Calvary

October 3, 2016October 3, 2016 tom Action, Comedy, drama, English, European, Irish brendan gleeson, Calvary, dark, John Michael Mc Donagh, Murder, Priest, Sligo, suspense

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 an 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. This is dark in its subject matter but the cinematography and sharp lines place this movie in the first league.

It is felt Gleeson might get an Oscar nomination for this role, he deserves it

9/10

John Wick

March 9, 2015March 9, 2015 tom Action, American, Dama, John Wick, Keanu Reeves drama, John Wick, Keanu Reeves, Michael Nygvist

This seems to be getting great reviews , personally I have to say I was not inspired by it, in anyway. This is an old-fashioned “shoot-em-up” directed by Chad Stahelski (300, 2006) and written by Derek Kolstad (The Package, 2012). The film opens with the scene being set: John Wick (Keanu Reeves, 47 Ronin) is a man grieving for his recently departed wife. Helping him get over this grief is his puppy which was a gift from his wife. For anybody else this would be possibly enough to get back on track with life, but Wick is retired and just getting on with life. It is in getting on with life that everything goes south. His luxury home is invaded by some Russian thugs who want to clear it out, of Wick has different ideas and defends his home, in the course of which his dog is killed. It turns out these protagonists are Russian mafia, indeed one of them is the son (Alfie Allen, Game of Thrones, 2011) of the mafia head (Michael Nyqvist. The Girl with The Dragon Tatoo, 2009). Now this is where things go East (or South) very quickly. Having defended his home with more than a little noise, the local police call over after getting a report of a disturbance at the house. The Police officer at the door see inside to bodies lying on the ground, and just confirms with Wick that it is work and leaves him alone. Wick is out for vengeance now so he digs up the tools of his trade – from the floor of the basement. Kolstad tries to give us something different. Wick was no ordinary mob- enforcer he was one of the best hit-men in the business and the thug who attacked his house is the son of one of Wick’s former employers. Wick announces his intention to get revenge against his former employer, who although respecting Wick is forced to put a price on his head to defend his son. As Wick gets back in to the groove we see that there is a certain guild of assassins with Wick quickly making contact with old fellow assassins to determine the game ahead. He bases himself in a down-town hotel which is actually a “neutral ground” for people in his business. All expenses by the way are paid for by gold coins – everything from clean-up crews to hotel bills. Viggo knows what’s coming for his son and explains that Wick is not the Bogeyman, he’s the guy you call to kill the bogeyman. The supporting cast is good, with people like John Leguizamo (Moulin Rouge, 2001) as the garage owner who recognises Wick’s stolen car and refuses to have it in his Chop-shop and Ian Mc Shane (The Pillars of The Earth, 2010) who plays the hotel owner, keeping the peace among the underworld figures assembled. This movie involves a body count, with the usual vengeance plotline, however it is done in a fairly original manner and is not as hammed as many others of this genre. It is a night-in modern day western for the boys. The plot is wafer thin, but manages to work. It could be a lot worse. 6/10

The Guest

March 9, 2015 tom Action, American, Dan Stevens, drama, Hollywood, The Guest Dan Stevens, The Guest

Directed by Adam Wingard (V/H/S/, 2012) and written by Simon Barrett (also V/H/S), the production stars Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey, 2012) as a soldier returned from “The war”, this one in Iraq. The film opens with a young man, David, jogging in to town with a full pack. We then see him calling to a house, it is the home of the Paterson family. He is met by the mother, Laura, (Sheila Kelly, Matchstick Men, 2003) who while initially sceptical of the stranger at her door, she allows him in and begins to relax, especially when he shows himself in a photograph the family have, he is posing for a group picture next to their dead son.

Over the course of the afternoon the mother invites David to stay with them for a few days. This of course is not greatly received by the rest of the family, most so with the father, Spencer, (Leland Orser, Taken, 2008), however once they start talking they get on well. Over the course of their talking David learns that Spencer has been passed over for a regional manager’s job. In the end they all get on and are glad to have somebody there who knew their dead son/brother. The Petersons have two other children, Anna (Maika Monroe, Labor Day, 2013) and Luke (Brendam Meyer, Mr Young, 2012). Anna is the self-assured 20 year old still living under her parents’ rule at home, balancing a waitressing job with a boyfriend, who as far as her parents know is history. Luke on the other hand is being bullied at school.

Pretty quickly, David begins to “help” the family. He sets up a situation with the boys who bullied Luke where he quickly inflicts sharp violent pain on them and subsequently advises Luke not to hold back when dealing with bullies. As the film goes on we also learn that the person who took Spencer’s job mysteriously commits suicide. Against this background Anna is suspicious and makes some phone calls only to learn that officially David was killed in a fire at a military hospital he was in. In the course of doing this David is red-flagged and a dark shadowy official is notified, he quickly pulls a team together and heads to Texas to find David.

Various bodies die in mysterious ways up to when the official, (Lance Reddick, Fringe 2008), who we learn is military police, raids the home. Once this happens the body count multiplies.

