Red Planet was a film with an interesting enough plot synopsis that I thought it would be worth ago, despite it's less than favourable reviews. Centring on the first manned mission to Mars and their efforts to terra form the planet in order to rehabit the Earth, I was expecting something a bit more high brow. Instead I was provided with the same generic Sci-Fi Action movie that has seemed to plague the genre since the 80's. What was made worse is that usually in these films there's the same mix of the group of characters central to the plot; but in this all the characters were exactly the same two dimensional replicas of each other. This was made worse by the atrocious dialogue written for them. I would feel sorry for the actors involved, but they seemed to revel in their roles of the arrogant driven types with the false sense of bravado. Even Terence Stamp's lack of humility in delivering inane line after inane line cannot be forgiven. The worst offenders are two of the biggest stars Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore, who provoke the viewer into wishing they would never have to watch another film with them in.
As the film progresses though there are glimmer's of hope for it, as the plot takes some interesting twists, but it also suffers in the fact that when the action happens some of the CGI effects look quite dated. The CGI for AMEE, the AI robot that's been assigned to the mission, does manage to look okay until it starts attacking the cast (which is a saving grace in itself). It's a shame though that films like these aren't remade, as there really isn't much to be lost in redoing this as opposed to a remake of Total Recall. The film's essence has potential, but sadly all the ingredients used to turn the screenplay into a movie have proved disastorous, and this film doesn't end up offering much in the way of a entertainment nor originality. I suppose the most irritating thing about this film, is the knowledge that it had such a large budget and you're left wondering how and where it was spent.
Fred Zinneman's A Man For All Seasons with Paul Scholfield as the saintly Sir Thomas More, torn between the role of serving his king or serving his God. It's film that perhaps doesn't resonate with the state of today's secular society, but it is a great tale of a Godly man which still shows the important role of religion and morality in the world not only then, but now. Legendary playwright Robert Bolt delivers one of his most fascinating screenplays for this film as the tensions between More, King Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell come to a head. Robert Shaw delivers a typically strong and charismatic performance as the obstinate King Henry, Cromwell by the reliable Leo McKern. An impressive cast is completed with a young John Hurt as the pivotal Richard Rich and Susannah York as More's daughter; along with cameos from Orson Welles as the late Cardinal Wolsey and Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn. It is really though all about Schofield who provides an exceptional performance as the man who stood up for his own beliefs and followed his own moral compass at risk of his own demise.
Whilst the film isn't as gripping as maybe Becket, it is yet another great example of the terrific output of cinema during the 1960's. It's yet another impressive movie from Zinneman and Bolt and is a fantastic portrait of one of history's few good men.
I then watched my first ever movie starring one of early cinema's biggest icons: Jean Harlow. Platinum Blonde was early Columbia picture, directed by Frank Capra, the man that would propel the studio to the mainstream a few years later with It Happened One Night. Although this film was released after her career defining Hell's Angels and The Public Enemy, it was made before Harlow had become a mainstream megastar, which is probably why she plays a slightly different role to her usual type.
The film is about a reporter (Robert Williams) trying to get a scoop on a wealthy socialite's (Harlow) family's misdemeanours, instead he falls in love with her and they elope. His colleague Gallagher (Loretta Young) is in love with the reporter and is heartbroken when she learns of their marriage. Meanwhile the newly weds each try to change each other to how they want them to be, with him wanting her to be his obedient wife and she wanting him to become a gentleman and a playwright. Whilst the film does come of as a bit dated in some places, the story is still enjoyable and engaging enough for today's modern audience. The acting is pretty decent for an early talkie, although one can't help but think the film would have worked better with Harlow and Young switching roles. Harlow seems beyond her age of 20 in this role, but she is very cute in this role, and her voluptuous figure is reminiscent of Mae West, which probably isn't befitting of 1930's socialite. Loretta Young is equally beautiful, even though she is stuck in dowdy clothes for the most part.
The biggest tragedy is watching the film knowing the untimely death of it's star, not Jean Harlow who would die just 6 years after this film, but Robert Williams, who died just after the film's release. He manages to carry the film where needed, and is similar in style to Cary Grant. It seems a shame that he would die at such a young age, as no doubt he would have gone on to a successful career as one of Hollywood's leading men. The film also has the early hallmarks of a Frank Capra picture, with all the witticisms and fast paced progress that his future films contained. Admittedly, the comedy is slightly laboured and dated at times. Overall though it is a decent film that serves as a launchpad for me to watch more of Harlow's films.
The Great Gabbo was an early talkie that featured a starring role for the great director Erich Von Stroheim. The film is heavily referenced in an episode of The Simpsons, and as such isn't as forgotten as the majority of film's of this ilk from this era. The quality of the film isn't great as it's degraded understandably over the years, and 26 minutes of footage is missing (including early colour footage), which is unfortunate. Having said that though, the movie is decent, and features some good acting, especially for an early talkie.
Von Stroheim shows us that he wasn't just meticulous director, but also a meticulous and accomplished actor also. He plays the title role as a ventriloquist, who becomes tired of being upstaged by his incredibly life like dummy. It's hard to understand whether Gabbo is just a great ventriloquist, or Otto does have a life of his own. Equally one could come to the conclusion that Gabbo is quite literally mad and is a borderline schizophrenic with Otto serving as his other half.
It is very unnerving movie, which is heightened with each time Gabbo and Otto appear on screen. This is a credit Von Stroheim, who is one of the few actors to be able to create such intensity in these early days of Hollywood. It's also interesting that Ben Hecht wrote the screenplay, a man who would go on to write some of the great screenplays for both MGM and Hitchcock. The film does try to utilise it's sound a bit too much, with plenty of musical numbers, which come across as superfluous in places, but are quite visually impressive. Nonetheless, it's an interesting film (thanks mainly to Von Stroheim), that would possibly be even more highly regarded if fully restored. The entire film can be viewed below:
F for Fake was a documentary produced and starring Orson Welles. It focused on the art of fraud, specifically centring on the story of Clifford Irving and how writing a biography of the great art forger Elmyr De Hory, inspired him to write the most infamous biography of the 20th century.
Of course, I had already been fortunate enough to watch the adaptation of Irving's publication of the fake Howard Hughes biography in 2006's The Hoax. This probably helped me understand a lot of the information Welles was presenting in this film, concerning Irving as a person and his motivation. However it is De Hory's forging of art's great masterpieces that produces the most intriguing debate on the morality and legality of such hoaxes. Without doubt Elmyr is an artist with incredible skill and technique; his ability to recreate works by Matisse, Modigliani and Renoir is astonishing. Welles rightly questions whether instead of criminalising him, we should laud him. Though this film tends to do just that anyway. It was also nice to see Welles make reference to his own infamous hoax: his 1938 radio broadcast of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, which sparked mass panic and hysteria across America, But it isn't only these three characters that cause such fascination with their enigmatic and evasive characteristics. Howard Hughes himself is perhaps the most enigmatic and certainly the most evasive of this film's cast. Hughes had his own penchant for trickery and showmanship, using his own doubles, his pioneering work in the aircraft industry; even with the in question biography, some believed Hughes has perpetuated a lot of the hoax himself in order to pressurise then President Richard Nixon.
It is a captivating documentary that goes one step further (arguably one too far) at the end. Even so the final segment is still spellbinding due to Welles' own art of storytelling, as well as the theatrics. It may not be to everyone's taste, but people with a sense of admiration for those who achieve infamy through undiscerning routes, will be swept away by the deception. It is a film that is emblematic of Welles as a person and a film maker, which is a compliment to this documentary.
I finished the month by watching the latest Pixar offering Brave. It was an interesting take on the princess stories, with a tomboy Scottish princess (Kelly MacDonald) this time trying to take her destiny into her own hands. Sadly the concept was the best thing about the story, as the film resulted in being a bit of a jumbled mess, and not nearly as captivating as the majority of Pixar's output.
