J. J. Abrams performed a rare feat with his reboot of the Star Trek series back in 2009, by managing to make a film that appealed to both the traditional fans of the original series and broaden it's horizons amongst the average movie goer. His greatest achievements were both his ability to reboot the franchise using a far fetched but believable plot device that both didn't affect the past story lines, but also opened up brand new avenues for the new cast. His other success was manage to cast a group of actors to play the much revered characters of the original series so seamlessly. Credit must of course also go to the actors, whose interpretations of these stalwarts is both their own, yet in line with the characters the fans have grown up with.
The much anticipated sequel Star Trek: Into the Darkness reminds the audience just how good these actors are in these roles, as they ease back into the SS Enterprise. Naturally there is the addition of a new antagonist for this film, menacingly and flamboyantly played by the talented Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrays a subordinate terrorist from within Starfleet. The film again contains the action packed sequences, interspersed with the quieter moments to aid quieter development, and again these scenes are what make these films quite endearing. The film also again touches on past instalments of the franchise, which are well executed and act as nice pastiches for the more avid "Trekkie".
I think come the end of the film people will be satisfied with the end product, and this blockbuster will undoubtedly be one of the year's biggest earners. It isn't however without it's flaws, the main problem being the plot devices used to progress the story early on, don't seem to make sense come the end of the movie. It's this kind of sloppy written that ends up niggling the mind upon reflection, and one can't help but feel a bit frustrated. It is certainly enjoyable and an adequate sequel, but it falls both short of expectation based on both the previews and the fantastic previous installment.
Having watched a couple of previous Harold Lloyd films before, I went into The Freshman (aka College Days) and Why Worry? with a certain level of expectation. Both films paired Lloyd with one of his most famous leading ladies Jobyna Ralston whose first appearance on screen with Lloyd was in Why Worry?. The Freshman is really one of Lloyd's sweeter films with elements of it's predecessor Girl Shy in terms of themes and sentiment. Lloyd's character watches a movie about a popular College student, just before enrolling in college himself. When he arrives at college he tries to emulate his onscreen hero and is manipulated by his peers, who use him for their own amusement and freebies. Of course Lloyd is ignorant of their ulterior motives, and plays the hapless nerd to both great comedic and endearing effect. There are also some very amusing scenes continuously through the movie, not withstanding the way Lloyd's character introduces himself, which leads to a wonderful final scene that brings the film full circle. Why Worry? is even more hysterical than College Days though maybe lacking some of the consistency story wise. This time Lloyd's character plays a more aloof invalid, but is just as hapless, as he arrives in a warmer climate country to convalesce in the midst of a revolution. There are a few scenes in this that are nothing short of hilarious, and Lloyd's art is creating these great moments of comic relief with great build ups, that more than deliver on the anticipation. Despite not being as known as Lloyd's most revered work, Why Worry? suggests that I'm only just scratching the surface of Lloyd's prolific genius
Whilst Lloyd may lack some of the refinement of Chaplin, his character is up there with The Tramp and perhaps his slapstick is even more suited to today than some of Chaplin's.
Staying with the silent era, I also watched one of Hitchcock's earliest movies The Lodger. Set in London, as serial killer, known as 'The Avenger', is on the loose around London. Soon a mysterious man lodges with an elderly couple, where their daughter's policeman boyfriend, becomes suspicious of the stranger.
The film contains a lot of early trademarks from Hitchcock, and the methods of creating suspense appear early on in this film as 'The Avenger' rampages through London. When the stranger turns up in the boarding house, played by the multi-talented Ivor Novello, his behaviour begins to arouse suspicion.
The film is somewhat let down, by some overracting and substandard plot points, especially with the studio's control on how their star Novello was portrayed. Despite this it is a solid enough thriller, that probably owes it's preservation to the later success of Hitchcock.
Immortal Beloved is so far the only Hollywood production that has attempted to make a biopic of great composer Ludwig Van Beethoven's life. The story centres on Beethoven's close friend trying to identify the late composer's 'Immortal Beloved', who he wrote an infamous love letter to 20 years earlier. This technique of retroactively looking at the life of the movie's main protagonist, was of course most famously done in 1942's Citizen Kane, as well as the similarly themed Amadeus. Whilst this device is probably most suitable to this biopic, it feels a bit to close to it's predecessors and unfortunately makes it prone to unfavourable comparisons.
