The House on Pine Street

The House on Pine Street.

Directed by Aaron and Austin Keeling (more known for their short movies) An interesting idea which ultimately lets itself down by giving us too much and tool little at the same time, creating a movie which is a mixed bag of everything.  A young couple recovpinestreetering from issues which reveal themselves as the movie goes on, move in to a house in a sleepy Kansas sub-urban town.  Here immediately the film falls for its biggest weakness, cliché; as the couple is introduced to us arriving at the home, the host/estate agent is the type of mono-syllabic character Which makes Lurch (Adams Family 1964) seem carefree and reckless, as it turns out he was a red-herring, appearing nowhere else for the film.

We find out that Jennifer (Emily Goss) is 7 months pregnant and has agreed to move back to her home town with her partner while he takes a temporary job locally. Straight away the scene is being set as we see the house deliberately set to look suitably old and scary. Which is fine except, one room is perfect and nicely restored, while the hallway etc. has bubbling peeling paint.   Nothing much happens at first, then little things start to happen, but only as long as we the watcher sees them. As the house continues to make its presence felt, the stresses build up for Jennifer.  Stresses which are not helped by her over-bearing mother. It turns out her mother arranged the house and job, despite the two of them barely being on speaking terms.  As Jennifer is drawn deeper in to the horror of the house, the others (including some local friends of her mother) are more and more inclined to believe it is Jennifer, and not the house which is the issue.  It also does not help, that as her hate of the house and her surroundings grows, her husband (Taylor Bottles), is settling in to town and has accepted a full-time position.

This could have been an excellent movie, but there was nothing new in the offering, if the writers had decided not to actually show the entity, it might have been a better movie, as it would have kept the mental terror whole.  The tension between Jennifer and her mother (Cathy Barnett) is perhaps a little too much given the already occupied story-line. Somewhat cluttered in its presentation, leaving the viewer to try and catch-up a number of times, it could have tried to do its own thing.

The film builds to its ultimate end, not a million miles from expected and so not reaching too high an achievement. The Taking of Deboragh Logan (Adam Robitel, 2014) was a much better piece of work. Over all a familiar take of a familiar story, which could have been much more interesting.

Overall a “Middle of the road” 2.5/5 (I could not stretch to 3)

Blackhat

If I was writing a school report from this movie, I would probably write “Could do better…”. It is not a bad movie, but given who is involved, I was expecting more. Directed by Michael Mann (Public Enemies, 2009), I came away with the feeling the effort that should have been put in to the movie was not used. Despite the name this is simply a police procedural, thriller type movie with relatively little in the way of “techno-plot” indeed given some of the errors and continuity breaks I think those involved perhaps did not have the technical know-how to close out the movie from a plot perspective.

The movie opens with an excellent graphics sequence (possibly a highlight) showing code being sent to a computer which turns off a fan at a Chinese nuclear power station and causes a breach (they said meltdown at one stage, but if it was, there would not have been people running around the site in civilian clothes just days afterwards). Shortly after the commodities markets in New York are hacked and feedstuffs a spiked netting a $75m profit for our bad guy. While working on the nuclear a Captain, Chen Dawai, (Leehom Wang, My Lucky Star, 2013) in the PLA (a rising Princeling judging by his description) he recognises some old code he is responsible for, he along with his old room mate in college, Nick Hathaway (Chris Hemsworth, Thor 2011), who just so happens to be doing a prison sentence for hacking some banks and costing them about $50m, depending on which part of the movie we refer to, he is either doing 13 or 15 years in prison for this.

Long story short, Hathaway is released on furlough after Captain Chen links with the FBI and his Network engineer sister ( Wei Tang, The Golden Era, 2014). Despite initial reservations the FBI lead investigator, Carol Barrett ( Viola Davis, The Help, 2011) sees their worth and backs them as they end up following clues around the Far-East.

Eventually Hathaway puts the clues together, not so much from his cyber skills as from his ability just to stand back and look at the complete picture.

If you ant to look at this movie with any sense of seriousness, you will be disappointed, if however if you like a movie with people running all over the place, shooting everybody and anybody while seemingly never getting in trouble, then you will love this.