It turns out David was the subject of failed medical experiments, in short David will do anything to protect the family from danger or difficulty, this is his mission. At once both charming and polite while also a cold killer when his mission mode “kicks-in”

I’m not sure if this is one of the worst movies I ever saw or one of the smartest, I’m tending to the latter. The film overall has the feel of an eighties thriller even down to camera styles and soundtrack. Not only is the soundtrack a very eighties style the recording is also of the time with the soundrack abruptly breaking as a scene changes. As we prepare for the denouement we even get, wait for it; smoke. In a number of places the movie tends to play to stereo-type but always manages to rescue itself from becoming a train-wreck. One of the reasons for this is Dan Stevens himself – his face is pure rubber. He has a stare which could burn through brick and a facial range which many actors would envy.

It is a subtly stylised movie which could have easily have failed but for some very tight direction and of course for Stevens’ own acting ability.

Get the DVD or stream it, you should enjoy it – 3.5/5, 7/10

Taken 3

January 27, 2015 tom Action, Liam Neeson Action, Liam Neeson, thriller

Yeah, some of the editing is a bit rough and yeah our action hero does not seem to like running much and let’s face it the plot is rubbish, seeming to grow as the movie went along. One almost gets the feeling that the words “Let’s try this here” were used a lot in the scripting. Now that’s the negative out of the way, let’s look at the facts.

This is a EuropaCorp movie, Luc Besson (Lucy 2014) is one of the co-writers so we know what to expect. The movie itself is directed by Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3, 2008) and opens on familiar territory. Once again based around ex-CIA operative Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson, A Walk among The Tombstones, 2014) and family. Almost in the opening shot we learn daughter Kim (Maggie Grace, Lockout, 2012) is pregnant and not long after we see how Bryan and Lenore are on the best of terms. Indeed we soon see how she is having difficulties in her marriage to her current husband, Stuart, (Dougray Scott, Hitman, 2007) and pretty soon after that Lenore is found dead in Bryan’s apartment. What does this have to do with Russian mafia? No sooner than our hero gets home to the site of his ex-wife’s dead body do the police show up. He quickly escapes from them and so the hunt begins.

Our Hero is helped by the fact that the Detective in charge( Forest Whitaker, The Butler, 2013) is actually “smart”. I say helped, you’ll see why as the movie progresses. So now the fun begins. Whereas in the previous offerings the chase was a private affair almost, here we almost have a mix of two movies – The Fugitive (1963, 1993) and Taken (1 or 2). It helps that being ex-CIA and still having friends in the business means he is not alone. On the run, being chased by would-be killers and trying to find answers (sound familiar?), Mr Mills begins his traditional search and destroy. Of course no Taken would be the same without a variation of “I will find you” which I’m glad to say we have here.

This is a typical EuropaCorp vehicle, light on the brain, set piece moves and just enough of a plot and general action to keep the watcher happy. If I have to make one negative comment it is that I felt the plot was being developed as the team went along with the filming, but that said it still worked. Sam Spruell, (Good People, 2014) works well as the Russian ex-special forces bad-guy.

Without ruining the plot, the movie ends with the by-now traditional scene of family bonding on the pier. Watch it, enjoy it and remember it is only meant to be fun.

*** It does what it says on the label.

300: Rise of an Empire

January 6, 2015 tom 300: rise of an Empire, Action, CGI 300: Rise of an Empire, Action, Greek, Noam Murro, Persian, Spartan

Whereas most follow-on movies are either sequels or prequels , this movie parallels the original 300 (2006) allowing director Noam Murro (Smart People, 2008) and writers Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad the vehicle to run with Frank Miller’s material from the graphic novel Xerxes. What we see here is a continuation of the style first seen in 300 but a nuancing to actually make the work more watchable. The original scored through the visual effect and mythical character of the story-line while throwing vast amounts of testosterone across the screen.

What we see in this film is the story from “another angle”, Murro looks to the “back –story” of Xerxes’ (Rodrigo Santaro, The Last Stand, 2013) attack in to the Greek States. His attack is one of revenge having been manipulated in to the position by one of his greatest admirals, Artimesia, (Eva Green, Casino Royale, 2006) who works her manipulations in the shadows, removing anyone who would or could be of influence to the King. Green makes a worthy adversary to Stapleton

There are a number of “sword and sandals” productions out over the last 12 months, with the majority being rather poor, Noah (Darren Aronofsky, 2014) and Pompeii (Paul W.S. Anderson, 2014) being two examples. Noah for being too preachy and Pompeii for just being nothing great. Both had vast budgets and both failed to meet expectations, at least from my perspective. What we have with “300: Empire” is a director and writers who knew how not to ruin a work.

There is a good deal less of the mythical in this offering which is more focused on the battles. The movie works to set up the final dénouement from the very start; there is a story. The Greek states are being attacked, The Spartans are defending at Thermopylae, while General Thermistokles (Sullivan Stapleton, Gangster Squad, 2013) has assembled what he can of a Greek navy/army to meet Artimesia and here grand fleet. In to the mix of this Thermistokles is aided by his generals Aeskylos (Hans Matheson, Sherlock Holmes, 2009) and Scyllias (Callan Mulvey, rush, 2008) with an earnest Jack O’Connell (’71, 2014) playing Scyllias’ son Calisto who is more than eager to enter the battle despite his father’s natural reluctance, what follows is the usual plot line, it does not take from the film and adds a slight distraction.