Granted, the animation was magnificent, but I'm afraid that Pixar, and for that matter animation, has gone beyond being just well animated to be regarded as good; it needs to be backed up. The film also has a strong and talented British cast, but here their voices don't lend much to the film, possibly because their characters lack enough depth to make them engaging. The one character that really goes well with the movie is The Witch played by Julie Walters. The rest of the film seems to be stuck in limbo, as it seemingly attempts to be a cross between Princess Mononoke and Braveheart, but pales in comparison in almost every aspect. There are some murmurings that Pixar are on a downward trajectory, but I think that's a bit unfair, as unfortunately they may be becoming victims of their own success. Unfortunately, the majority of their film's are seen as some of the greatest of all time in terms of animated features, and rightly so.
My first film in August was Little Voice, based on the stage play that was written specifically for Jane Horrocks. It tells the story of a shy, reclusive woman who has a great passion for the songs of Shirley Bassey, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich and many other classic singers. One night a local night club promoter (Michael Caine) overhears her singing the classic songs herself and sets about in making her a star.
Whilst the films is ultimately an over sentimental account of a decent premise, Jane Horrocks is very impressive as she performs all the songs herself. She manages to mimic the great stars to a very high standard and is easily the best the thing about the film. The problem with the film, is that it tries far too hard to play on the emotional side of the story too hard. The acting whilst reasonable, did make me cringe at times as the actors, who consisted of cast of British stalwarts (Ewan MacGregor, Brenda Blethyn and Jim Broadbent), tried too hard to present themselves as simple small town folk. It made the film a bit shallow at times, and was endemic of the majority of late 90's feel good British movies. The problem was though, it wasn't as good as films such as The Full Monty, East is East and others such films. Even Horrocks' character, when she wasn't singing, was a bit too meek to enjoy.
It is a film that is bound to please those who are easily emotionally manipulated by cinematic sentiment; but ultimately it is far too soppy to make any impact on people with an ounce of cynicism. Worth watching if only for Horrocks' imitations.
Something's Gotta To Give was a film somewhat atypical of a Nancy Myers' flick, incredibly feminine, a bit soppy and stars Diane Keaton. After the overblown trite that was It's Complicated, a couple of year's ago, I went into this film with an air of nauseousness. A film about an ageing playboy (Jack Nicholson) who falls for his young girlfriend's (Amanda Peet) mother (Keaton), had the expectancy of being another Meyer's formulaic comedy.
For the first half of the film though it was quite engaging as Nicholson and Keaton both charmed their way into my consciousness. Whilst I don't mind Diane Keaton, I think it's quite fair to say, she's never been an actress to blow me away, but to her credit she is consistent, and it's refreshing to see a woman over 50 in Hollywood who hasn't yet adopted the burns' victim look. In fact she even goes nude in this film and looks pretty good for it too. Aesthetics aside, she serves as a great foil to Nicholson's usual charm offensive and the chemistry works well between the two. As for Nicholson, whilst this has the feel of a phoned in performance, it's fair to add that when Jack Nicholson phones in a performance it is still pretty spectacular. Like Keaton he isn't afraid to show his age in films' these days, and he is one of the few actors from his generation who has continued to give high level of performances and interesting roles in films such as As Good As It Gets, About Schmidt and The Pledge.
Sadly the film tends to peter out and meander's into the similar contrived rom-com scenarios that we've come to expect from Myers. Whilst by no means a complete failure, the second half of the film becomes a bit too formulaic to remain engaging.
I also watched two Woody Allen flicks during the month with Hannah and Her Sisters, as well as Manhattan Murder Mystery. Whilst I am no means an Allen fan (I have yet to see his two biggest films Annie Hall and Manhatten) from what I have seen it's easy to see why his most admired. These two films are definitely examples of the Allen signature style, but both completely different from each other in terms of tone. Hannah and Her Sisters was a serious look at the relationships between four women (3 of whom are sisters) and the men in their lives. It's quite an intriguing cast of people in this movie with Carrie Fisher, Michael Caine, Barbara Hershey and Max Von Sydow all sharing screen time together, not to mention smaller roles going to now well established actors such as Daniel Stern, John Tuturro, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss and Julie Kavner.
It is quite a complex story, as Allen great achievement in this 2 hour movie, is being able to fit as much in as possible without it feeling crammed. He is able to give enough of a background to each character as well as their past relationships with each other. The two I feel who really shine in this film are Diane Wiest as Holly the outcast of the group and Michael Caine who embarks on a naive affair with Hannah's (Mia Farrow) sister Lee (Hershey). Allen himself also shines as Hannah's hypochondriac of an ex-husband, and provides the majority of the lighter moments in this film as he searches for life's meaning. There are also some impressively directed scenes as Allen intersperses inner-monologue with live action, which is probably the reason he was able to fit so much in to such a short amount of time.
It's hard to really fault the film on a technical level, but for me it just felt a tiny bit too much in terms of plot and tone for me to really count it amongst the greatest films I've ever seen. That said, it was certainly interesting and engaging enough for me to both admire and enjoy it.
Manhattan Murder Mystery was a far lighter film, albeit with a more sinister plot. This time Allen was reunited with once longtime partner and collaborator, Diane Keaton. They played the part of middle-class couple, turned sleuth's as they began to investigate the sudden death of their wife's neighbour. Again it's littered with all the trademarks of Allen's films, but this time it's mainly the comedy that works best. With Allen his usual neurotic self and Keaton serving as his understanding and loyal wife, it also has the touches of the tertiary characters that enter their relationships. This time it's the turns of Alan Alda and Angelica Huston as the friend's that flirt with the couple, but ultimately assist them in solving the mystery.
I had never heard of this film before watching it, and it was a wonderful revelation. I preferred it to Hannah and Her Sisters possibly due to the lack of prior knowledge to this one, so my expectations were lowered; as well as the more fun/ crime caper tone. Allen shows flashes of his comic brilliance in this, especially with his penchant for slapstick, which would probably be a dead art today without Allen. Huston, Alda and Keaton all add to the humour, and the four play off each other well.
If anything these two movies were both endemic of the autueristic Allen and gave me further reason to continue watching more of his large back catalogue of work. At the very least the films so far I have seen of his, have been both engaging and enjoyable.
It's now been nearly 20 years since I first experienced a true cinematic event in my lifetime. At the age of 8 I was fortunate enough to get to watch Stephen Spielberg's visionary great Jurassic Park on the big screen. I think for most 8 year old boys, dinosaurs are pretty much the greatest thing imaginable at that age. The film managed to live up to all that anticipation I had built up for myself before watching it in an American cinema. I have since intermittently experienced similar levels of excitement for movies over the years, the 20 year anniversary release of the Star Wars trilogy, then the disappointment of The Phantom Menace. The Lord of the Rings trilogy held a similar level of interest for me, and delivered to a certain extent. More recently both The Bourne Ultimatum and The Dark Knight have provided me with the excitement and adrenaline of going to the cinema, albeit nowhere near the levels as an 8 year old boy. Both these films did deliver and met my expectations, which has now only heightened my expectations for The Dark Knight Rises. Not only due to my enjoyment of it's predecessor, but also the fact it is the finale of Christopher Nolan's and Christian Bale's involvement with the franchise. I've been following the progress of this movie for a couple of years now. Learning who would be cast as Catwoman, was an event in itself; as well as learning which other villains would be involved. I think it's fair to say that The Dark Knights Rises was the biggest movie event of my life since Jurassic Park, and the following is a fantastic trailer for the film, that encompasses all 3 films; my review follows below:
As soon as the film's production logos came up, I felt this great sense of anticipation burst into one massive feeling of expectancy, something which I've rarely before experienced. Immediately the film dives straight into action, and as seemingly with all Nolan films it's just a case of watching the plot unravel. I make no bones about it, from the very first moments the film sets the tone for the finale. It's uncompromising in it's intensity, and is by far the darkest, most sombre of Nolan's trilogy. Most of this is down to Tom Hardy's Bane, who is by far Batman's fiercest most terrifying energy. He physically looks unbreakable, and the menacing masked voice he bellows adds so much to the character. Bane never lets up for the entire film, every time he's on screen it's slightly unnerving, there is no comic relief like Ledger's Joker. That's not say it's a bad thing, it suits the film perfectly, but I think Ledger managed to garner more warmth from the audience due to the character's charisma and "theatrics". I've read a few criticism that his voice was hard to understand, I don't understand this criticism at all, it was what was required and I had no trouble hearing.