Understandably, the film centres mainly on the social side of Beethoven's life; but it's a shame that more isn't given to his great work composing. However there is plenty of airplay given to his music throughout the film, and all his most notable pieces are given their fair share of screen time, even if some Rossini does creep in at one point. The main highlight expectedly being his 'Ode to Joy', but this sequence acted as a microcosm for the movie as a whole, whilst enjoyable, it came across as a bit too disjointed and a slight anti-climax. Even Gary Oldman's performance was a slight let down, even though he portrayed the bitterness and inner turmoil of the great irony of this deaf composer's life; it wasn't quite up to the exceptionally high standards of the actor's other work.
All in all it's a film that will appease both fans of Beethoven and the average movie goer. However, neither of these demographics will be blown away by the film, and will still be anticipating a more grandiose biopic, befitting of arguably the greatest composer of them all. It's impossible not to compare it to Amadeus, which put simply was both superior in writing and direction.
Set in the later part of the 19th century The Magnificent Ambersons is probably the most controversial film of the 1940's due to the studio's treatment of the film. 50 minutes of the film was cut by RKO and the ending was changed, all whilst director Orson Welles was out of the country. Rumours have persisted since the film was release that Welles' original cut is still in existence somewhere in the world today.
Despite the heavily edited final version of the film, it remains an innovative stalwart, synonymous with Welles' technical genius. The film is ahead of it's time in style, it lacks the stoic style of it's contemporaries, and filming techniques such as soft focus when the narration runs, and the continuous rolling of film and movement of the camera through scenes help the naturalistic style of the film and indeed the performances of the actors. The overlapping dialogue also means that the film remains both sharp and omniscient. The film itself takes a cynical and biting look at this upper class American family, as hinted by the acerbic title of the film itself. It's a shame that such a sharp film, has lost possibly it's greatest moments on the cutting room floor. Thankfully there is enough that remains that is to be admired.
Firstly Welles' favourite Joseph Cotton is given the most pivotal role in the film, which is understandable as he is surely the finest actor amongst the cast members. Like the majority of his onscreen performances he manages to earn the sympathy of the audience as his character, like Welles', acts as the innovator; whose inventions are ignored by the snobbery of the narrow minded George Minafer (the youngest Amberson played by Tim Holt). The apprehensive nature of the upperclass families to new technology, meant that their lives passed over with their fortunes lost. This powerful message is at the films core and of course life imitated art with the film's financier's apprehension about the film's leading to heavy edits.
Another sense of the films commentary on progress, is the softly hinted aspects of modern development throughout the town as the audience passes through it fleetingly with the characters. The passages through time are perfectly represented through these developments, whilst the Amberson's residence remain traditional. In the middle of everything are two love stories between both Cotton's Eugene and George's Mother; as well as George's own courting of Eugene's daughter Lucy (Anne Baxter). Unfortunately, we only really have hints of the stark reality Welles' tried to present through his screenplay, and so the film lacks a bit of bite in places and is at times a bit too reliant on narration in glueing the story together. Whilst the performances are overall enhance by Welles' direction, Agnes Moorehead gives a mesmerising performance as George's hysterical aunt. The film's finale is where the studio's input can be heavily felt, and it cries out for Welles' original vision (although this ending is more in line with the book's); with only more hints and promise of how potent this story could have been.
It is a fascinating movie, that perhaps with a full restoration, would be remembered more fondly than Citizen Kane. Even as it is, it remains a profound piece of cinema that serves as another example of Welles' genius.
Pandora's Box was perhaps best remembered for Louise Brooks' unforgettable performance as the amoral young woman, whose promiscuity incites violence and betrayal amongst her admirers. Directed by the great expressionist directory Georg Wilhelm Pabst, he decided to combine to form two famous stage tragedies written by dramatist Frank Wedekind, whose lead character Lulu encompassed both plays.