Generally the work feels less theatrical than the original. The graphics and special effects are excellent and carry the film. Indeed the digital and physical staging needed for the naval battles works well. This movie will never stand tall on a plinth when it comes to the history of cinema, but it is not bad. This movie does exactly what it sets out to do; it tells a story in a graphical manner. It should be noted that the graphical nature of the movie is not just for the special effects, there are some gruesome battle scenes which when you consider the movie is 3D offer some gore for those who like their battles bloody.

Speaking of 3D, I am generally speaking not a fan. I have nothing against 3D but for the fact that it is often done poorly. That said, it worked here; adding to the overall effect. Watch the DVD or download, there are many worse things you could do with your time. Noah was barely a ** movie, so it seems a little callous to make this offering a *** star effort. But Noah was barely a ** while 300: Empire is firmly sitting where it should.

They Came Back (Les Revenants, The Returned) 2004

January 5, 2015January 5, 2015 tom Action, drama, European, France, Horror horror, Les Revenants, Sci-fi, The Returned, Zombie

Directed and co-written by Robin Campillo (The Class, 2008) and Brigitte Tijou (Riviera, 2005), this quite original piece deals with the returning dead in a way not often seen. The film concentrates on event s through the eyes of the local s of a small town in central France. The opening scenes are of events surrounding the returning as they are being outlined by the Mayor (Victor Garrivier, French Kiss, 1995) of the town as he briefs officials.

It turns out that the returned all came back in roughly a 2 hour window one day. Looking to the dead in detail society quickly sets about learning how to deal with the returned. It seems that those who returned were all dead less than 10 years and present no outwardly physical signs of having been dead. It quickly becomes apparent that the returned are lacking a certain “fire”. One of the officials states that they will never be able to use initiative and should not be given positions of authority, regardless of their previous functions in life.

What we see as the movie progresses is how society copes with these Returned. There are both the larger macro issues of how to house and rehabilitate them. the movie smartly deals with many of the issues we often glance over in such productions, what happens to the dead in the world of the living, can they get their property or old jobs back? How are they fitting in socially and are they being welcomed back by everybody? The central or unifying part of the movie is the city council and how they are dealing with the situation. This is a clever device as it allows us to be told the story exactly as Camillo wants us to hear it, it also allows us an introduction to key characters and how they interact between themselves and the returned.

With this device we see the Mayor coming to terms with the return of his elderly wife. Where the return is generally trouble free there is the issue of here wondering at night. This brings us on to “Mathieu” an architect working in a firm who previously had some significant responsibilities. It is now seen that his abilities are seriously restricted. This is discovered when the psychologist assigned to the returned has a discussion with one of the guards. The returned do not sleep. It seems that they also have no ability to make memories and essentially their communications skills are based on what they had when alive and situational memories which allows them to appear as if they are having on-going conversations.

Things may not be as they seem. The doctors and scientists observing the returned notice certain physical characteristics which allow the returned to be tracked. This tracking leads to some interesting discoveries. What do they do at night? What are the returned planning? Do they feel welcome? Where does all of this lead?

This is not a zombie movie in the traditional sense and there are probably some who would say that the returned are not zombies, whatever! They are re-animated corpses, they are zombies. Not having the movie focused on the usual plot-line of zombies trying to kill the human population is a refreshing change as it allows the many other aspects which are normally over-looked.

This movie is not perfect. It moves at a steady “European” pace which some might feel is slow (which I think, works) rather than the fast disaster movie action which we are used to with zombie films. This movie concentrates more on the rational and even emotional implications of the return rather than the traditional emergency response approach. The subsequent TV series which was released about 10 years after the movie is significantly different to the film while staying loyal to the original concept of the returned. I liked this movie, possibly because I had read about it and seen the TV series previously so I had an idea of what to expect. I quite liked it. It is a very interesting variation on an well-tried concept. It is interesting that in the 10 years since its release subsequent zombie movies have not overly tried to repeat this format, rather sticking with the traditional blood-fest approach.

If you claim to be a Sci-fi or Horror fan you need to watch this, if however you are a fan of mindless violence and body party being ripped off/digested then you need to go back to Master Romero’s works.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

January 5, 2015January 5, 2015 tom Action, Blockbuster, Moses Moses, Ridley Scott

The first thing to notice when watching Ridley Scott’s movie (Before I go to Sleep, 2014) is that it is an interpretation for the Biblical tale, it is not a Sunday School lesson. Watching it I got the feeling that we are watching a modern telling of an old story. The first thing to note is that this film does not have the same sense of preaching that the year’s previous Biblical epic had. Indeed the not so subtle messages from Noah are missing. There is no vegetarian eating, organic good guys versus the leather wearing, meat-eating bad guys.

There is no real need to discuss the plot, it is what it is. Moses (Christian Bale, American Hustle, 2013) plays the part of a loyal general, standing next to his “brother” through adoption, Ramses (Joel Edgerton, The Great Gatsby, 2013) firstly as Prince then as Pharaoh . We see a man who was first content with his life and how it was. However as he progresses he begins to question certain acts and assumptions.

As he does this, the reigning Pharaoh, Seti, (John Tuturro, Somewhere Tonight, 2011) also sees characteristics in Moses which he values and indeed mentions to Moses at one stage that he wished Moses would inherit the Royal title rather than Ramses. John Tuturro, although an excellent actor would not have been my first choice for this role, but that said, seeing him in it; he’s perfect, giving an excellent, calm understated performance. The interaction between Ramses and Moses is one of the corner-stones of the production which we see develop from princes and generals to a self-righteous ruler who will not countenance disagreement.