We soon meet Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who at first I was a bit apprehensive about, but she soon had me entrapped in her showmanship and cuteness akin to Julie Newmar's own interpretation in the 1960's series. Unlike Batman Returns we don't get much of Kyle's back story, which I think was a good move by Nolan as it would have made the film exasperating to watch, and it was needless. Here she is just as morally ambiguous, which is part of your allure, as well as her captivating effect on Batman. I think a lot of people, especially the men, will enjoy Hathaway in this film, she does manage to make the role her own.
Most of the regular cast return and give their usual strong performances, and of course there's Batman himself Christian Bale. The story takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, with Bruce Wayne now a limping recluse, he is forced to don the mask once more after the rise of Bane in the Gotham underworld. He again provides a great performance as the iconic hero, with the usual amount of angst-ridden inner turmoil, along with his usual journey to revelation. Again, this isn't a criticism, this is the formula that's worked so well for the franchise, and why stop it? It drives character development and the story so well and is just embolic of Nolan's movie making brilliance.
The action sequences are pulsating and easier to follow than most modern action flicks. Though maybe nothing quite as original or inventive as before, they still serve a purpose; especially intertwined with the complex plot twists. The great thing about Nolan, is that he doesn't simply rely on CGI all the time to show implausible things, which keeps Batman grounded and believable. The CGI he does use, is also of great quality and blends with the film seamlessly, it never seems superfluous; unlike other big budget action flicks.
The intensity of the film is such that every moment of this near 3 hour films, feels like something important and of merit. It is both pulsating and large scale, but also emotional and intimate. This is only enhanced at being something special with the use of Hans Zimmer's now trademark score. The majority of moments in the film, feel powerful and there is that feeling of "edge of your seat" stuff almost constantly. Nothing however, ever feels overblown, and whilst it is sentimental at times, it just about avoid falling into The Return of the King trap of dragging out the end, just because it's the finale of a successful franchise. It's touching, but not overwrought with twee gestures that are just cringeworthy. It does come close, especially in the closing stages, but it manages to maintain it's composure and in my opinion the film manages provide the audience with something satisfying. Nolan is a clever director, but thankfully he doesn't try to be to clever, and the film ultimately feels like part of the trilogy.
Criticism wise, I suppose the film doesn't quite match The Dark Knight in terms of flow and maybe this sequel tries to pack a bit too much in. It is certainly very close to it's predecessor, but again the tone is a bit too heavy through, which maybe makes it not as rewatchable too. Another disappointing aspect was Marion Cortillard's performance, whilst it was passable, at times I felt she really struggled against the bravado of all her contemporary co-stars. She was a bit too lacklusture at times for me and lacked screen presence. There were also a few moments that I will need to watch again, as at the time, a few things were a bit stretched.
As much as I didn't care for Cortillard, I felt the inclusion of Joseph Gordon Levitt's character John Blake, was a welcomed addition, as he managed to compliment the script well and was the driving force for much of the movie. It was another strong performance from Levitt, who seems to able to give his action roles that bit more gravitas than other actors of his ilk.
Overall I can only reiterate how much anticipation I held for this film; probably the most I've had since Star Wars Episode 1 or even Jurassic Park; but this film lived up to this expectation. It's one of the few films to have been able to deliver to such a high pedestal I set for it. Whilst it's not quite one of the very best films ever made, or even the best of the trilogy; it is a fully satisfying affair and conclusion to easily the greatest superhero franchise ever commited to screen. For the few faults it does have, these are more outweighed by the enthralling, action packed and well developed story that ensues for it's near 3 hour runtime. Christopher Nolan has done it again, I just hope Warner Brothers don't do anything to tarnish his legacy.
For all the great James Bond has given over the years, there are inevitably those occasional moments in the series that are quite simply embarrassing. In an odd kind of way though, I think it's these moments of pure awfulness, that Bond is so so loved.
5. Double-taking Pigeon (Moonraker)
It's not so much the double-taking pigeon, in fact the double-taking pigeon is so bad, it's enjoyable. It's the whole gondola sequence, but I enjoy the Pigeon so much I thought I'd name this entry after him. The rest of this sequence is just awful, almost so bad it's good, but it's in a Bond film, so sadly it's just plain awful. I mean not even a poor man's BBC Three comedy would resort to such unamusing slapstick. The man who's thought he's drunk too much, the waiter pouring in to a patron's lap and of course the SO in love couple on the gondola. It's so awful that you can watch it below:
4. Tarzan Scream?!?!?!?!?!??!??? (Octopussy)
I don't know whether this has garnered enough question marks in my heading. It's fair to say that the Moore films have had their fair share of questionable moments unbefitting an MI6 agent. I like to make the assumption that there was a severe malfunction at the sound editing studio that day, that's why this isn't higher. I'm a bit at a loss for words on this one, an extremely bizarre moment yet again in another movie peppered (not J.W.) with them.
3. "I Love James So Much!" (License to Kill)
I don't like License To Kill, it's too out of sync with all the other Bond movies, and I find it a bit too dull. For all it's defender's who claim it's gritty and violent, this one line utter by the character Lupe Lamore is so cringe inducing and totally off base, that it makes the film noticeably worse. It kind of vindicate's my opinion that it's my least favourite Bond film, though I admit it's not the worst.
2. Windsurfing on a 100ft Wave (Die Another Day)
I think Die Another Day is predominately despised due to this one outrageous use of CGI, but I don't mind the film too much, even with Madonna's contributions to it. This surfing sequence is just so over the top, what with a giant ray from space also chasing our hero and him using a car door as his surf board, it just beggars belief. The CGI is impressively bad, I can't believe they left it in the film, I guess that the sequence was needed so they got stuck with it. A far cry from the excellent stunts and action sequences of Brosnan's work in Goldeneye.
1. They Ruined Jaws (Moonraker)
I'm not sure whether Moonraker is definetly the worst Bond movie, it's fairly easy watching at least. Even the aforementioned awful gondola sequence has it's moment (pigeon). The thing I can't forgive it for is it's gradual, but violent destruction of henchman Jaws. Of course the main problem is that everyone likes him, but we don't want to see him as a reformed character, falling in love with some lame mousy goody goody; or helping save the life of Bond and his lady friend. Then to give a throw away line of how he survives at the end is just insulting to the audience. Yes we like Jaws, but he's an immovable object that James has to defeat, not to become friends with and regale tales of old times at the annual Henley Regatta.
Phillip Marlowe is a character that has been portrayed by a multitude of actors since Raymond Chandler published the character's first story The Big Sleep back in 1939. In Farewell, My Lovely it falls to Robert Mitchum to take up the role, and his turn in the role is probably the second most famous after Humphrey Bogart. This was also the third version of the book to be adapted for film after two vastly forgotten versions were made in the early '40's (and before Bogie's The Big Sleep made Marlowe and Chandler household names). It's only natural for me to compare it to Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep as that for me is probably the archetypal film noir. However, when watching Farewell, My Lovely it's quite obvious to see that this film had elements that are arguably better than The Big Sleep. The main thing being that it isn't constrained by the limitations of film censorship, which I think has probably resulted in a more faithful adaptation of the story. It also enables the movie to have an even grittier feel to it, that probably makes it a little bit more believable than the Hawks' version. The director Dick Best, doesn't try to play safe and instead puts his faith in the source material he's working with. There is a problem with this however, as it goes a bit too far and is possibly slightly influenced by contemporary films at the time which were becoming more and more explicit and at time's gratuitous. Especially when considering the exploitation flicks and the growth of the porn industry at the time this film was made.
The film is still very enjoyable though, and it captures the whole essence of noir and indeed the ambience of Chandler's Los Angeles. Mitchum is also great as Marlowe, as his world weary demeanour is only bettered by Bogart himself. It's hard for me to say that anyone comes close to Bogie as Marlowe, but Mitchum does it here. Probably helped by the fact, this was a bit later in his career, and he had developed a better handle for getting into his characters. I was somewhat ambivalent to Charlotte Rampling's performance opposite Mitchum, maybe it's because I'm measuring her against Bacall's sultry brilliance in The Big Sleep. The plot is just as rich as it's predecessor and is great to watch it unfold with all the accompanying twists and turns, synonymous with Chandler.