There are a number of huger plot holes – if you are trying how to disable a pump PLC system , you don’t need to find one of the pumps at a nuclear power plant, which will raise headlines. Speaking of PLCs (Programmable Logic (not Launch) Controllers are a fairly basic piece of kit that even I was programming when in college a generation ago, so no big challenge there. There are also a number of continuity errors, in Tshirts changing colour, stains on suits suddenly disappearing etc.

Hathaway who is supposedly a SW genius does some funny stuff like use a browser/domain name to indicate an IP address (dodgy) and I’m not going to ask when he got in to an illegal server farm, how he managed to find the drive he needed and hack it.

As a chase-‘em, shoot ‘em up movie it works, but anybody with more than an ounce of engineering or coding skills is going to be entertained much. The closing scenes in Jakarta also strain the imagination, it is noteworthy how many people ignored gun & knife toting westerners as they possessed along the road with their torches. I also have a problem with the “little things”. After arriving in Malaysia (illegally) they seemed to have no shortage of ready cash and indeed in the closing scenes Hathaway actually takes €5000 out of his, supposedly secret Swiss bank account; two things in the few hours he was in Malaysia, how did he mange to get his bank card (there nothing to suggest he had this or other private belongings prior to the last arrival), oh and why use Euro when going to Switzerland, rather than Swiss Francs.

I started off giving this a *** rating but the more I think about it, and how unconvincing the movie was from both a characterisation and technology perspectives I have to revise down to **. This might be a little harsh, but like I said at the beginning “could do better”. A final comment is the effect of mixing the digital and 35mm camera work, hmm – small doses please, it was certainly over used and grated a few times.

Taken 3

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.

Caché (Hidden) (2005)

This work from Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon, 2009) opens with a street view which we soon discover is actually video footage of a couple which was left on their doorstep. Why was this done, is somebody playing a prank on the couple or is something more sinister brewing. The couple, Georges (Daniel Auteuil, The Widow of Saint-Pierre, 2000) is a TV host while his wife Anne, (Juliette Binoche, An Open Heart, Mila, 2013) ) who works in publishing. Anne thinks a fan of Georges is responsible for the recordings.

This is only the beginning though. They soon after receive another recording , wrapped in a gruesome picture of a child vomiting blood, the same picture which is sent to their young son. As the tension surrounding these events grows, Georges again receives a new communication, this one leads him to his childhood home.

As George tries to get to the bottom of the hidden secret he descends to an almost comical version of himself. The Search for answers brings us to Majid (Maurice Benichou, La Grande vie, Kowalski, 2009) an old childhood friend who provides us with evidence of a dark past impacting today’s life.

This is a Haneke film, so it need not be shot in a tried and tested conventional manner. He does not necessarily follow the chronology of the story, often mixing scenes, showing clips out of time, but which ultimately build to the conclusion.

What makes this film so significant is its use of allegory, much of the film can be seen as a reflection on aspects of France’s colonial past. The cinematography is essential to the film, with Haneke daring to use full takes which work to build the scene rather than just carry forward the story.

This thriller is based on a mysterious event, from the start we are left to ask the questions, it takes up on to the very last scene before we can say the question has been answered and that which was hidden revealed. What past secrets do we carry with us, hidden from the world?

There is something very Hitchcockian about this movie, it is the mystery which drives us with the characters and cinematography being carefully sculpted to tell a story. It must be watched in full to appreciate just how well it works. The fact that the primary actors are two of Frances greatest in their profession also helps deliver a very worthwhile movie.

**** and a bit more.

Nightcrawler

Nightcrawler opens by introducing us to a young man, Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal, End of Watch, 2012) looking for an income and work. We very quickly get a picture of him as he sells stolen metal to a building site. Using negotiating skills he observed/learned from others he tries to maximise his income. Trying to turn the situation to his  benefit he asks for a job, only to be refused, pushing for roles, the site-supervisor tells him out-right that he will not hire a thief.

As he tries to make a living he come across an accident being filmed by a stringer, Joe Loder (Bill Paxton, Edge of Tomorrow, 2014) who fills him in on what is happening. This is something Louis thinks he can do. Buying a new camera (financed through the theft of a sports bike) he begins to film accidents and issues using a police scanner to get to incidents. Trying to always stay one step ahead of the others he meets and develops a working relationship with Nina (Rene Russo Outbreak, 1995) , a night news director at a local news station.