It is on one such mission from the Pharaoh, to investigate conditions under Viceroy Heghep (Ben Mendelsohn, Starred-Up, 2013) in the city of Pitom that the true nature of the enslaved conditions of the Jews comes to his attention. He meets with one of the Jewish leaders, Nun (Ben Kingsley, The Physician, 2013) who instructs him as to his past and introduces him to his actual brother, Joshua (Aaron Paul, a Long Way Down. 2014).

Through intrigues, Moses’ true birth-right in brought the the attention of Ramses, now Pharaoh. The effect of this news is to have Moses banished from Egypt. Following his banishment he eventually settles down and raises a family while receiving his message from God. The message drives him back to Egypt to release his people.

What follows is the movie act which probably had most people asking questions – the plagues of God to punish Egypt and set the Chosen people free. He we can see a difference from the Cecil B. DeMille production (1956) there is less of the Divine message than in the earlier work, more matter-of-fact. The plagues are well done and are even a vehicle for some subtle humour whether it is Ewen Bremner ( Snowpiercer, 2013) acting as the “Expert” trying to give the Pharaoh a very 21^st century briefing on what is happening or through Indira Varma who play the High-Priestess who finally pays the price for not delivering answers and solutions.

The plagues were sent with the Power of God and in fairness to Scott were presented thus. Overall this was an entertaining production which did not feel quite as long as it might otherwise have. The acting was all as required, delivered with the sense of a block-buster adventure rather than preaching . The setting and special effect were also more plausible (I cannot say if they are realistic) than with Noah.

The Film has been banned in Egypt, and that is a matter for Egyptian authorities, but it is understandable that issues of their past and the treatment of the Jewish People may be sensitive subjects. Also the appearance of God as a young boy in the form the Angel Malak (Isaac Andrews, Hercules, 2014) as the voice of God did not go unnoticed by people. The attitude portrayed also raised an eyebrow or two.

The special effects and costume departments deserve a special mention. Again I compare it to Noah with the costumes supporting the message, whereas here they were part of the production, as they should be.

From a religious aspect, some people will be unhappy but from a purely entertainment perspective, the movie works well, is engaging and gives us an excellent performance by Bale. Well worth watching, I would give it a solid ***

Beaufort

December 23, 2014December 23, 2014 tom Action, drama, Israeli Beaufort, drama, war

Some war movies depend on epic vistas, massive armies and battle scenes that would test the best CGI people, while others are somewhat more down beat, tight and personal, Beaufort is one of them. From the opening acts we see people trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Joseph Cedar’s 2007 work does not come across as a war glorification or justification piece, it is a story about some young men and women in a war setting. Based on the novel by Ron Leshman, Cedar wrote the screen play. It is smartly done, after 18 years of ensuring Hezbollah did not blow up the fort, it is now their last act to be done. Before they can leave the fort and destroy it, they must first actually safely leave the fort. This is not as easy as it seems as they are in effect the rear-guard of the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. There is also the added issue of the road-side explosives which will prevent them from leaving.

Young officer Commander (Lieutenant) Liraz (Oshri Cohen , Lebanon, 2009) is the person in charge. While his troops respect him there is still tension, not least of all from the visiting senior officers who do not seem to consider or understand their situation. 18 years previously Israeli forces took Mount Beaufort, as much out of bravado as anything else, faced with the crusader fort now in their hands they had to keep it, what we see are the last troops preparing to leave. To leave they must make the road safe and that is the responsibility of bomb disposal expert Ziv (Ohad Knoller, Yossi and Jagger, 2002). The tension between the bomb disposal officer and the troops mirrors the overall tension – they want to get out, but get out alive.

The setting contrasts the decrepit and often claustrophobic nature of the camp. Inside we see tunnels, corners, sparse but effective rooms and resources which contrast with the picturesque beauty of their mountain setting. In deed we hear that the ancient castle is a type of “No-man’s land” where an easy peace exists, as much out of a sense of reverence and history for the place as well as anything else. The Camp often takes on the air of a space-craft with the long angled tunnels or corridors it almost a cross between a 25^th century space ship and a WWI trench. It is an ensemble piece crafted to bring together a world of different people all trying to survive their common situation but each in their own way. It is a war movie but not one which requires constant bloody action to keep us engaged, as I mentioned this is more about the people, much like Das Boot (Wolfgang Peterson, 1981), indeed we see some of the same claustrophobia and witness some of the tension between the ordinary officers and the political or staff officers.

As the film moves to its logical conclusion we are kept from achieving that end until Cedar says so, it is a full story and if you are not familiar with the works of Joseph Cedar, this is a good place to start. To his credit the movie side-steps the mine field that is the real political situation which gives place to the movie. This is not a political movie in a small ‘p’ sense of the word, the Arab, Israeli situation is kept to a minimum, however we are shown some of the many ways the larger conflict has impacted the young soldiers. Death hangs over everybody on the mountain, we are left in no illusions about that, a fact that adds to the tension of what we see, at any stage any of the troops can die. Life is at the disposal of others, either those bombing them or their senior leadership.

