to work with him, Gordon (Derrick De Marney), who escapes using the repaired aircraft. He flies to the new society, calling itself “Wings over The World”.
Our next view of Everytown is it being attacked by this new society, this time the gas used is a sleeping gas, when the population reawakens The Boss is dead. As the decades pass we move in to the middle 21st century around 2036. Society has advanced quickly, learning and growing through science and exploration. This has not all been perfect, this quick advancement puts strain on society.
The strains rise to a popular uprising against a planned rocket launch to the Moon. Faced with the danger to the mission the chairman of the ruling council, Oswald Cabal, John’s grandson (and also played by Massey) pulls forward the launch. These people are seen almost as luddites. Addressing the crowds towards the end of the movie he asks “All the universe – or nothingness, which shall it be?”
It is probably hard to underplay the part this movie should play in cinema history, The vision is clear and shocking, no more shocking for the vision itself, even before Poland in 1939 or even the Spanish Civil War which was only gathering pace in 1936 we are shown the destructive nature of Blitzkrieg. We are shown the destruction of society and humanity’s descent to a new Dark Age. Much has been made of the technological advances made by society as a result of WWII. Wells, Cameron Menzies and Korda gave us a new vision which was scarily accurate. We see how eventually a new society is born based on the advances of science, however all is not perfect, order and control seem perfect, but are they? There are few movies which despite being nearly 70 years old can still pack the same punch as they did when first out. The message of Things to Come is as valid now as it was in 1936.
books or chocolates, depending on the time and taste we come across on or two every-so- often which makes us stop and think. I was fortunate enough as a kid/young adult to come across three movies, in some ways similar, in others quite different. Those movies; Casablanca (Curtiz,1942) Roma, Città Aperta (Rossellini, 1945) and “Things to Come” (Cameron Menzies, 1936) all left me wanting to know more. I can remember at different times watching, as a kid, both Things to Come and Roma, I did not know about them before hand, but once I had seen them, they left a mark. As an adult, our paths crossed again and I got to know and appreciate them. These are the movies which first found me and gave me an appreciation of cinematography as an art and medium for an author’s vision.
I was affected by the brutality and shear dystopia of the vision set out by wells, Korda and Cameron Menzies, it was dark and as a kid, the stuff of nightmares, the bombing of the city initially and then with the sleeping gas by Wings over the World, left me with a chill I can still remember the best part of 30 years later. The poignancy of the air raids stuck with me, perhaps because I was (still am) a child of the cold war, and we grew up with the sword of nuclear conflict hanging over us.
The film opens in an English town/city, at one time it has the magnificent architecture of a capital but also the feel of a small English town, the name of the town is: “Everytown”. This unromantic view, naming sets the tone for what we have ahead. It is the Christmas period and our hero John Cabal (Raymond Massey, How the West Was Won, 1962) is talking with two guests, they turn to the subject of possible war. The discussion shows that opinion is divided between the friends . The conversation looks to the future history which may come given the on-going situation, it is even felt by some there that war might be good for society generally, spurring-on technological development. Our host Cabal is a pacifist and does not accept the benefits of war. The theoretical discussion is thrown in to sharp relief when later on Everytown is subjected to what can only be described as a Blitzkrieg attack using planes and tanks reducing the town to rubble.
Looking at these scenes of destruction we might be tempted to guffaw at the special effects and models, but we need to remember this was a ground-breaking vision in 1936, get past the limitations of the period and watch the movie, you will be rewarded for it. We might also not appreciate the forward looking nature of the story itself. We need to remember that the movie is from 1936, the vision from the book even earlier. This movie looks at the world around it and guesses to the future in store, unfortunately it was not too far wrong. The movie is as visual as it is vocal, it is probably the first film, the cinematography of which, left a mark on me. At the time there would have been no other movie which pulled the fears of the time in to such a neat package, giving us a glimpse of what the fears of the time were like. We can contrast it with movies like 2The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” (1943) which although filmed in war time, sought to show how an individual’s respect for another can overcome the evils of war, society was never allowed to descend to total self-destruction, it is a romanticised comedy of sorts. Things to Come makes no attempt to lighten the message, continuously bringing home the horror of the situation.