Louise Brooks is both insatiable and insouciant in her role, and it is this combination that makes her the ultimate temptress. The provocative nature of the film, is made all the more stirring by Brooks' on screen candidness and it's easy to see how she inspired so many, and has remained such an icon of early cinema.
Despite Brooks' near perfect transposition as Lulu, the film ultimately lacks something other than her that makes it truly one of the greats. Though well written and directed, with the usual bleak and sombre tones of Pabst, it does at times tend to over elaborate on a situation, whereas a bit more editing would have served to make the movie more potent. It is nonetheless a movie that will surprise even today's audience with it's stark approach against it's contemporary social attitudes.
Maybe more provocative than Pandora's Box, albeit a bit less subversive, has to be Lon Chaney's turn as The Phantom of the Opera. A story by Gaston Leroux that has achieved many adaptations of the years, and probably most known today in the form of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical. The musical has never much interested me, however the story has and I was very pleased to obtain a copy of this silent version. Apparently there have been various editions of this film that are both admired and maligned in equal measures. Based on my experience, the version I watched had to be definitive.
Lon Chaney had already built up quite a reputation as the master of disguise, not least for his performance as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Chaney manages to conjure and even more grotesque appearance with his Phantom, not only that but an even greater characterisation of his subject. It is quite remarkable just how evocative his performance manages to be despite that lack of sound. His soul is as haunted as the Opera house itself, as he yearns for the love of young singer Christine played by the pretty and sweet Mary Philbin.
Alongside the more emotive elements of the film are some great action sequences, but the most striking aspect of this film are the set pieces. The opera house itself defines Hollywood Gothic, it's is vast and flamboyant, and has probably inspired every film of it's ilk since. Some of the scenes are profound in their beauty and style that you have to question "is this film really nearly 90 years old?". Perhaps the most striking scene is the now infamous Masque ball sequence, the only part of the picture film in two-toned Technicolour.
Both this and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are regarded as the first Hollywood horrors ever made. Their title is much owed to the masterful performances of Lon Chaney, who simply exudes both charisma and eeriness in abundance. Phantom of the Opera ranks up there with the finest horrors I've ever seen and it is also one of the greatest films of the silent era.
Two films based on the L. Frank Baum classic The Wizard of Oz, the first of which was the very first film attempt of adapting the book the book for the screen. It was a single reel version called The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, filmed in 1910, and despite it's 13 minute length, featured the majority of the key plot points from the infamous 1939 adaptation. It also featured Bebe Daniels in the role of Dorothy, a star who would late enjoy modest success in the first golden era of Hollywood; also cast was Robert Z. Leonard in the role of the scarecrow, who himself would later go on to be MGM's most prolific directors.
The second film was The Patchwork Girl of Oz, which boasted a screenplay from L. Frank Baum himself, having written the novel the previous year (the seventh book of the Oz franchise). This was a feature length film, that introduced a wealth of new characters from the land of Oz to the consciousness and sidelined the Scarecrow and Tin Man to more minor roles. It must also be noted that L. Frank Baum had by this point started his own film studio and a lot of these characters were introduced and included in a collection of films around this period to help make his films more marketable. The Patchwork Girl of Oz told the story of a hungry munchkin boy and his uncle who journey to the Emerald City for a more prosperous life. Along their journey they meet a lot of strange and interesting characters, including a Magician and his wife, who quickly conjure a patchwork girl to help with chores. However she accidentally turns some other Oz residents into statues, and several parties disband to try to find the antidote.
Though both films are very primitive, they do offer some interesting early filming techniques as well as some trick photography that is bound to please anyone truly interested in the evolution of cinema. However what lets both films down is the somewhat messy screenplay and narratives, especially for The Patchwork Girl of Oz, which plot seems to drag out over the 80 minute course. I also think that the characters simply aren't as good as the traditional Oz protagonists, and come across as rather convoluted; and if released today would be cynically accused of being profiteering mechanisms. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (below), does at least benefit from having the more expansive 1939 version to reflect from, and therefore offers a bit more in the way of charm. As well as having a largely more succinct plot and length to it. It's also interesting, and maybe not all too surprising to see the acting in these early silents to come across as very vaudevillian, and is no where near as refined as even the acting just 10 years later.