The Family

December 1, 2014December 1, 2014 tom Action, Comedy, European, France, Hollywood Besson, comedy, De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mob, The Family

I’ve been catching up on my notes and publishing a few reviews as I find them. One such is The Family, which I had almost forgotten about until I was reminded of it in a conversation. My earlier post here was of Predestination, a film which I almost overlooked, except for the cast caught my attention, this one caught my attention straight away when it was released. With Robert De Niro (The Godfather Part II, 1974) and Michelle Pfeiffer (People Like Us, 2012) leading the charge as the husband and wife team leading their family to various safe-houses for their own protection after turning against their mob background. They are supported by Tommy Lee Jones (Men In Black, 1997) a long suffering US Federal Agent who must ensure their safety, something which is a lot easier said than done, given the Blake family’s inability to put mob-style habits behind

The family is completed by son, Warren (John D’Leo, Wonderlust, 2012) who together with his sister Belle (Dianna Agron, Glee 2009) must settle in to a new school, by now this is “old-school”. Quickly both apply their talents to settling in. Warren has a knack for identifying potentially financially rewarding situations while his sister proves to be more than able to look after herself, either with the local boys who want to get to know her or some of the more light fingered students.

What we have is a comedy of errors, associated with the family trying to settle into rural France, Normandy to be exact. As various challenges crop up, they must struggle to cope with them as a normal family rather than apply mob-style solutions.

This can have its own difficulties, but with the family being hunted by the Mob, things get even more difficult. Eventually just as the family is starting to settle in , after the barbeque, the pummeling of a plumber who tried to rip them off and the father, Frank, sinking himself in it by describing himself as a history writer and sparking the interest of the village movie club.

The Mob get to find the family and descend on the sleepy village removing the police and fire-brigade before they attack the family, unfortunately for the mob hit men, they are recognized by the kids traveling to the house what ensues is a typical Besson style action sequence, namely one which has no reflection on reality but is fun to watch.

To sum-up “The Family” is a lighthearted romp through the often cliched mafia movie genre. De Niro has settled in to the comedy role as he matures, a role which suits him, hopefully we will get a few more. This film is never going to win best movie or any of number of would-be awards but it is entertaining and delivers what it set out to do. When you get a Besson film, you get entertainment and fun, not necessarily always too conventionally, but always in a way that enures things get blown up and people die loudly.

A safe *** movie.

Dead Snow

November 12, 2014November 12, 2014 tom Action, Comedy, European, Horror, zombie comedy, horror, nazi, Zombie

By Special request for Stuart 🙂

http://youtu.be/lEQwEmeWnyI

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.

The Searchers

November 11, 2014November 12, 2014 tom Action, Hollywood John Ford, John Wayne, The Searchers

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 19^th century but with the mid-20^th 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.

Citizen X

November 10, 2014November 10, 2014 tom Action, drama, HBO Donald Sutherland, Max von Sydow, serial killer, Soviet Union, Stephen Rea, thriller

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

M

November 7, 2014November 7, 2014 tom Action, drama, European classics Fritz Lang, Germany, Marnau, Murder, Noir, Peter Lorre, thriller

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.

Fury

November 5, 2014November 9, 2014 tom Action, Blockbuster, Hollywood, War Brad Pitt, David Ayer, Fury, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, movie, Sherman tank, war, WWII

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.

Looper

October 6, 2012 tom Action, Hollywood, Sci-fi Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, future, Jeff Daniels, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Looper, Sci-fi

First off, this is a smarter than average piece of Sci-fi. As I’ve mentioned before, there are some movies I will see purely for their pedigree, even before I know the plot, Looper was one those movies. Written and directed by Rian Johnson (Brick, 2005) it also stars Joseph Godon-Levitt who also took the lead in the same neo-noir classic. Throw in Bruce Willis for some fun and we’ve a good mix.

In statistics two does not usually make a trend, but in cinema it might just. This is the second major movie this year where the lead characters are the same person but from different times. We saw this first in Men In Black III (Barry Sonnenfeld, 2012, see below) In tha movie our heroes went back in time to affect the future. The comic nature of the movie allowed Josh Brolin to do an excellent impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones’ character “K”. With Looper we do not have an established character such as “K”, so we could not as readily pick up on the mannerisms and peculiarities of the character, the physical characteristics had to be the key.

Now any of you old enough to remember Moonlighting (1985) will remember know that J G-L is not a dead ringer for the younger Bruce Willis. However some neat special effects and make up gave us two actors playing the same character, check the eyebrow movements and even the shape of the nose. I have to say the altered JG-L took a little getting used to , especially since Premium Rush (See Below) is so fresh.

All that aside the story revolves around a young man who has become a “Looper”, essentially a mafia hit man with a difference. In the future time travel is perfected and quickly outlawed. However other advances in biometrics also mean that the killing and dumping of victims has become almost impossible. As a result the mafia in the future employs the illegal time travel, all one way in to the past and sends one of its top men, Abe, (Jeff Daniels, The Lookout, 2007 – also staring Joseph Gordon Levitt) back to the “present” of the story and has him set up his own crime organisation. Daniels and Gordon Levitt are two very versatile actors not afraid to stretch their range and always know just how far to stretch. There is a cold danger to the Character of Abe which comes across nicely. As part of this he hires a team of young men to act as Loopers. They go to a certain place at a certain time and the victim appears, they quickly shoot them, take the payment silver bars attached to the body and then dispose of the body. All very neat and tidy. Earning all concerned an nice living (with the exception of the now dead victim). Life is good until Loopers start getting paid off by their future bosses. The nature of the pay-off is the issue of concern, They unknowingly kill their future selves; the problem is that when their victims appear they are hooded and in straight-jackets facing away from their executioner. But things go wrong, one survives and people find out what is happening – they get paid off in gold and know they have about 30 years of life left.