As each night progresses he learns from those around them and shamelessly robs ideas from them always trying to stay ahead. As part of his attempts to move forward he interviews and hires an young out-of-work assistant, Rick (Riz Ahmed, Four Lions, 2010) on what can only be described as “slave-labour” terms. The interview process and subsequent interaction shows us in no uncertain manner just what kind of guy Bloom is.

As business grows for Bloom we see that it is on the back of others, always moving forward and quite happily at the expense of others. As we see the relationship with Nina develop we are left sitting in a mix of shock and wonder. This is clearly a man whose moral compass is different to ours. The increasingly complex relationship with Nina is mirrored in his relationship with Rick, his assistant. In no “legitimate” organisation would Bloom’s behaviour be acceptable but young Rick is desperate and needs the job.

Bloom is a person who sees a problem and works to a solution, regardless of whether or not the solution is ethical or legal.

This approach to those around him leaves us considering if Bloom is actually sane. Those around him question likewise. The movie develops along with Bloom to the extent that when he decides to take a very unconventional step with life-changing consequences we firmly see just how twisted he is. As he says himself, his issue may not be that he cannot communicate with people but that he does not like people. Beating the police to a home invasion Bloom discovers more than he bargained for. Breaking into the house he films ultra graphic scenes of the murder, but also captures the images of the murders (which he does not release to the police or other media). Thinking only of his advancement “to the next level” bloom orchestrates a series of moves which entail him avoiding police arrest (for being on the scene) and ultimately tracking down the people responsible for the home-invasion so that he can film the arrest and gain more prestige in the industry. A move that has tragic consequences.

Is this movie good? It is okay. Is Jake Gyllenhaal any good in the movie? He is brilliant. This is probably Gyllenhaal’s most significant acting role, watching the movie I see Louis Bloom not Jake Gyllenhaal. The one weakness I would have is the treatment of Rick by Bloom, surely no employee could be so hard-up as to continue for as long as he did with Bloom, paid so little and abused so much. The dialogue is excellent through-out with Gyllenhaal’s Bloom fully succeeding in creating a character we dislike EVERY time he opens his mouth.

Rene Russo’s Nina is a very smart character, an ideal foil to Bloom. The developing relationship is worked to a surgical precision, with the relationship echoing closing the unfolding events, events which lead up to the high-octane denouement.

With a different cast this movie could have been a poor reflection of itself, as it stands it has been tightly directed with a cast who were able to deliver more than just the lines required of them. The characterisation is key to this film, with events working to supply the characters with the ammunition needed to portray the roles just as needed.

This is a **** Movie. There are certain plot gaps which I felt took away from the “perfect” label many have attached to this movie, but don’t let that take away from the experience, it is an excellent film.

Odd Man Out

This 1947 British classic was directed by Carol Reed (The Third Man, 1949) and starred James Mason (the Desert Rats, 1953). The story is based on the book by F.L. Green. The movie is about the impact on the lives of all those around Johnny McQueen (Mason). The film is set in a Northern Irish city, pick one of the two…and revolves around McQueen as he tries to survive a botched raid. The movie does not explicitly name any organisation just the “Organisation” . McQueen is a leading figure in the Organisation and having been lying low for about six months following his prison escape he has been ordered to execute a raid to raise funds. The film is set against the background of post-war Britain.

The remains of the war are all around and rationing is still in place. The scene is dark and broody, the movie has a classic British Noir feel. The shadows are there and contain menace. Is his heart in it? From what we can gather, he is a changed man since his time in prison, so much so that one of his team asks if he should be on the raid. We learn that McQueen is a person of some worth in Republican circles. The raid fails. McQueen injured and already on the run, must find safety on the streets of the city. As he scrambles for help he must hide in those corners, the snug of a crowded bar, air-shelter, where ever he can.   All the time there is one person looking to help him, Kathleen ( Kathleen Ryan, Captain Boycott, 1947) the woman in whose house he has been hiding. She has fallen in love with him and will go to any lengths to protect him.