I felt that at times the productions values dated the films at times and it looked a bit hokey here and there. Also, ultimately it isn't anywhere near the level of greatness of The Big Sleep, because there are too many elements in it that whilst good, aren't fantastic. Sometimes I feel that film's can be great because they aren't too faithful to the source material, and that might be a case here. As I believe this to be the more faithful version of the two films, yet it lacks the pacing and production qualities that made The Big Sleep an all time classic.
I then finally got round to watching Martin Scorcese's No Direction Home, a documentary about Bob Dylan. I've always been a fan of Dylan, but never known too much about the man as a person. The documentary seems to paint the portrait of a man who wanted to create his own destiny in life. Indeed it seems to suggest in many ways that Dylan was wise from an early age, and not in a sense of shrewdness, rather an awareness of his own philosophies on life. It's because of this seemingly ever consciousness of wanting to be who he wanted to be, that the enigma that has forever surround Dylan manifested.
I found it surprising to learn his early influences were many of the extremely popular singers of the 50's such as Hank Williams, Elvis Presley and even Bobby Vee. Of course I was already aware of his long admiration of folk singer Woody Guthrie, and it was probably through the discovery of his work that shaped Dylan's own socially motivated song writing. Of course Dylan has always shyed away from suggestions that his songs are politically motivated. The documentary seems to hint that having been propelled to the centre of the civil rights movement through 'Blowin' in the Wind'; he began to feel uncomfortable with the pressures of this position and tried to distance himself from this responsibility. Indeed he would go as far as to start writing simpler more easy listening music, which initiated a backlash from fans and culminating in Dylan's now legendary complete shun of his folk origins, by going 'electric'. The way the footage intersperses a young Dylan with a present day one, doesn't seem to diminish his ambivalence to the whole affair. Sure he seems disappointed by the booing at times, but again his wisdom seems to have made him be able to rise above it to an impressive extent. I also found it refreshing that a present day Dylan wasn't hesitant to recognise his own genius, but in an observational rather than boastful tone.
Whilst I didn't find the entire experience as entertaining as The Beatles Anthology, I did recognise that this in many ways seemed a more intellectually substantial piece that really made a good attempt at enlightening it's audience more on the real Bob Dylan. Again in comparison to the Beatles, Dylan seemed far more enlightened (whether spiritually or intellectually) back then, than they did, despite being the same ages. The documentary ended probably at the height of Dylan's musical prolificness in 1966, however his life and career remained interesting up until the 80's, so it would have been nice to see more of his story. I also liked that this documentary didn't go overboard in selling Dylan to us, but instead tried to just provide us with what was there, and how this boy from Minnesota became one of history's biggest cultural icons. A very rewarding experience.
The Royal Tenenbaums was a film I'd been meaning to seen for many years, so I finally decided to purchase a copy and watch it. Having previously seen and enjoyed Wes Anderson's Rushmore and The Life Aquatic I had high hopes for probably his most known quirky comedy. It featured a very strong and famous cast, with a plot that centred around them being part of the same nuclear family. They all return to live with each other for various reasons in relation to their own lives, as well as their estranged father (Gene Hackman) who claims he has a terminal illness and has returned to die.
The film has all the hallmarks of a Wes Anderson picture and is totally offbeat. For me personally though it was too offbeat and though amusing, wasn't all that captivating. Hackman as the conniving head of the family, does however excel, but then again it's hard to expect anything less of one of the greatest American actors of all time. It is not only his performance that shines, and the film is spared from being completely dull with great shows from Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson and Angelica Huston as the family matriarch. Not to say the rest of the cast don't impress as well. Indeed I think if it weren't for Danny Glover, Ben Stiller, Billy Murray and Owen Wilson, this film would have felt completely flat. As it is though, it is a perfectly reasonable movie, but never really manages to become something more than a mildly amusing comedy.
I then returned to watching more films of Marilyn Monroe, this time with one of her earliest leading roles in Don't Bother To Knock. It was a very remarkable movie in certain ways, in that it is quite bizarre in terms of production. For instance it is directed by the man most know for his Titanic disaster movie A Night to Remember, written by the man who would go on to write From Here to Eternity, it features Richard Widmark in a more gentile role than usual, Anne Bancroft makes her film debut as a hotel showgirl; whereas Monroe plays a mentally unhinged babysitter. In hindsight these roles would be better switched. To be fair to Monroe though, this is by far the most interesting role she ever did take on. She also manages to do a relatively good job as she transforms from innocent babysitter, to psychotic would be child murderer. It was relatively refreshing to see her for once not playing the ditzy bombshell, and showed she did have some natural acting prowess. Her performance is quite deep and emotive, especially considering this film was essentially a B movie. Though she did have glimpses in subsequent movies of her ability as an actress, it seems that she was predominately sidelined from becoming a star with substance such as Shelley Winters or even Elizabeth Taylor.
Thought the film is very short and a bit too simplistic, it's a decent film, though never really that gripping or enthralling. It is quite dark, and the few moments of comic relief, seem a bit odd for such a film. Even with Monroe in her most unusual role, I think this film would have survived regardless. There is too much talent displayed elsewhere in the film, and the talent is apparent from time to time when watching. A better than average B movie, that is certainly a lot different from others of it's ilk.
Now for my favourite Bond main villains. The films series has been blessed by some truly memorable performances by great actors down the years of the main villains from the novels, here are my top 5. This was tough as Le Chiffre, Max Zorin, Karl Stromberg and even Franz Sanchez were all considered too.
5. Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean, Goldeneye) Ally turned foe, the former 006 betrays Bond and the Mi6 in order to avenge his parents treatment after the war. During the electric opening of Goldeneye Trevelyan fakes his own execution at which point Bond blows up a chemical warfare factory and escapes. It's not until 9 years later that Bond realises the betrayal. Bean is a great casting choice and he fits the role perfectly, as he attempts to destroy London and steal millions of pounds. The best of the modern Bond villains.
4. Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya, From Russia With Love) By far the fiercest of the female villains of the series, she serves as one of Blofeld's main member's of SPECTRE. She is extremely cunning and seems to exert a lot of power in the film as she directs the equally brilliant Red Grant to steal a decoding device and kill Bond. Her final confrontation with Bond is also very enjoyable, as it seems very pure and doesn't have to be bogged down by political correctness or smart gimmicks. Even though Rosa Klebb does more for Women's Lib than Halle Berry ever could (Klebb is even a pun on a Russian female liberation movement). 3. Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee, The Man With The Golden Gun) Played by the hammy Christopher Lee, a Bond villain was probably the perfect role for him. Despite this entry being one of the more maligned films' in the series, almost all agree that Lee's Scaramanga is the best thing about it. He's an assassin who charges $1m per kill, and uses the eponymous golden gun to make his kills. He is probably the Bond villain given the biggest backstory in the films, as well as one who establishes possibly the deepest relationship with Bond, as he reveals his abusive upbringing. The dueling personalities and confrontations are the best thing about an otherwise unremarkable film, and the final duel is a good way to end the conflict.
2. Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe, Goldfinger)
This was the first of Ian Fleming's villains that Frobe would play on film, the second being Baron Bomburst in the film adaptation of Chitty, Chitty, Bang! Bang!. Again, like Lee, another hammy actor that fits into the villain type role like a glove. Here he plays a notorious gold smuggler, whose grand scheme is to break into Fort Knox and contaminate the US's gold reserves with a nuclear device, thus increasing the value of his own gold haul. He simply has to be on the list, for his great dialogue exchanges between Bond, including the most famous of the franchise "Do you expect me talk?", "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.". He also has an army of lesbian personnel who help neutralise Fort Knox's security with nerve-gas. Probably the most charismatic of all the Bond villains.
1. Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasance, You Only Live Twice) Undoubtedly the quintessential Bond villain, and without question the best. Portrayed a number of times, across a substantial proportion of the movies. It is Pleasance who probably gives the most recognisable Blofeld performance (though Telly Savalas is my favourite). He is the head of the main enemy organisation of the Bond series, SPECTRE, which just further justifies Blofeld position as enemy number 1. He also murders James Bond's wife Tracy (On Her Majesty's Secret Service), not to mention trying to kill Bond himself at least a dozen time. The scarred face, grey suit, and white cat are his synonymous trademark, and the thing which has helped formulate similar type villains in other films, books and tv shows over the last 50 years.