With our main characters this goes spectacularly wrong, future Joe, survives, manages to convince present Joe of the issue and while both are being hunted by the mafia, Noah Sagan (you guessed it…Brick) is a hapless mob lieutenant not in good favour with Abe who takes the hunt for Joe extremely seriously and eventually captures him and takes him to Abe, with deadly results for most concerned. Meanwhile older Joe is hunting down the person, who in the future will be the crime king-pin who has the loopers killed. Joe Junior goes to one of the addresses, which turns out to be the one. A lone mother, (Emily Blunt, The Adjustment Bureau, 2011), who as it turns out is protecting a very gifted child in an isolated farm. Ultimately the battle culminates in this isolated farm…

This movie is based on very philosophical science, and I thought I noticed the soundtrack (at least twice) sounding very Whovian at the point where the time travel occurred . They successfully managed to convey the plot while carefully avoiding all of the science but keeping within the rules of time travel as understood (I’m sad enough to principles of the science involved). This is good solid entertainment. It slows a little in the middle but picks up again building to the climax.

Entertainment from a cast largely used to working together and it shows.

Rating = 7/10

Lawless

October 5, 2012 tom Action, Hollywood Gary Oldman, prohibition, Tom Hardy

This movie just works is an understated way which moves at a pace which doesn’t outrun itself of get clogged down in slow tedium, it brings you along with the story and keeps you always wanting to see how a particular scene works out. I was happy to see it was based on a book (The Wettest County in the World, Matt Bondurant), which might be worth buying. Nick Cave (The Proposition, 2005) wrote the screenplay.

I mention The Proposition because the Director on that project was John Hillcoat (The Road, 2009), who ofcourse directed this offering. Set in Franklin County, Virginia during the prohibition years of the Great Depression it tracks the lives of the Bondurant brothers who apart from running a diner and garage just outside town also are some of the leading moonshiners in the county. The brothers are led by the quiet and cautious brother Forrest,(Tom Hardy, The Dark Knight Rises, Bane See below) who despite his calm demeanour is more than capable of swift well aimed violence. The middle brother , Howard (Texas Killing Fields, 2011) and of course the youngest of the clan, Jack (Shia LaBeouf Transformers, 2007) who as with all in his position wants to grow up fast and show the world that he is as good as the rest of the family.

The problems start when the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia bring a new Special Deputy down from Chicago, Special Deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce, Lockout 2012)brought in Commonwealth’s Attorney. Fighting an honest lawman is one thing, or living with the local police who know when not to take action is manageable, but Rakes is a crocked as the rest and more vicious than most. Forrest has built up a business by being careful and steady while younger brother Jack is headstrong and eager to succeed.

This of course causes some tensions with Forrest having to clean-up after Jack more than once. Jack however manages to do business with the Chicago mafia, represented by a very under used Gary Oldman (Dead Fish, 2005), if I have one complaint is it the use of Mr. Oldman. His role is essentially a glorified cameo and although it works, I suspect he presence on set had a lot to do with box-office pull.

The movie progresses through a few short years as the brothers battle the police, other boot-legers and themselves until the final showdown. This comes quickly when it comes and is done well.

I mentioned the movie is understated, don’t mistake that for “slow” it is not a slow film, it is a steadily moving story which brings you along with the characters as the story moves along.

This is a good old fashioned prohibition era gangster movie, Mr. Gagney would have worked well here. The cinematography works well with the director using the natural cycles of the surrounding countryside to mark the passing of time. The use of various signs and props also allows us to almost get a feeling of normality as life goes by.

Rating 8/10

St. George’s Day

October 5, 2012October 5, 2012 tom Action, European, thriller Europe, hooligans diamonds, London

This is a capable piece of entertainment, at times it perhaps attempts to be something greater than it is, but overall entertaining. Director by Frank Harper (This is England, 2006) who also co-wrote thje screenplay with Urs Buehler who up to now has been mainly technically involved in movie projects supporting camera and electrical work. Harper also stars in the production as Micky Mannock. Micky together with his cousin Ray Collishaw (Craig Fairbrass, London’s Burning, 1990). Craig wants to get out of the family business, His cousin Micky who runs the business with him agrees to buy him out.

This is where the trouble starts. Needing a sizeable amount of cash quickly Micky agrees to smuggle in a drugs load for the Netherlands. This is where things go badly wrong. Firstly he is working with Russian Mafia who life up to all of the stereo types for violence. This is a fight on the boat over – the boat is capsized in a storm and the Russian on board is shot.

As a result of this, the Russians want vengeance for their man, along with their £20 million; this would be troublesome enough except for the fact that they also have the police after them in the guise of two of Scotland Yard’s finest Inspector Nixon (Jamie Foreman, Layer Cake, 2004) and his subordinate, Proctor (Sean Pertwee (Dog Soldiers, 2002).