The war is not a short affair, dragging on for decades through the 50’s and 60’s, it is total war bringing in everybody including pacifist Cabal in uniform as a pilot. Even here we see the struggle of humanity over the destruction. Massey shoots down an enemy bomber pilot, but then lands to offer him help. The pilot is dying and as they talk a young girl comes across them, the gas and poison of the attacks is also falling around them, the pilot gives the girl his mask, Cabal rescues the girl and takes her back in his aircraft, leaving the pilot his gun, who after reflecting on saving the girl and in all probability killing her family, shoots himself.
As the war progresses into the 1960’s the cause of the conflict has long since been lost to the fug of war and history. Just as we thought things could not get any worse a new evil is visited upon Everytown , biological warfare in the form of a plague which causes the Wandering sickness), we are never told who the enemy was that unleashed this. Over half the surviving population of the world is wiped out. Any semblance of national government is also gone. The war has reversed and destroyed the technological advances made up until the war started.
We all get asked about what is our favourite film. My answer is always, that I don’t have one, movies are like books or chocolates, depending on the time and taste we come across on or two every-so- often which makes us stop and think. I was fortunate enough as a kid/young adult to come across three movies, in some ways similar, in others quite different. Those movies; Casablanca (Curtiz,1942) Roma, Città Aperta (Rossellini, 1945) and “Things to Come” (Cameron Menzies, 1936) all left me wanting to know more. I can remember at different times watching, as a kid, both Things to Come and Roma, I did not know about them before hand, but once I had seen them, they left a mark. As an adult, our paths crossed again and I got to know and appreciate them. These are the movies which first found me and gave me an appreciation of cinematography as an art and medium for an author’s vision.
I was affected by the brutality and shear dystopia of the vision set out by wells, Korda and Cameron Menzies, it was dark and as a kid, the stuff of nightmares, the bombing of the city initially and then with the sleeping gas by Wings over the World, left me with a chill I can still remember the best part of 30 years later. The poignancy of the air raids stuck with me, perhaps because I was (still am) a child of the cold war, and we grew up with the sword of nuclear conflict hanging over us.
The film opens in an English town/city, at one time it has the magnificent architecture of a capital but also the feel of a small English town, the name of the town is: “Everytown”. This unromantic view, naming sets the tone for what we have ahead. It is the Christmas period and our hero John Cabal (Raymond Massey, How the West Was Won, 1962) is talking with two guests, they turn to the subject of possible war. The discussion shows that opinion is divided between the friends . The conversation looks to the future history which may come given the on-going situation, it is even felt by some there that war might be good for society generally, spurring-on technological development. Our host Cabal is a pacifist and does not accept the benefits of war. The theoretical discussion is thrown in to sharp relief when later on Everytown is subjected to what can only be described as a Blitzkrieg attack using planes and tanks reducing the town to rubble.
Looking at these scenes of destruction we might be tempted to guffaw at the special effects and models, but we need to remember this was a ground-breaking vision in 1936, get past the limitations of the period and watch the movie, you will be rewarded for it. We might also not appreciate the forward looking nature of the story itself. We need to remember that the movie is from 1936, the vision from the book even earlier. This movie looks at the world around it and guesses to the future in store, unfortunately it was not too far wrong. The movie is as visual as it is vocal, it is probably the first film, the cinematography of which, left a mark on me. At the time there would have been no other movie which pulled the fears of the time in to such a neat package, giving us a glimpse of what the fears of the time were like. We can contrast it with movies like 2The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” (1943) which although filmed in war time, sought to show how an individual’s respect for another can overcome the evils of war, society was never allowed to descend to total self-destruction, it is a romanticised comedy of sorts. Things to Come makes no attempt to lighten the message, continuously bringing home the horror of the situation.