As a time piece though both films offer a fascinating insight into film during the early silent era, and though maybe these films are only prominent today due to their association with their subject matter, rather than their technical achievements; they do create enough intrigue for one to watch more of the output from the early film industry. However, it's also easy to see how quickly cinema developed in the subsequent few years that followed these films.
It's fair to say that in the past I've thought Burt Lancaster a decent actor, who was prone to trying too hard. In The Leopard however, none of this effort is in vain as he manages to deliver one of his most emphatic performances, which must surely go down as his most glorious on screen performance. Here he plays the effervescent Scicilian aristocrat who, as patriarch of his family, tries to maintain his status in society, during the political and social upheavals of the 1860's.
Not only is Burt Lancaster superb in terms of acting in this role, his good looks also shine despite middle age; and his piercing blue eyes have never looked sharper. The beauty is even greater in his co-stars Alain Delon and Claudia Cardinale, who are possibly cinema's most beautiful on screen couple. These three players are the perfect physical compliment to Visconti's endurable vision of both Scicilian landscape and life. Days of Heaven maybe one of the most photogenic films ever, but The Leopard is a sheer work of art. Each shot is as majestic as a work by Titian or Vermeer, and the movement of the camera ensures there is much for the audience to consume. Visconti's attention to detail is insurmountable, and it's evident that he ensured every piece of fabric, prop and costume was to a perfect standard before rolling the cameras.
The film itself provides a rich character study of all the characters involved. Though some may criticise the pacing and lack of action within the story, one can only sit back and admire the patience of this meticulous director who's left nothing to chance. Every pause, silence and stillness adds an extra layer to the depth of the story and the characters. Each subtle movement is somehow magnified tenfold because of these techniques.
Admittedly there possibly isn't enough as a story that propels this film amongst the very greatest of Italian cinema; but it is arguably the closest to aesthetic perfection in film history.
Torrid Zone marked the penultimate film partnership of lifelong James Cagney and Pat O'Brien (their final film together was 1981's Ragtime). Set in a central American banana plantation, where a local convict is stirring up unrest amongst the local workers, and the plantation's owner (Pat O'Brien) has to persuade his own foreman (James Cagney) not to leave in order to deal with the trouble. Ann Sheridan plays the American cabaret singer who acts as the main love interest in the film.
Here Cagney perhaps lacks some of the electricity of his gangster films, but his naturalistic style is still on show, and is always a pleasure to watch. The wisecracks amongst the casts are quite sharp and are what keep this film from being forgettable. Unfortunately the screenplay really lets the film down, and it ends up not really going anywhere. This was my first Ann Sheridan film and though her butch wisecracking style isn't to my taste, it manages to work here, and her "oomph" girl status is also evident. A fun film, that lacks anything that sets it apart from other contemporary studio films.
It's funny how a film sometimes acts as an allegory to that of the actors involved. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone certainly contains traces of this, as Jim Carrey stars in this film with Steve Carell as a fading stage magician who is being out performed by a new street magician (Carrey). It's fair to say that Jim Carrey's box office clout has been diminishing noticeably across the last 10 years. Perhaps his physical and over-the-top style isn't to everyone's taste, but I think his performance in Burt Wonderstone only underlined the gap in the market for his style of comedy.
Perhaps The Incredible Burt Wonderstone will be a box-office failure, and perhaps it isn't going to set critics alight. However, it is quite refreshing to see comedies like this being made, when there seem to be a wider market at the moment for seedier and more vulgar comedy. Not that I don't enjoy some of these more modern styles; however, I think that performers such as Carell and Carrey are more naturally funny, and though they do dabble on the seedier side of the line from time to time, more often than not there is a lot of heart to their styles. The film does contain a lot of solid comedy and good laughs, but at times Carell does seem a bit lackadaisical, as if he's simply going through the motions. Carrey however is hilarious as "brain rapist" magician Steve Gray, and he really does dominate the film, whenever he's on screen. Alan Arkin also has a wonderful role that provides the more heartfelt moments of the films, and for the most part the sentiment really works and you get a sense of what magic means to the characters involved. Maybe Olivia Wilde is miscast as a nerdy magician wannabe, but she is has a few funny moments in the film early on; and Buscemi doesn't really add anything to the film, but is always pleasing to watch. Like many films of this ilk, it follows the same formula of protagonist having to lose everything and rediscover what he had before redeeming themselves. However in this instance it was a journey worth taking.