This all leads to a spot of bother where the two cousins need to raise the necessary cash and try also guarantee their safety. In order to buy themselves some time they engage the services of Trenchard, (Charles Dance (Michael Collins, 1996), a London underworld kingpin who is in a position to negotiate a truce and make arrangements for the cousins to pay back the money.

Paying back the money is the problem, but crime partner Albert Ball (Vincent Regan, Troy, 2004) who arranged the original shipment and is based in Amsterdam knows of a blood diamond smuggling route via one of the carriers. Working with the cousins they begin to formulate a plan for the diamonds.

In order to get the diamonds they piggy back to Europe with other family members and friends who happen to be football hooligans on their way to a match in Europe for an organised fight at it’s fringes.

Using the fight as cover they hatch a plan to rob the diamonds and get out of trouble. The Russians and the police close behind them thanks to an informer add more pressure than is needed. What unravels is a decent crime caper with a well-populated supporting cast. It perhaps looks to its background alongside movies as The Football Factory etc. but perhaps it also has pretensions to classics such as The Long Good Friday (John MacKenzie, 1980), it falls short here. It should be said in their defence; TLGF is a very high target to aim for.

The many twists have a feel of Deus ex-machina after a while, where one wonders if they are used to strengthen plot weaknesses.

Rating 6/10 an entertaining yarn which should keep gangster and underworld movie fans happy. All of the clichés are here and the movie very much panders to the jack-the-lad London image of rough diamond jingoism masking as patriotism.

Tower Block

October 5, 2012 tom Action, drama, English, European, thriller

Directed by two first timers; James Nunn and Ronnie Thompson, they take their experience and create a very passable offering. Once you have overcome certain hurdles with the setting first.

The setting is that of working class estate tower block which is being emptied with the residents moved else where. This comes on the back of a murder about a year previously where the killers got away because the local would not help the police.

As the film opens we are given small glimpses of our main characters, a drunk, some thug, working families, single mums and generally ordinary people As our “heroes” wake up one seemingly uneventful morning only to have a sniper fire in through their windows and start killing whoever he sees.

This, obviously, brings the survivors out to the corridor where they size what happed. Stopping here to reflect for a moment we need to forget the logistical issues, for example a tower block with residents only on one side, and those residents are on the top floor, the Health and Safety guys could make a whole other movie out of that.

I had to get that out of my system. Once the shooting starts and the cast come together we have real start of the movie. Within seconds it is obvious, we are not talking (Attack the Block , 2011 ) where our heroes defend the block (and the Earth) against terrifying aliens, of even (Dredd, 2012) where he battles out major urban warfare both something more subtle. I was immediately put in mind of Lifeboat (Hitchcock, 1944) or Das Experiment, 2001).

What we have here is not a lecture in social ethics and morals, it raises the questions and answers them through the various cast members, we are then allowed to almost “judge” the characters by how they respond to being trapped and frightened.

Jack O’Connell (Skins, James Cook, 2009) plays the local yob Kurtis, who a day previous was forcing extortion money from his neighbours such as Becky (Sheridan Smith, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps, 2001), a single women going about life as best she can. It should be noted that Smith flawlessly transitions from her normal comedy roles, as a matter of fact a number of the cast are better known for their more humorous roles.

As the story develops and people get killed we get shown more and more of the personalities of the people involved. Russell Tovey (Grabbers, 2012, see below) plays a lonely depressed alcoholic trying to come to terms with life, while Ralph Brown (Killing Bono, 2011) plays Neville a retired soldier who together with his wife just wants a quiet life. In the chaos following the initial shootings it falls to him to deal with Kurtis.

This is a good and very watchable ensemble piece which thankfully stops short of patronising us. The supporting cast is made of some of the UK’s better known young actors and this definitely helped. What we have here is our cast trying to escape and in so doing needing to overcome the physical obstacles of the building, traps by the sniper and their own selves.

We are brought along as much by the characters as by the movement of the film itself. I am deliberately being vague about the plot; simply put the survivors need to escape, overcoming the sniper, themselves and their environment. This had the potential to be bad but managed to escape it

6/10 engaging movie which knows where to hold back and not patronise to the audience any more than necessary.

Premium Rush

October 5, 2012 tom Action, drama, Hollywood Chase, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, New York, parkoor

This is a movie that knows what it is – entertainment. I saw the posters and wasn’t overly sold on the idea of a courier being chased around New York; then I looked and saw the cast list and decided it was worth a try, any movie with Joseph Gordon-Gordon-Levitt (The Lookout, 2007) usually is, it got me thinking there might be an angle to this movie.

This is an original slightly quirky but entertaining movie. Directed by David Koepp (Stir of Echoes, 1999) and also co-written by him with John Kamps (Ghost Town, 2008). Essentially the story evolves around a group of New York cycle couriers. Our Hero, Wilee (all through the movie I thought his name was “Reilly”) is hired to take a package across the city by 7pm. The thing is he was hired by his girlfriend’s former room-mate, Nima (Jamie Chung, The Hangover Part II, 2011) who asked for him specifically. It turns out he is the only person she trusts to deliver the envelope. Why the trust because it is worth about $50,000 and is essentially a promissory note to a Chinese gang leader in payment for Nima’s son to come over from China – watch the movie for the details.