The war is not a short affair, dragging on for decades through the 50’s and 60’s, it is total war bringing in everybody including pacifist Cabal in uniform as a pilot. Even here we see the struggle of humanity over the destruction. Massey shoots down an enemy bomber pilot, but then lands to offer him help. The pilot is dying and as they talk a young girl comes across them, the gas and poison of the attacks is also falling around them, the pilot gives the girl his mask, Cabal rescues the girl and takes her back in his aircraft, leaving the pilot his gun, who after reflecting on saving the girl and in all probability killing her family, shoots himself.
As the war progresses into the 1960’s the cause of the conflict has long since been lost to the fug of war and history. Just as we thought things could not get any worse a new evil is visited upon Everytown , biological warfare in the form of a plague which causes the Wandering sickness), we are never told who the enemy was that unleashed this. Over half the surviving population of the world is wiped out. Any semblance of national government is also gone. The war has reversed and destroyed the technological advances made up until the war started.
The scene next brings us to about 1970, Everytown is in the hands of “The Boss” (Ralph Richardson, Doctor Zhivago, 1965), he is every bit the medieval warlord. Firm and vicious, he has controlled the plague by shooting anybody suffering from it. We see he has designs on a nearby group, the Hill People, he want to take their coal and shale to make fuel for his surviving planes and grow his little empire. He is a despot in the classical sense.
Into this new Everytown flies a modern aircraft far beyond the biplanes of The Boss, piloted by Cabal himself. He tells us of a new civilisation growing in Basra, Iraq. It is made up of surviving “Engineers and Mechanics” who have come together to form a new society, a new world order, based on science, technology and learning. Cabal is taken captive and forced to work on the Boss’s biplanes to service and repair them. He is assigned another to work with him, Gordon (Derrick De Marney), who escapes using the repaired aircraft. He flies to the new society, calling itself “Wings over The World”.
Our next view of Everytown is it being attacked by this new society, this time the gas used is a sleeping gas, when the population reawakens The Boss is dead. As the decades pass we move in to the middle 21st century around 2036. Society has advanced quickly, learning and growing through science and exploration. This has not all been perfect, this quick advancement puts strain on society.
The strains rise to a popular uprising against a planned rocket launch to the Moon. Faced with the danger to the mission the chairman of the ruling council, Oswald Cabal, John’s grandson and also played by Massey) pulls forward the launch. These people are seen almost as luddites. Addressing the crowds towards the end of the movie he asks “All the universe – or nothingness, which shall it be?”
It is probably hard to underplay the part this movie should play in cinema history, The vision is clear and shocking, no more shocking for the vision itself, even before Poland in 1939 or even the Spanish Civil War which was only gathering pace in 1936 we are shown the destructive nature of Blitzkrieg. We are shown the destruction of society and humanities descent to a new Dark Age. Much has been made of the technological advances made by society as a result of WWII. Wells, Cameron Menzies and Korda gave us a new vision which was scarily accurate. We see how eventually a new society is born based on the advances of science, however all is not perfect, order and control seem perfect, but are they?
There are few movies which despite being nearly 70 years old can still pack the same punch as they did when first out. The message of Things to Come is as valid now as it was in 1936.
The scene next brings us to about 1970, Everytown is in the hands of “The Boss” (Ralph Richardson, Doctor Zhivago, 1965), he is every bit the medieval warlord. Firm and vicious, he has controlled the plague by shooting anybody suffering from it. We see he has designs on a nearby group, the Hill People, he want to take their coal and shale to make fuel for his surviving planes and grow his little empire. He is a despot in the classical sense.
Into this new Everytown flies a modern aircraft far beyond the biplanes of The Boss, piloted by Cabal himself. He tells us of a new civilisation growing in Basra, Iraq. It is made up of surviving “Engineers and Mechanics” who have come together to form a new society, a new world order, based on science, technology and learning. Cabal is taken captive and forced to work on the Boss’s biplanes to service and repair them. He is assigned another to work with him, Gordon (Derrick De Marney), who escapes using the repaired aircraft. He flies to the new society, calling itself “Wings over The World”.