I've always enjoyed Ridley Scott's films greatly and he is one director I really admire. For one he is one of the few current directors who is openly apprehensive about the use of CGI in film, and tries to opt for more expensive set design where possible. He tries and achieves this to moderate extent in his new film Prometheus, a film which has been made to illustrate the background to the Alien films, which he had originally started more than 30 years ago.
If you go into this film expecting an Alien movie then you might be disappointed, this film concentrates more on the theological discussion of Man's origins. It opens on the Earth thousands (possibly millions of years) earlier, as we see one of the much alluded to Space Jockey character seemingly self sacrifice himself on the Earth, we then advance to an archaeological dig in the year 2089 where a team discover cave painting in Scotland that seems to share similar features to other paintings across the world. The film then quickly advances for years, as a couple from this team, form a new ensemble of character on the ship Prometheus, where they aim to visit the destination depicted in these paintings. It is here we first meet David (Michael Fassbender) and Vickers (Charlize Theron) who are employees of the Weyland corporation (from the first two Alien movies) as well as the ships crew and scientists, who make up this research expedition. It is also quickly established that Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) has funded this exhibition after years of his own personal interest in man's origins, but his motives become more malevolent as the film progresses. So by this point of the film the background to both the Alien films and this film is formed.
The rest of the film has similar sequences to the previous films, espescially Scott's own Alien, but the overall feel of the film is that it attempts to be viewed and understood at a higher level. It takes time trying to make the characters and the audience try and piece together the significance of their journey and what they are there to learn. This was the element of the film I really enjoyed, and I thought it did a good job in making it tie in with the original film as well as making a well constructed thesis of mankind's evolution. There is also a lot of ideas that are projected that aren't fully formed and are there for the viewer to think about on their own terms. There are also a few questions still left open by the end of the film, that are probably there in order for a sequel to be required.
The film falls short though in other areas though, apart from Michael Fassbender, who is again sublime in a role as the expedition android, the rest of the cast are at times hit and miss. None more so than Noomi Rapace, whose delivery of lines sometimes comes across as a bit static, this may be due to her having only learnt English in the last few years. She isn't aided by the fact that her character is hard to fully connect with and is not a patch on Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley of the franchise. Charlize Theron looks the part as the corporate ice queen, who is seemingly more interested in her company's interest, than that of the scientific one. She is even at times quite good in the role, but I got the feeling that her character wasn't fully formed by the end of the movie and that something was missing. Other characters seem to be a mismatch of past cliché's from the Sci-fi horror genre and are hardly worth a mention. I will though say that I found Guy Pearce's make-up was a bit distracting in his role as Weyland. Back to Fassbender though who managed to have a great mix of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen's androids from previous films. This really worked well for a film where you were constantly questioning ideas, as well as seeing changing motives of characters, as Fassbender's motives and ideas were quite opaque throughout the film. There was also a great homage to Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia, which I also enjoyed.
CGI is something I still struggle with in films, but I did feel for the majority of this film it was used in a non-gratuitous way, and the majority of it was used on the actual computers and interfaces the character's were using. Scott did a good job in trying to blend any other CGI he used with the set pieces he used, and this had the desired effect of not making the film look over the top and too advanced for it's setting. At times I felt Ridley Scott did go a bit too far with some of his idea's about life in 2089, and it was to be bordering on the realms of the absurd. He just about got away with it, but I found some of it a bit questionable. As for the action sequences they're okay, but nothing close to the first two Alien films, and the suspense is equally moderated. But as I've already suggested, this wasn't Ridley Scott's main aim with this film.
The main thing I found hard to accept with the film was it's ending. Scott had the chance to do something a bit different here, and though I agree that ending it this way made one element of the film come together, it still would have worked better if he had been a bit more gutsy with it. Instead he decided to pander a bit to the audience's need for a conventional ending. Ultimately for me it just fell short of being something a bit special, though I still feel it's a good companion piece for the Alien universe. As prequels go though, this could have been a disaster, instead it's a decent effort and worthy of attention and even provokes some stimulating ideas, if a little undercooked.
The Hoax is a film that seems to have already been banished to the realms of late night television. It's based on the true life events of Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) and his associate Richard Suskrind (Alfred Molina) as they conspire to write a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. They manage to get access to a lot of privy information along the way, as well as information from Hughes' long time employee Noah Dietrich (Eli Wallach). They are able to convince the publisher's MacGraw-Hill of the book's legitimacy, despite only using hand-written forged memo's from the recluse Hughes. There's also a great side story to this whole charade, as this was taking place during the time President Nixon was trying to cover up past dealings with Hughes in the run up to the '72 election and ultimately led to the Watergate affair. The film suggests that Hughes was orchestrating Nixon's paranoia by feeding information to Irving about their relationship, whilst at the same time distancing himself from the publication. This however is a problem with the film, as it seemingly takes to much license at times, and whilst the Nixon element makes for a good story, elements of it seem to be artistic license, other parts of the film are also quite far fetched, espescially describing Irving's personal life and own paranoia.
I think the film was trying to be quite idiosyncratic by making Irving eventually demise into a paranoid wreck, in a similar vein to Nixon and indeed Hughes' own paranoia. For me it worked, but as I say it did feel like it was pure artistic license on Irving's behalf, as he probably didn't become that way. I regard Hughes as one the most enigmatic men of the 20th century and Richard Nixon is possibly one it's most complicated, therefore I found the film quite entertaining. It is strewn with flaws though and even a few plot holes here and there, it's hard deciphering fact from fiction in what's presented. For example it's is stated as fact that Nixon broke into Watergate in order to obtain a copy of the autobiography as he believed it to contain damaging information. Whilst I know Nixon was worried the DNC had incriminating information about him, I'm not convinced this unpublished book was it. I guess it's things like this that make for a better film and the overriding story is good enough to make this watchable.
On a technical aspect the film is well paced and suits the narrative of the story. Richard Gere puts in one of his more impressive performances and Molina is solid, despite his character being portrayed as a bit of light comic relief, which again I found dubious. There was also support from the likes of Marcia Gay Harden and great method actors such as Stanley Tucci and Eli Wallach. As a film it works, and it's a shame that it has been somewhat forgotten, not least of all for Gere. I would probably watch this again at some point in the future, but it's not without it's problems.
Another forgotten film is Anglo-Irish Noir Odd Man Out, which centres on the story of an Irish Nationalist (James Mason) as he spends his last 24 hours on the run in Belfast after a botched heist job. A risqué piece for the time, and as such the IRA connotations are very implicit. In fact the only thing we know is that the heist is in order to fund Mason's group underground activities. Despite the censorship there is enough there for the viewer to read between the lines and have a clear understanding of what's going on. The film is directed by The Third Man's Carol Reed and has all the hallmarks of that classic, with long shadows through the dark streets of Belfast, that could have easily been Orson Welles on the streets of Vienna. Reed is without doubt a director of great ability, as he manages to transform this subverssive tale into an entertaining noir thriller. The streets of Belfast are presented as giant maze, and the intricacy of these roads and alleys add to the atmosphere.
I really enjoy James Mason as an actor, and his performance here is again captivating and he is painted in a very sympathetic light, that I'm surprised it got past the censors. Robert Newton is also part of the cast, and gives his typically thespian performance similar to his role the following year as Bill Sykes in Lean's Oliver Twist. Whereas his performance worked in Oliver Twist, I found him to be a bit too over the top here. Though the rest of the cast was largely unknown to me I thought Fay Compton did a good job as the woman searching for her fugitive love (Mason) through the street of Belfast.
The film is not quite The Third Man level of genius, but is a great precursor to that film, and is a great (if somewhat romanticised) insight into life as a Republican in Northern Ireland in that post-war period. It's another example of how good some of these less celebrated films can be.
Bride of the Monster, was a film directed by the man often lauded as the "Worst Director Ever" Ed Wood. There is even a Tim Burton biopic based on the man and his notoriously bad films, which features segments about this film. Despite the film's awful reputation, I was hoping for something fun and entertaining, rather than just bad. The main problems with it are the quite ridiculous special effects, most notably a killer octopus, that is basically made up of both archive footage of a real octopus and a pathetic octopus prop that looks ludricrous. The acting, whilst at times is bad, isn't as atrocious as I was anticipating, and as such most of the film is easy to follow, along with a straight forward narrative. It was Bela Lugosi's last screen performance, and to be fair to the man, although hammy and over the top, it is the best performance in the film, and shows that the man did have some talent.