Ordinarilly this would all be fine except at around the same time, there is a police detective with a gambling problem who owes a considerable amount of money and decides to go further in, in the hope of getting out of his predicament. As a result of killing a Chinese street kid that he took his anger out on, he’s now a liability and also must get the ticket to pay his debts. Detective Monday (Michael Shannon Machine Gun Preacher, 2011 is a man who just went over the edge and is fighting (and failing) to hold on to what little sanity he has as he chases down Wilee and the ticket.

As if Wilee hasn’t enough to do he has to try make-it-up to his girlfriend Vanessa (Entourage, 2010) while at the same time ensuring his love rival Manny (Wolé Parks, As The World Turns 2007). All this might be enough to ruin an normal day, but the rivalry with Manny results in them getting the attention of NYPD cycle cop played by Christopher Place (CSI NY, 2006), although usually employed as a stunt man, he works well as part of the comic side.

The fact that they use Place, a stunt man, will give you an indication that not all is safe and well of the streets. The chases are fast and more than nerve wracking. This is parkour on bikes. An interesting slant is the “time-outs” Wilee takes during the chases to look at his options and try go for the least fatal. This is similar to the device used in Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes (See Below) when our eponymous hero plans out his fight moves.

Through twists turns and falls the movie moves to a satisfying climax which works well, in line with the overall flow of the movie. The soundtrack also works well, with one final exception – the closing track Baba O’Reilly from Pete Townsend & The Who. There is nothing wrong with this track except as soon as I heard it I immendiately jumped to to thinking of a certain New York based police procedural show mentioned above. IT ofcourse did not help my “Reilly” mistake. A fine piece of music but one which I heard a few times lately when I should not have.

That said the script is sparse, the vocal and visual jokes work and the supporting cast of familiar faces bring the movie home. Uncomplicated fun

7/10

Batman: The Dark Knight Rises

August 19, 2012August 19, 2012 tom Action, Hollywood, Uncategorized Action, Alfred, Bane, Batman, Christian Bale, Cillian Murphy, Gary Oldman, Gordon, Gotham, Michael Cane, Robin

We’ve learned from all too many examples that the first of the franchise was the best of the set, with the sequels being poor imitations of feeble attempts to regain the position of the first. This has not been the case. Although I thought the second of the three to be Christopher Nolan’s (Inception, 2010) best, this is still a good movie. There were some raised eyebrows when Nolan announced he was hanging up his lenses in relation to the Batman movies, at the time I was also surprised, but after seeing the movie, I can see his point. Rather than the franchise going on mindlessly he has chosen to build a character, or indeed a set of them, with a fixed story arc over the three movies. The reappearance of so many characters through the movies shows the strength of linkage between each movie, these were more a series than a franchise.

This was a closing movie; a number of plot threads were closed and neatly dealt with, while some new ones were introduced, more on that later. Although it is Nolan’s last offering here I don’t think it is the end of Batman…and Robin. There have been some criticisms that somebody coming fresh to the movie would not fully understand some of the plot elements and characters. Possibly but it is bit like the Bourne franchise. I had not seen the first when I saw the second. I then went out and bought the first for all of the parts to fit together. If you by a book you do not start at chapter 8, likewise if you are going to watch a franchise movie, see the earlier offerings first to know what you are watching….

Christian Bale (The Flowers of War, Yimou Zhang, 2012)is the brooding billionaire drawn back to the role of Batman, I say “brooding” more like sulking in places, but as ever his character manages to work. Michael Caine (Harry Brown, 2009) was as ever the paternal Alfred always having a wise and careful word of advice. Doubling with Cane was Morgan Freeman (Red 2010) who also co-paternally looked after Wayne’s interests, but this time from the technology side, again he manages to pull a few gadgets out of the armoury without ever giving us the impression he was a re-imagined “Q”. Marion Cotillard (Big Fish, 2003) as Mirranda Tate added a nice touch of class. Tom Hardy (This means War, 2012) played the necessary bad guy. What is interesting here was that it took me some time to recognise him. The acting was stunted, as the character possibly needed, but you have to hand it to Hardy for his ability to constantly change his physical appearance. Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada, 2006) has certainly matured and was exactly what we expected as Catwoman, not all bad, with tough of a good streak to win us over. Some of the supporting cast like Nestor Cabonell (Lost 2007-2010) and Matthew Modine (The Browning Version, 1994) I felt did not quite work. That said Cillian Murphy (In Time, 2011) back as Dr Jonathan Crane, gave a performance which reminded me of the beggars’ court in Fritz Lang’s (The Blue Gardenia, 1953) “M” (1931). This was one of the few parts where the dystophic atmosphere created by Nolan actually worked. The use of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (50/50, 2011) was certainly a bright part. That said is appearance and possible development became obvious very quickly, sadly it took to the closing scenes to confirm what we thought, and so the possible re-launch of the franchise. I can’t not mention Gary Odlman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, 2011) as Commissioner Gordon who delivered the fighting character we’ve come to expect, a far improvement on the original quasi-comedic characterisation.

The plot is if course; bad guy tries to take over and/or destroy Gotham and Batman has to save the day…all fairly standard really. Overall a good piece of entertainment, even if it did sag a little just past the middle. It will be interesting to see how the Batman and Robin story develops. All in all not a bad effort; not a perfect film, long in places but well worth watching

Rating 7/10

tomatthemoviesdotcom

Rants on movies …old and new

Action