Our next view of Everytown is it being attacked by this new society, this time the gas used is a sleeping gas, when the population reawakens The Boss is dead. As the decades pass we move in to the middle 21st century around 2036. Society has advanced quickly, learning and growing through science and exploration. This has not all been perfect, this quick advancement puts strain on society.
The strains rise to a popular uprising against a planned rocket launch to the Moon. Faced with the danger to the mission the chairman of the ruling council, Oswald Cabal, John’s grandson and also played by Massey) pulls forward the launch. These people are seen almost as luddites. Addressing the crowds towards the end of the movie he asks “All the universe – or nothingness, which shall it be?”
It is probably hard to underplay the part this movie should play in cinema history, The vision is clear and shocking, no more shocking for the vision itself, even before Poland in 1939 or even the Spanish Civil War which was
only gathering pace in 1936 we are shown the destructive nature of Blitzkrieg. We are shown the destruction of society and humanities descent to a new Dark Age. Much has been made of the technological advances made by society as a result of WWII. Wells, Cameron Menzies and Korda gave us a new vision which was scarily accurate. We see how eventually a new society is born based on the advances of science, however all is not perfect, order and control seem perfect, but are they?
There are few movies which despite being nearly 70 years old can still pack the same punch as they did when first out. The message of Things to Come is as valid now as it was in 1936.
The opening scene sets us up for an almost post-apocalyptic vista, we see a black shadow come out of the fug of battle, a German officer, riding on horseback with background music reminiscent of Carmina Burana, only to be jumped by Pitt’s character and killed.
I have to say that this is a good movie but not a great one. If I have to be honest I found it a little derivative and also a little lacking in budget. If I had to describe it in terms of another movie, Memphis Belle (Michael Caton-Jones, 1990) springs to mind, in so far as it is about the crew on a tank (aircraft) trying to get to the end of the war, despite the challenges thrown at them. The cast is good, if slightly unbalanced. Pitt is a good lead, holding the team together, the star of the show however is Logan Lerman (The Perks of Being a Wallflower, 2012). This is not a Spielberg movie, with wide camera shots and panoramic vistas, this is in your face close-up cinema. Directed by David Ayer (End of Watch, 2012).
The story starts in April 1945, in the dying days of the war, despite the closing chapter , the resistance is still strong, with crews dealing with fanatical hold-outs in the advance on Berlin. At the start we see typist Norman Ellison (Lerman) find his way to the new crew, where he is promptly treated as all newbies, Driver, Garcia (Michael Peña – who worked with Ayer on End of Watch in 2012) immediately goes through Norman’s kitbag looking for “smokes” these are the important things not the books young Norman brought with him.
As the story develops we learn that the crew has been together for a number of years, indeed the opening scenes see us witnessing one of the crew being removed, headless. Norman is his replacement. As assistant driver, he is placed with Garcia, who quickly sets about making it clear what he needs to do and not do. All of this is alongside the constant ribbing of Grady (Jon Bernthal, The Walking Dead, 2010-2012) the gunner’s mate. The large Hillbilly type character is constantly needling the young recruit and causes some tension along the way which Sgt. Collier has to contain.
Sgt. Collier’s call sign is “Wardaddy” and we quickly see why. The opening scene tells us, his crew is the only survivor or a raid. Later on when he is teamed up with a tank squad under the command of a young lieutenant, he quickly puts the young officer in his place while at the same time ensuring that the other sergeants carry out the orders. When the officer is Killed, he takes over command of the squad, all of the other sergeant in the squad already know him and respect his leadership. All this works to define the character as the movie proceeds.
The crew is rounded off by gunner Boyd Swan (Shia LaBeouf, Lawless, 2012), who takes the shape of a Southern Preacher, often quoting Verse to apply to a situation and trying to offer a sort of moral compass to the crew.