This is a classic crime thriller, given the republican/political edge. What is certainly noteworthy is the attention to detail employed by Reed. He manages to side step the larger political issue to concentrate on the person aspects of the situation, whether it be through the dynamic with McQueen and his gang members, the police, the women or even Fr. Tom (W.G. Fay, London Town, 1946). The hunt builds to the violent climax. All the time during the hunt we are conflicted, however abhorrent his background, we are constantly drawn to McQueen and his plight, will he escape, will he survive? What makes this film is the characterisation, Mason is supported by what was largely the members of the Abbey Theatre, the Irish National Theatre, and before you say “so what” we need to remember the Abbey provided such cast members as Cyril Cusack who played gang member Pat and Dan O’Herlihy (Fail Safe, 1964) being fellow gang member “Nolan”. Other cast members included legendary William Hartnell who went on to be the first to play the historic role of The Doctor in Dr. Who ©

We follow McQueen has he slowly and painfully descends to the final showdown with the police. Can a good man do evil, what drives him, can an evil man do good?

Predestination

An excellent all round piece of work.

Written and directed by Peter and Michael Spierig, the team behind Daybreakers (2010). Time travel has been conquered, at least to a limited extent based on a time zero in the early 1980’s. From this time limited travel over a period of 53 years is possible. However the time travel take its toll on those who travel, slowly degrading them physically and mentally. The number of jumps in time is regulated and overseen. The time travel itself is secret and limited to 12 agents in the Temporal Bureau, the travel is controlled and monitored, with strict rules about missions and and deviations from missions. The impact of travel is carefully monitored. Noah Taylor (Lawless, 2012) plays the part of Mr. Robinson, the shadowy figure who seems to interweave the lives of our protagonists, his role and influence becoming clearer as the story progresses.

The Story opens with an agent (Ethan Hawke, Before Midnight, 2013) trying to stop a bomber detonating his latest effort when the arrest goes wrong and the agent is blown-up and nearly killed, such are his injuries that his have needs to be reconstructed. The reconstruction allows him time to get ready for his last case, the travel back to hunt for the “Fizzle “ bomber, a serial bomber whose works have been escalating to the extent that in March 1975 he killed almost 10,000 people in New York.

Our agent recovers and returns to the time as a barman, he he meets a woman a single mother (Sarah Snook Sleeping Beauty, 2011), with a fascinating story, one she says cannot be beaten. The story details her unique life from the day she was dropped off in an orphanage and the various struggles she had fitting in (her younger self played by Freya Stafford) right up to her adult life and the challenges she has faced. We see how these challenges have quite literally shaped her. The agent listens and actually offers her a a chance to make do a wrong, a chance she finds unbelievable, she takes him up on the offer. He lets slip a little detail of her life, how did he know this, he explains it away, but we are warned.

Pretty soon, it becomes obvious that things are not as they seem. This is a thriller, one where suspense is not a dirty word. I am tempted to say there are a number of twists to this move with plot developments coming left, right and center, but that would be to do the film a dis-service. This plot is one of the most well thought-out I’ve come across in years, there are not twists in the plot so much as well directed curves which ultimately lead us to the climax.

I cannot say too much because to say anything risks giving away an excellent plot. This is a film where all of the aspects must come together for it to work. The script is tight, remarkably so, the cinematography is aligned perfectly to the plot developments, with the subtle stylization for the different time periods. Movies with twists are often just average movies where a writer or producer etc. decides something else is needed. Here there is nothing else needed. This is a carefully plotted story which brings you along .

If you are the type to run about in and out to the kitchen making coffee or pop corn during a movie, then this one is not for you. Once you turn on this film you need to sit down and watch it through. This is a story with no space fillers or padding. It is brilliantly executed. A lot cold be said to analyze this film and the subject of time travelling paradoxes, but that would ruin the experience of the movie. That said it would be no harm to understand the concepts of the paradoxes.

Citizen X

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

M

There are very few movies which have contributed to the creation of a genre, M is one of these. We sem-movie-poster-4e 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.m_el_vampiro_de_dusseldorf_1931_2

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.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

This is a movie which should have worked much better than it did. An historical fantasy horror, it had the right ingredients. With people like Rufus Sewell (Zen, Aurelio Zen, 2011) and Dominic Cooper (The Devil’s Double, Latif Yahia, 2011) they should have been well able to play off each other, but they were in a support cast so their influence would have been limited.  Added to this the director, Timur Bekmambetov  , who brought us those great Day Watch, (2006) and Night Watch (2004) movies.

