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.