The crew is tasked to support the taking of a town, with a small squad of Shermans. The captain leading the attack (Jason Isaacs, After the Fall, 2014) in the nearby village gives Collier his instructions, where the Tough Collier simply – politely – asks to lead his tanks a certain route, The captain simply replies that he knows him and his reputation, and he should do as he needs to . In this moment we see what could make this a much better film, attention to detail, little lines that give us character.
Before this attack the team is resting up in the town they just entered, as they approach the town they see the bodies of Germans, young and old, strung up for not fighting the Allies. When the town is taken the Burgermeister is leading out people under a white flag, among those coming out is an SS officer, Collier shouts down to the Burgermeister (in fluent German) if the officer is responsible for the hangings, yes. On Collier’s orders the officer is taken aside and shot.
This is a motive which carries through the movie. In this town scene. Collier spies a nervous woman by a window and goes to see what or who she might be hiding, It is her cousin. The women are treated well, by Collier and young Norman, the crew eventually arrive and share a meal cooked from supplies Collier gave the Germans. The crew through Grady is controlled through their childish actions to the German. What we see is a politically correct view that the ordinary German people were as much victims as others. Indeed the hatred is saved of the Nazis, such as SS soldiers.
Collier can be cruel, as with the rest of the crew, we see this when he forces young Norman to shoot a German prisoner, one caught wearing a US officer’s coat. This is done for his own good. It comes after a blood battle to clear the way for trapped troupes which has caused the deaths of a number of the other crews.
Unfortunately it is the battle scenes which although done well and I have to say violently, let the movie down a little. They reminded me of the cheap made for TV movies which show a sweeping panoramic shot of a great scene (usually poor CGI) and then show all of the fighting close up and clearly limited. I felt a bit like that watching a scene clearly limited by budget.
If we compare it to Lebanon, (Samuel Maoz, 2009), we get the same sense of claustrophobic struggle with which the crews must carry on.
The movie works towards the great climax where the crew holds off an advancing SS battalion, by which stage Norman’s transformation to a fighting soldier is complete, so much so that he gains his new warname of “Machine”.
The movie is stylised, not least of all with the various hair-styles worn by the crew, I suspect crafted to suit the personalities of each of the crew members.
This is a war movie but not an epic. The effects are close up without any big expensive sweeping shots that we have seen in movies like Saving Private Ryan (Spielberg, 1998) or even Bridge at Ramagen (John Guillermin 1969). If I had to liken this to a particular movie, it would be Ramagen, with Segal’s Lieutenant Hartman being an analogue of Colliers’. The danger with close action shots is that certain extras can pop-up more than necessary, there was one soldier who seemed to pop-up a few times here when they could have used another extra, scrappy.
A firm 3star movie, not bad but will not be a classic.
This movie tells the story of a young British soldier accidentally separated from his squad and forced to try and find his way back to barracks. First time director Yann Demange manages to capture a certain moment in the earlier years of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland and Belfast in particular.
A friend of mine asked what all the fuss was about with “Twelve Years a Slave” in America, I mentioned the historical nerves that it touched and mentioned how we tend to look at works about Northern Ireland in a similar fashion, with a very critical eye. This is true for “’71” also, would it be an overly simplified piece of almost offensive rubbish, or be able to stand on its own. It did, it worked.
That said, could this movie have been made 10 or 15 years ago, possibly not. Wounds, if they can, need time to recover. This movie touches on a number of the historical elements which might be overlooked by some. The movie works by deliberately not looking at the bigger picture of the politics of Northern Ireland, instead it pieces together a montage of events all linked to the young squaddie trying to get out of a situation alive.
Fresh out of training private Garry Hook, along with his squad, is posted to Belfast. We see O’Connell’s character finishing his training, say farewell to his son and ending up on a cot in a disused hall in an old school, somewhere in Belfast. We see from the time with his son that, he’s an ordinary father who loves his son and gives the impression he just wants to get on with life. The “elephant in the room” here is O’Connell’s performance in “Starred Up” (2013) where he played the part of a young offender, who because of his violent nature was starred up to the adult prison, where he fights to fit in, overcome his own flaws and even meet up with and reconcile with his inmate father. O’Connell’s character showed a potentially decent person trying to come to terms with his way of life and the inherent violence it brings. While in ’71 we see what is basically an ordinary guy dealing with immeasurable violence as well as charity.