I was expecting a bit more on the fun and entertaining side, and overall I don't think it's quite so bad it's good, but it definitely isn't as bad as the reputation that precedes it.
My next film was originally intended to be a Judy Garland project of the famed Irving Berling musical Annie Get Your Gun. Based on the real life of famed sharpshooter Annie Oakley, it had a very similar feel to Calamity Jane, especially in that they both starred Howard Keel, in fact his role in this film was his first film role. He was lucky to stay in the role due to a lot of production problems, not least of all Judy Garland being forced to pull out due to exhaustion, Betty Hutton was cast, even though I find it incredible that Ethel Merman wasn't even considered by MGM to reprise her Broadway role. It was also original assigned to musical legend Busby Berkley to direct, but he quite after Garland withdrew. I had not been familiar with Hutton, and having read a bit about her, it was easy to see why. She suffered a similar career decline to her co-star Keel, but he's decline was relatively tame in career to Betty's who suffered a series of severe mental health issues in the 60's and 70's.
It's a shame as Hutton was obviously talented and her role here proves it. The role is obviously the blueprint as to what Doris Day copied for her signature role as Calamity Jane. Hutton gives a solid performance with her strong voice, good looks and grows into the role well. I think sadly, that retrospects will always compare her to Day, who has more charisma and a better voice in her turn as Calamity. It may have been interesting to see Garland in this role, but I feel Hutton is good, albeit she tends to over do it in places. Keel who was the male lead in both films, gives the first of his stereotypical leading musical man, which would sadly typecast him and stifle his career. I have a lot of time for him though, as his voice is superb, as well as that all important charm that was important for films like these. The chemistry between the two is good also, and again matches that of Keel with Day.
The film is certainly good enough, with a fascinating (and surprisingly quite factual) story and a strong repertoire of songs (which is good as I'm not much of a fan of "There's No Business Like Showbusiness", the musical's most famous tune). It's only natural to compare it Calamity Jane, a film I really enjoy, but this is just as good, possibly better. I may even try to dig up a copy of Annie Oakley's autobiography, as she seems an incredible person with an interesting life.
Below are my five favourite Henchmen and Henchwomen from the Bond films.
5. Red Grant (Robert Shaw, From Russia With Love) From Russia With Love was blessed with two great SPECTRE villains in Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant. The reason why he is such a good henchman, is that he was originally a homicidal maniac, recruited and trained up by SPECTRE with the mission of killing Bond who had previously assassinated Dr. No. Grant really is the benchmark for all future henchman, not only in the Bond films, but also many other action movies. He is shown to be in peak physical condition, and is a quite ruthless and clinical assassin. Played by the brilliant Robert Shaw, he also has the right balance of charisma and guile that make him a formidable enemy and worthy adversary of Bond.
4. Mayday (Grace Jones, A View To A Kill) It was a great piece of casting by the producers in getting the eccentric pop star Grace Jones, to play the unhinged sidekick to Max Zorin (Christopher Walken). She is well built and quite terrifying when dispatching Bond's allies, and therefore quite convincing in the role of Mayday. Her campness certainly works to her advantage in this the last of the Moore movies in the mid-80's. She may have been a disaster had she appeared in the Connery or Craig era. Despite her strengths she is also quite vulnerable as she vies for her bosses attention and affection, and you feel for her her when she's abandoned by Zorin. This leads her to becoming one of the more endearing characters in the series as she turns to James Bond for solace.
3. Oddjob (Harold Sakata, Goldfinger) The first of the Henchmen to come with a gimmick, in the shape of his bowler hat. Sakata is unnerving as the short but stocky sidekick to Goldfinger, and looks like he could beat anyone in a fight. In fact his demise is only down to Bond's quick thinking rather than a physical confrontation. He's also handy with a silencer and is one of the sidekicks that doubles up well as a servant, even in this role he seems perfectly efficient. He is also very quiet, choosing instead to smile wryly, which adds to his menacing and deadly demeanour.
2. Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen, Goldeneye) Goldeneye is probably the best film on the female front, with a great ally to Bond in Natalya and a superb enemy in Xenia Onatopp. An employee of the Janus syndicate, he specialist move was seducing targets and then strangling them to death with her thighs. She takes orgasmic pleasure in her killing, not only with her thighs, but seemingly with her gun too. Without doubt the sexiest of the Henchwomen and has great chemistry with Bond, and also has some good dialogue and one-liners in her limited screen time. I did find her character to be similar in style to the character of Naomi (Caroline Munro) in The Spy Who Loved Me, but thankfully Xenia has more screen time.
1. Jaws (Richard Kiel, The Spy Who Loved Me & Moonraker)
The only henchman to return, and in my opinion the best. He seemed to have all the appropriate attributes for being a Bond henchman, including playing both the opposing sides. He's trademark is his metal teeth, that can seemingly bite through anything, and uses them to bite and kill his victims in the jugular. At nearly 7 feet tall, it also gives him a great strength advantage over his targets, as well as the ability to survive almost anything. His status is as Best Henchman is somewhat undermined towards the end of Moonraker, after he begins to reform his character after meeting the equally socially awkward Dolly. Still his previous escapades and his intimidating figure and attributes, make him my favourite Henchman from the film series.
Murphy's War, a low key war film set in South America, kicked off my films in May. It starred Peter O'Toole opposite his then wife Sian Phillips, as well as Philippe Noiret (most famous for his role Cinema Paradiso). It told the story of Murphy (O'Toole) who is the sole survivor of a German U-Boat attack in the South American rivers. He convalesces in a local village, where he is nursed by Sian Phillips' character and begins to plot his vengeance, with the help of local hand Louie (Noiret). Being a low key war film, it's quite slowly paced, but it's still quite an interesting film, if a little uncomplex. The absolute strength of the film is in the performances, especially that of O'Toole who reverts to his native Irish accent for his role. The stubborn determination of the character in the end becomes his own downfall, as his single-mindedness intentions of vengeance lead to a lot of consequential decisions. Noiret and Phillips are also great as they try to convince Murphy that vengeance isn't the answer, as the end of the war approaches. My main problem with the film is that at times I found the dialogue hard to follow due to both O'Toole's and Noiret's strong accents. The slow pacing, whilst not ideal, suits this film. It's unconventional style is what sets it apart from the rest of the war genre. I found it not too dissimilar to Herzog's much lauded Fitzcarraldo, with O'Toole's charisma akin to Klaus Kinski's sense of showmanship, which makes this one a bit of a find.
I continued working my way through the films of Marilyn Monroe by watching River of No Return, in which she starred opposite Robert Mitchum. Set in the Canadian west, it sees Mitchum as a farmer, reunited with his young son after spending time in jail for manslaughter. His son became acquainted with a saloon singer (Monroe) on his journey to his father and Mitchum's character is grateful for her assistance with his son. A few days later the three's path cross once more as Monroe and her fiancee run into trouble rafting near Mitchum's ranch. We learn that her fiance is finding the nearest town to register his claim to a gold mine he won a poker game. It's here where he robs Mitchum of his horse and gun and abandons his wife to claim his fortune. The remaining trio are soon beseiged by natives and are forced into an adventure down the river in order to escape.
Whilst the plot is a little weak, director Otto Preminger manages to make the best of it, with exciting set pieces and shots of the Canadian landscape to make the film more aesthetically pleasant. Mitchum is in typical laconic mode as the man trying to redeem his own misdemeanours, whilst convincing Monroe that her fiancee isn't good enough for her. It's hard not hold some admiration for Mitchum as one of the most interesting, as well as coolest leading men ever to come out of Hollywood. As for Monroe, she at least manages to portray her limited character with a bit of depth, as well as maternal nurturing side that is rarely part of her onscreen persona. It's a film though that has quite a few question mark around it, most notably a scene of passion between the two protagonists in the woods. I imagine the said scene, where Mitchum aggressively forces Monroe to the ground and kisses her, whilst she struggles, would make modern audiences uncomfortable. Bordering on rape, it's possibly one of the few films I've seen from this era that tackles a scene such as this in such a stark manner. It's certainly one that I think should be viewed in the context of both when it was made and the time period the film is set. Aside from this, the film is at least a pleasant viewing and if you enjoy the films of the two leads, I would suggest this is a must see, but it's never really noticeably better than similar contemporary Westerns of this era.