Benjamin Walker, a relative unknown, (Flags of Our Fathers, Harlon Block, 2006) acquitted himself well and whether it was the relative inexperience or the character, he came across much as we would have expected of a characterization of Abraham Lincoln.  The story line follows a young Lincoln looking to revenge his mother’s death at the hands of a vampire, while trying to kill the particular vampire (not knowing he’s a vampire) he meets  Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper) who teaches him how to kill vampires and then sends him to Springfield which was seemingly a hotbed of vampires.  As the movie progresses it becomes clear that he needs to come up against Adam (Rufus Sewell) one of the oldest vampires (he tells us he is five thousand years old).

 

There follows a series of vampire hunting fights and struggles over the years until he eventually becomes President.  Here we see the vampiric legend superimposed on the historical timeline. Lincoln’s son who of course died in childhood is in the movie Killed by a vampire.   There are also implications for the war as Adam agrees to deploy vampires for the Confederacy, this of course is a potential game changer.

There is only one person (well three if we include his friends, his wife (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, The Thing, Kate Lloyd, 2011) and of course Mr. Sturgess…so that’s tree humans and a vampire.

They of course come up with a plan to save the world and in so doing so create the movies big dénouement.  This is probably where the movie was let down most, but in fast scenes, appropriate scene music and give our actors plenty of life threatening situations and you should have a good action sequence. Unfortunately everything was just too well scripted.  A kid can be thought how to work a mathematical problem to its end through the use of a formula.  A mathematician can take the same formula and create something new and exciting; Bekmambetov is a “mathematician” by any standards so I have no reason why this movie did not work.

There were a number of leaps of faith, at least one very poor continuity issue and some scenes which were just too contrived.  The use of mid 19th century sunglasses by all was actually a nice touch which could have been over done but was not.

Rating 4/10, this should have been a much better movie but I suspect something just did not work in the production.  This is not a bad film, it just did not engage me or bring me in to the story.

 

Red Lights

Dr. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver, Aliens 1986) and Dr. Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy  28 Days Later, Jim, 2002) are two academics who use both physics and psychology  to debunk the myths of physic charlatans. Both a firm believers in controlled academic study and in Matheson’s case, despite over 30 years of investigation  have never found a genuine physic. We see this skeptiscism stretch also to other departments on the University where they work.   Dr. Paul Shackleton (Toby Jones, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Percy Alleline, 2011) is the head of the Scientific Paranormal Research Centre (SPRC) at the university and the constant butt of Matheson’s swipes.  Such is her lack of respect for his work that when she is asked to view some work which is promising results she debunks the work in the corridor  in front of more junior colleagues.  Of course this is done objectively and once again seemingly validates her position.

A complication arises in the form of Simon Silver (Robert De Niro Killer Elite, Hunter, 2011), a famous physic who retired from public life 30 years ago following the fatal heart attack of a journalist critic at one of his shows. Now returning to public life, Silver comes to the team’s attention. Buckley is eager to go after him but Matheson is somewhat more reticent given the dealings she had with him all those years ago. As the discussion moves forward and events unfurl  it seems possible Silver might just be the physic he claims to be, or is he?

Silver agrees to a bank of tests to be conducted by the University’s SPRC under Dr. Shakleton. There are still some questions and Buckley has two of his students look over the test footage. They may have found something. The movie builds to a climatic end where we learn more about our key characters, but not before a few twists.  I could not help but compare this to a Hitchcock effort and in a number of places I found myself wondering how the maestro would have worked certain scenes better.

Cortés performed well with Buried (2010), but not quite as well here. He does however manage to convincingly portray damp northern US country even though his movie was shot largely in Spain. This is a solid B movie which while not damaging careers, will not do much to enhance them. This said, the saving grace for the movie was the delivery of the laed characters to deliver on what was required, despite possibly miscast.  De Niro is possibly a waste in the role he plays, while Murphy is like a hound straining at the leash through most of the movie. Weaver is under-used also. There is also some interesting support work going on. Ben (Craig Roberts, Submarine, Oliver Tate, 2010) works well in his supporting role.

Overall this is a middle-of-the-road movie which mostly brings the audience along, even if we do have to ask ourselves once or twice where exactly it is going.

Rating 5/10, essentially a good old fashioned 3 star but could be close to 2 star only for the quality and work of the lead cast members.