On the first full day in Belfast the squad is tasked to provide security cover to the RUC while they raid a group of houses on a street. Prior to setting out, their equally inexperienced lieutenant (Sam Reid, Anonymous , 2011) orders Berets only, because they are trying to win the hearts and minds of the locals. The squad stand the line protecting the perimeter of the police operation, however the situation quickly descends, the platoon is overwhelmed by the crowd , a soldier is injured and in the confusion his weapon is stolen, private Hook and another are sent to retrieve the rifle but in doing so are set upon by the locals. One of the local women manages to get the gang off them, only to have a member of the provisional IRA shoot the other soldier and after a chase, fail to shoot Hook.
In the chase that follows we come across Captain sandy Browning (Sean Harris, Harry Brown, 2009) and his men. Together they make-up an undercover team working behind the scenes with both loyalist and republican terrorists. O’Connell manages to escape the young republicans who despite orders from the “Old-guard” not to kill the soldier, continue on their search for him. Meanwhile he is found by a young loyalist boy (Cory McKinley), whose father was killed and whose uncle is a serving senior loyalist volunteer. While in the pub where they are based events unfurl and set private Hook is once again on the run, this time he is rescued by republicans. Towards the end of the night we are faced with the regular and undercover army looking for Hook, and competing elements of the IRA also searching for him.
The movie works best for those who have some background knowledge of The Troubles, the dust-bin protests, the double dealing, the undercover squads, the rules and struggles with in the paramilitary groups and how the ordinary person is impacted. Two of the younger IRA volunteers Martin McCann (Killing Bono, 2011), and Barry Keoghan (Love/Hate, 2013) came to attention not least of all because of their parts which showed how people are brought in to causes and essentially be the foot-soldiers of higher-ups who are intent on keeping a distance.
There are a number of twists along the way in this movie, seen from the view of history they walk. Overall this movie captures an event and all it entails without sending any particular political judgement. If there is a judgement it is on the situation in its entirety and how ordinary people from all lives are caught up in events. Just who can be trusted? People turn against their own people for various reasons, not least their own self-protection. Overall an excellent movie which flows well and produces exactly the performances needed by all the cast. This is one of those films that will not hurt the career of anybody involved.
On coming out of the movie theatre after seeing the movie “The Judge” you might be forgiven for asking what kind of movie you just saw. Part court-room drama, part road movie, part family drama. Rather than being a schizophrenic mis-mash it actually comes together well.
Robert Downey Jnr, sets-off Robert Duvall’s character perfectly. There are essentially two main story lines, firstly the family dramas which unfold following the death of the mother of the clan (who we never meet) and then the court-case involving his father, the judge.
Downey’s character, Harry (Hank) Palmer is a Chicago lawyer, who on the surface has everything, great house, family, career all. Upon news of his mother’s death he returns to the home from which he has been estranged for some years. Upon his return it soon becomes clear why. The head of the house, Judge Palmer, played by Robert Duval is a painfully honest man, who sees things in his own way, of basic uncomplicated justice. He has been Judge in their town for over 40 years and his legacy hangs heavy on him. The character in some ways reminds me of the character he played in Secondhand Lions, ( 2003) again a tough old guy, straight as a die, who does not suffer fools. His wisdom of Solomon type approach may have kept the townsfolk out of trouble most of the time, but it was a recipe for disaster at home. He had 3 sons, the oldest Glen, played by Vincent D’Onofrio,(Law and Order: Criminal Intent, 2001) the middle son, Hank, (Downey) and the youngest son (Jeremy Strong).
It was directed by David Bodkin, who is better known for movies such as “Wedding Crashers” or “Change up”, while Nick Schenk (Gran Torino 2008) and Bill Dubuque took the lead with the script.