Having watched the film adaptation of John Le Carré's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy I managed to check out the first film adaptation of his work in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. It's a film I knew little about and what to expect, though I was aware it involved reappearing characters such as George Smiley and Control from other Le Carré novels. This film followed Alec Leamas (Richard Burton) as a British Cold War Spy who administrates the West Berlin office of the 'Circus', we first see him attempting to greet one of his operatives coming in from the East. As he passes the border, he is shot dead, and we begin to learn that Leamas has lost a lot of his operatives recently. He is then reassigned by the Circus back in London, where he becomes a library assistant and he soon becomes disillusioned and depressed and susceptible to the Russians.
It's hard to say much else about this film without given away too many plot twists and the motivations behind the character, which I feel the viewer has to see first time for themselves. As spy films go this is uncompromising in it's complexities and sombre nature. That's what sets it apart from all other spy films of this era. It's also filmed in Black and White which only adds to the grittiness of the piece. The story is so well written, and despite the complex narrative the films is able to capture the story in an appropriate way as not to confuse the viewer too much. Richard Burton's performance is pretty electric too, Burton thankfully forgoes his Hollywood bravado to give a far more restrained and engaging performance. I was also impressed by Oskar Werner, who I had only previously seen in Truffaut's Jules et Jim, here he plays Burton's counterpart and enemy. I was however a bit disappointed by the casting of Claire Bloom, who despite being a celebrated thespian, is miscast as the left leaning teenager 'Nan'.
For anyone who's seen Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy this film gives a noticeably different angle to George Smiley's character, that many would find intriguing. Though somewhat sidelined for the majority of the film Smiley still has a pivotal role in the plot of the movie, and his actions are open for interpretation by the viewers. The style and pace of the film is also similar to that of last year's hit film, which is obviously relative to Le Carré's own style of narrative. The plot to this however offers more and it's one of those films you have to really concentrate on to fully appreciate, but everything is there for the viewers to dissect, even the writing between the lines. There are still a few things that I question, which what makes the film so stimulating and true to the spy games of the Cold War. This is a film I can't recommend highly enough, and it's surprising how it's become somewhat lost amongst it's fellow spy films.
From one element of the Cold War to another now. I have forever held an interest in the pioneers of space travel and so I was delighted to finally get around to watching The Right Stuff. A film which centres on the collective journey of the "Mercury 7" pioneers and their families, as they embark on America's first phase of the Space Race. It also tells the story of test pilot Chuck Yeager, who despite his own pioneering work on the air field, fails to qualify for the Mercury programme due to his lack of degree qualification. It's a fascinating visual representation of man's journey into speed and the final frontier, as we first see Yeager break the sound barrier, before the Mercury 7 become the first Americans into space. The film also features an impressive cast such as Ed Harris, Scot Glen, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, Barbara Hershey, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Shearer, Jeff Goldblum, Lance Henriksen and American thespian Sam Shepard as Yeager.
Like most my knowledge of the men involved with the Mercury space programme only extends as far as the names John Glenn and Alan Shepard, although I was aware of Gus Grissom, due to his fatal demise in the Apollo 1 fire test. So in that sense it was interesting to learn more about the other men involved, and to see the complete contrast in each types of character. Some, like Glenn, lived up to the representation that the contemporary media had provided him with, whilst others came across as slight renegades and playboys, most notably of all Shepard. This led to one of my few problems with the films, in that some of the characters were a bit cartoonish and two dimensional. Not least of all Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson who comes across as a complete hillbilly as he tries to use the programme for his own political gains. (It's interesting to note that there are still those who believe Johnson played some role in Kennedy's assasination.) John Glenn is also presented in a "whiter than white" manner, which I felt may have been influenced due to his own political ambitions at the time of the films release. Though it was quite touching and probably very factual in relation to Glenn's devotion to his wife and family life. The film goes further in trying to relate the emotional distress the Space programme caused those dearest to the pilots and how any semblance of normality was affected by it. This caused the film, at times, to feel a bit too hokey and overbearing.
The real highlights of the film are the scenes which involve the various forms of flights. From the desert test flights to the space orbits footage is both brilliant captured and intertwined with archive footage from the period. It makes the film feel all the more realistic and is at times awe-inspiring. As for the performances, despite the somewhat limited characterisations, Fred Ward is the one who provokes the most interest as the tragic Gus Grissom. Scot Glen also gives a colourful performance as Alan Shepard and Sam Shepard is convincing as a man denied his dream, but left with the hunger and admiration for pioneering travel. There is also an interesting rivalry between Sam Shepard's Yeager and pilot Gordon Cooper (Dennis Quaid), as both vie to be the fastest men in the world. As for the rest it is somewhat standard, but then again it's not that type of film and each are able to invoke affable performances nonetheless.
Whilst the stories Space Race and the German engineers are only partially covered and alluded to, it's a film that I highly recommend for anyone with a modicum of interest in the star wars of the 50's and 60's. Of course to include more back story to the Space Race and how the Germans were utilised after WW2, would mean the film would run at six hours. Not that I would have minded though, as this was a truly fascinating film, surprising for one to come out of Hollywood in the 80's. For my money it's one of the most inspiring films I've ever seen, in spite of the overly sentimental representation of America and their astronauts.
I was a bit apprehensive about Sacha Baron Cohen's The Dictator having seen the trailer, but the reviews had been quite favourable. I should have gone with my gut on this one though, as the film was at best sub-standard. The biggest problem with it, is that it's too hit and miss. I personally find it too easy for anyone espescially a comedian to say or do something offensive in order to get a laugh. Also it doesn't cater for everyone's taste obviously. I found the gags involving genetalia a bit too easy and obvious for a laugh, whilst the equally offensive jokes about abusing 14 year old boys and using a Wii game to massacre the '72 Israeli Olympic team did cater to my sick humour side. Though these jokes garnered nothing more than a chuckle. Equally when Cohen's character masturbates for the first time, he attempts to relate it to some sort of allegory of "The American Dream" with a montage of American icons accompanying it. Again whilst other members of the audience laughed, I felt quite glad that I was above it. This is probably the best way of conveying my gripes with the film and is where my snobbery begins to become exposed. There is no intelligence in this humour, it's all seems like it's trying to shock to the masses, who to me seem a bit too sheltered from lewd humour, judging by the fellow audience at my screening. There were a few glimmers of what I enjoy from comedy, such as misdirections jokes, for instance when Cohen's character is looking for a pseudonym to disguise his identity and he looks at a sign saying "Hazzezi's Burgers" he comes up with the name 'Burger'. There was also another amusing scene in a helicopter, where he talks to his friend in his native tongue about Bin Laden, Porsches and New York City landmarks, which then gets misconstrued by American tourists. Again though most of the funny stuff, seems like 'the best of a bad bunch' and I never had any real belly laughs or found something hysterical. Cohen's previous project Bruno, suffered from the same 'hit and miss' problems, and I'm not sure which out of the two I preferred. One thing is certain though, neither come close to Borat, which for me is one the best characters to come out of British comedy.
This film takes a good fifteen minutes to really get going, and I think it's in part to the introduction of Anna Faris' character, who whilst isn't a barrel of laughs, but does serve as a good straight character for Cohen to play off. Ben Kingsley is obviously a great actor, but I think he gets slightly lost in this one. Here he plays Cohen's not so faithful ally who tries to overthrow Cohen's dictator. Although this is only a minor supporting role intended to give license to Cohen's character as well as give the film some kind of plot, it all feels a bit lacklusture. I think maybe Cohen should return to Ali G for his next film, though I never saw Ali G in da House I understand it wasn't great, so to me he has nothing to lose by doing a new Ali G project. As for The Dictator, I suppose an easy comparison is to Chaplin's The Great Dictator. Whilst Chaplin's film is a little simplistic and naive I think it's a better satire of a dictatorship, it's funnier too. Cohen does attempt to intertwine the ideologies of dictatorship and America's democracy, which is amusing, but isn't something revelatory. I expected a bit more from the Cambridge educated comedian.