While home and dealing with his own pending divorce, Hank Palmer runs immediately in to the family tensions. We find out early on that the eldest son Glen was destined to be a baseball star until a car accident in his late teens damaged his arm and put an end to his career. We are allowed to presume who was responsible for the accident, it is only later that we are told what actually happened. Glen has the resentment of the son who stayed at home while his brother became something, he had to remain in his father’s shadow, running his own garage at the edge of town and also helping to look after his youngest brother Dale, played brilliantly by Strong has learning difficulties and uses a movie camera to record the life around him almost all of the time.
Not long after Hank arrives home, all three are on the porch of the house, when the Judge announces he is going to bed and makes final arrangements for the funeral, going inside he turns to his youngest son and looking him in the face, calmly says to him that if the camera makes an appearance at the funeral it will go up his arse.
While the family comes to terms with the loss, we see Glen’s resentment at life and we see the Judge being as stoic as ever. Hank, takes some time to watch his father in court and also meet some old neighbours (girlfriend). In to this mix comes news that their father has been in a traffic accident and a young man has been killed. The difficulty is that Judge Palmer has no recollection of the accident and the person he killed was somebody he locked away 20 years ago for the murder of a young girl, who has just been released on parole.
Such are the tensions that just as Hank is returning to Chicago he is told of the Judge’s arrest. Despite the tensions in their relationship Hank immediately begins to legally defend his father. When his father announces that he has hired one of the local lawyers for his defence, Hank sits in on the meetings. When the case comes to court it is quickly evident to all concerned that the local guy C.P., (played by Dax Shepard, Parenthood, 2010) is out of his depth when up against the sharp special prosecutor (Billy Bob Thornton, the Man who Wasn’t There, 2001)brought in to fight the case.
Downey quickly takes over his father’s defence and struggles to defend him. His father’s health and general attitude prove the biggest challenges.
There are so many twists and turn that I do not want to say too much. Outside of the courtroom we get a view of the family and in particular the three sons (neither of Glen’s two sons will ever play baseball professionally). What we see is three brothers who when allowed to be themselves get on perfectly, but in the presence of their father revert practically to kids, he controls the house. The Relationship with Hank and all the other is obviously stained, at one stage the Judge turns to him and said how he wished he liked his him more. With Downey being in the movie there are a number of opportunities for some light humour, all of which Bodkin takes, mainly revolving around events between Hank and his ex-girlfriend (Vera Farmiga, The Conjuring, 2013)of over 20 years ago, who he meets almost immediately upon return home. The issue in question is whether or not her daughter might actually be his also.
The movie is in many ways similar to “August: Osage County” from last year, this however is a better movie. We see essentially three movies in one, the homecoming/road movie, the family struggles and the court case.
As the movie develops, the Judge’s health declines, further adding to the developing story. This could have been a bad made-for-TV movies except for the quick wit created by the screenwriters and brilliantly delivered by the cast. The cinematography is simple, no great sweeping or dramatic shots to allow the director to tell the world how great he is, instead every scene counts, we get a feeling of closeness and despite being over 2 hours long, you do not feel the time go.
I did start the film wondering how it was going to go, my first impressions of Downey were of a reprise of his Tony Stark (Iron Man 2008) type character; arrogant and quick witted, but quickly we saw the character of Hank Palmer. The supporting cast was kept tight, but before I finish a word must go to Jeremy Strong(Robot and Frank, 2008), who played the youngest brother, a great performance, understated and calm but very effective.
Overall the movie works on many levels. If I was to say what the film was about I would have to say, “tension” tension between a father and son, a prodigal returned, a high-school jock now raising a family, the ex-girlfriend etc. what makes this film work is that the tension can be overcome. This is seen most through the developing relationship between Hank and his father, both in and out of the Court.
Rating 9/10
Some people thought it was not as strong as it could be, I however thought it worked even striking one or two raw nerves along the way, go watch it, the direction is strong and the performances nicely delivered. Each aspect of the plot is developed and I’m carefully trying not to give too much away.
tomatthemoviesdotcom 