How To Steal A Million was a crime caper directed again by one of my favourites William Wyler. This time it saw Hugh Griffiths as a French charlatan who forges and sells famous artworks with the aid of his daughter (Audrey Hepburn). She gains the trust and friendship of Peter O'Toole after she catches him trying to steal these forgeries, and soon they have to work together in order to stop the authorities learning of her father's penchant for forgeries. My expectation wasn't high for this film as it has never been celebrated as one of Hepburn, O'Toole or Wyler's best, but then again when measured against these three great's body of works it was never going to live up to it. It was ultimately a thoroughly enjoyable piece, and I even think I preferred it to Hepburn's iconic Breakfast at Tiffany's. How she is supposed to be the offspring of Hugh Griffith's in this film I'll never know, but she gives one of her synonymous charm offensive performances. Whilst to me she plays the same role in pretty much all the pictures she ever made, it is easy to see why she has become such an icon. Her sweet, vulnerable, yet cheeky persona is easy to fall for, even if it does feel like she's phoning it in at times. As for O'Toole he glides through this picture as if he had written the screenplay himself, but without any air of arrogance, albeit a bit mannered. He has all the best one liners as he seemingly holds all the cards throughout this whole affair. I was also pleased to see Eli Wallach in a supporting role, interestingly in the same year he would make his career defining film The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I thought he and Charles Boyer (the Golden Age legend) worked well to provide additional comic relief intermittently through the film.
I also enjoyed the actual heist sequence which was quite intricate, yet engaging and believable for the audience. While the film did come off a bit Pink Panther-esque it was still a very fun and charming film that any Hepburn fans would instantly fall in love with. While not the pinnacle of output from O'Toole and Wyler, it's just another example used to showcase each's undeniable talent in the art.
I returned to the Cold War theme by watching The Hunt For Red October. Based on the Tom Clancy, it is adapted for the big screen by Larry Ferguson and directed by the greatest action movie director of the modern age (John McTiernan). It follows a Soviet submarine captain's (Sean Connery) journey to America in the USSR's newest nuclear submersible. What the Americans are trying to figure out is whether he is going to attack or defect.
It is a film produced as a blockbuster and aimed for the masses, so for it may not appease ones with a pedantic obsession with Cold War or possibly Clancy's novel as I understand this to be an emaciated version. What it does achieve though is a tense, gripping account of how these two warring sides are able to communicate with each other in a way where their intentions can be understood. Sean Connery does a good job in making a believable character that may have come off as absurd if incorrectly approached. His counterpart is Alec Baldwin, who has to decipher Red October's intentions as it nears US waters. I find Baldwin nauseating at the best of the times, but at least here he makes Jack Ryan relative and identifiable for the audience. There is also experienced support from the likes of Tim Curry, Scott Glen and Sam Neil (who at times struggles with the Russian accent).
The film is a great taut thriller that relies gripping psychological warfare for it's action. McTiernan does a great job in making this easy to watch, whereas others may have made it too dull. Whilst not the most intellectual film ever, it still manages to offer moments of genuine intrigue and guile. I have never watched the other Jack Ryan movies, but I'd be surprised if they are better than this.
James Whale's adaptation of H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man gave Claude Rains' his star making role. This version is now nearly 80 years old, and I think anyone watching would be surprised at the quality of the special effects. When Rains first reveals himself to be invisible it looks believable and makes you wonder how they achieved such effects. I think this what makes the film as good as it is, as without this it would be instantly forgettable. Sadly the acting isn't up to today's standards and whilst it is watchable, some players appear either stilted or are prone to overact. Rains himself at times fall foul to over doing it, but overall he gives the best performance and is a good choice to portray the mad title character. There is also one of the most annoying characters I've ever witnessed on screen, an Inn lady who overacts to the nth degree when The Invisible Man begins his rampage.
The film's narrative and character development is also affected by the film's short run time in a detrimental way. It feels like there should have been more of a back story to before the protagonist became invisible. At just 75 minutes long though, it is worth your time as you are taken back to a time where movie making was real art form and didn't have to rely on tacky looking, overblown CGI for it's effects.
My next film was a lesson in overacting, with Ronald Coleman playing an actor who becomes so immersed in his role as Othello, that he soon reproduces this role in real life, with fatal consequence. A Double Life was the first Coleman film I had watched, though I had been aware of his other films such as Lost Horizon and Random Harvest, where he would portray the dashing gentlemanly type. Here he takes on a more sinister and twisted role, and to fantastic effect, and would rightly win the Best Actor Oscar for it.
I must admit that when I had first read the films plot, I thought it absurd, and for the first twenty minutes of the films, it feels like it. However, it's through Coleman's work that this ends up not being as ridiculous as it could and probably should be. He perfectly balances his character's real life persona of normality with the conflicted emotions of the Shakespearean character he's portraying. It's interesting that the role was initially intended for Laurence Olivier, but even the great Olivier would have struggled to match Coleman's portrayal. The supporting cast was also impressive, with a large amount previously unknown to me, apart from that of Edmund O'brien and Shelley Winters, in her first credited movie role. Winters is in her typcial vulnerable downtrodden social outcast role that would largely define her movie career, but is still brilliant to watch. Not many actress' would have the guts to take on these unglamorous roles in this period of Hollywood.
The film itself is also quite subverssive as Coleman engages in an illicit relationship with Winters, whilst trying to amend his nuptials with his ex-wife and leading lady played well by Signe Hasso. The film is the brain child of husband and wife team Ruth Gordon (herself a celebrated actress) and Garson Canin. The notion of life imitating art works really well throughout the film as the catalyst that drives Coleman's insanity deeper. It's parallel's with Shakespeare's Othello are interesting and easy for the audience to decipher, which makes the film that bit more gripping to watch. It does at times fall victim to naive moments, that are either a sign of the times when the film was made, or maybe slightly hindered by how explicit the makers could be with certain scenes. It's also directed by the great George Cukor, and is just another entry in a quite extraordinary catalogue of films made by him. Whilst not one of the very best films I've ever seen, it's definitely up there with some of the best film-noirs I've watched (mainly thanks to Coleman), and I thought it was as good as Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity, which I've always found to be over lauded.
Surrogates was a film with a premise that appealed to the Sci-fi fan in me. Sadly it started off by giving out some ridiculous and unfeasible statistics that immediately damaged the credibility of the film. It's claim that 98% of the 'world's' population now had a Surrogate android to run their daily lives was a ridiculous statement on any level. Let alone for a film made in 2009 and set in 2017. Even if it had been the US population, there is absolutely no way that amount of people would be able to afford a surrogate, let alone a company being able to manufacture and distribute 295 million units in just ten years. If I were to be even more pedantic, I imagine the energy costs would be quite vast in running one of these things a minimum of twelve hours a day. The film did try to justify this claim by stating that the use of androids in a commercial and military capacity, resulted in affordable androids for general use, even so it detracted from the movie. There were a few too many of these questions concerning the film's concept that kept distracting me throughout the movie.
Anyway once the movie got going, it featured Bruce Willis as an FBI investigating android, who was trying to find out who and what had behind the murders of a number of these Surrogates, which resulted in the death of their human operator's also. Willis' Pulp Fiction co-star Ving Rhames' appeared as the anti-android messiah, prophesying humanity's downfall through the acceptance of androids. James Cromwell appeared in his all too familiar role of corporate patriach, infact they may have just spliced in footage from i-Robot. It was good however seeing Rosamund Pike, who's kept somewhat of a low profile since her appearance in Die Another Day. The acting is bearable, but it is the same type of characters that we've seen in every 'dystopian' Sci-fi movie.
Despite the problems I had with the film, it was mildly entertaining and isn't as convoluted as my first paragraph may have suggested. It is pretty straightforward and easy to follow, and doesn't require the viewer to over think the plot, maybe just the environment setting of the film. Overall though the film falls far short of making it's mark on the genre and is ultimately forgettable. It has nothing powerful or poignant in the film's message that sets it apart from the majority. An interesting idea, that could have been executed a whole lot better.