Maybe I've been a bit defensive whilst review this film, but I think it's a shame that comedies like this struggle these days. The film isn't one that you will watch with repeated viewings, but it is both enjoyable and at times touching and serves as a great reminder of the talents of Jim Carrey.
The Contender was a political thriller, that shows us the perception of integrity amongst the political elite and public in Washington. Joan Allen plays the vice presidential candidate chosen by Jeff Bridges' President to join him in his incumbent campaign for another term. Her nomination comes under threat as sordid revelations of her past come under scrutiny; and her position is further manipulated by her political rivals.
The film really works in highlighting the heightened scrutiny that a person's sex is subject too in political office, and how politicians really have to struggle to maintain any privacy as well as integrity whilst in public office. Joan Allen works well in the this role, and the real beauty of the way this film is written is that your opinion and perception of her character changes throughout the movie; as with the other characters in the film. There's also support from Christian Slater, a moustache-less but charasmatic Sam Elliot and the great Gary Oldman, who gives another convincing performance despite the somewhat questionable make-up.
Though perhaps some elements may come across as a bit dated, and the righteousness is a bit overwrought towards the end, this film does provide a great commentary on modern politics. It's a film that can't really be described as satire, because it seems so real at times, which is a credit to the writing. The film has become very overlooked since it's release, and despite it's flaws it's definitely worth a watch.
There are films that I sometimes just never get round to seeing, despite all the hype and recommendations I receive in regards to it. Midnight Express was one such film that I had heard much about, but had never got round to seeing it, until now...
Simply put, this is without doubt one of the greatest prison movies of all time, and there have been many. Based on the true story of Billy Hayes, caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey, and his subsequent jailing and treatment in a Turkish prison. Directed by Alan Parker, the film starts off in fascinating form, as we see Billy strapping the drugs to his body, and then passing through the customs checkpoint as he tries to board the plane with his girlfriend. Giorgio Moredor's score really adds to the suspense and it is just the first of many brilliant orchestrated 'heart in mouth' moments spread across the film. Once in prison Billy (played magnificently by the late Brad Davis) is subjected to a series of brutal punishments and attacks by the Turkish prison warden and guards. He soon befriends fellow inmates played by Randy Quaid, Norbert Weisser and John Hurt, who gives undoubtedly one of his greatest ever on screen performances. Though the inmates remain sceptical or fellow prisoner Rifki, who acts as an informant to the guards.
The film's real strength if the level of emotion it manages to conjure, and it doesn't do it through cheap manipulation or superficial means. Though undoubtedly some of the story has conceded to "artistic license", the story is good enough and believable enough to warrant this. The homosexual undertones are also sensitively and beautifully handled as Billy begins to understand he may be stuck there for the next couple of decades.
The ending is rather abrupt, but it doesn't take anything away from the film, and there is a wonderful sense of fulfilment having been apart of such a harrowing but touching story. There may be an argument to say that the Turkish character are presented in too much of a one dimensional manner, but another aspect of the film is that is does deal with the protagonist in a more balanced way, and it really is a rollercoaster of emotion and feeling for each character. It's a shame that Brad Davis died so young and his career never really took off in the way his performance in this suggests it should have. This simply is a superb bit of cinema, that one can immerse themselves in and evoke those feelings that rarely surface inside.
Howard Hughes was undoubtedly one of the 20th century's most incredible personalities. Aside from being one of the century's most forthright entrepreneurs, he also dabbled in film-making. Hell's Angels was his directorial debut and though he went on to produce many more, he would only exert complete control over one other: 1943's controversial film The Outlaw. Hell's Angels though was undoubtedly his most ambitious film project, and it cost a staggering $3.8m to make, which meant it made no profit on it's original 1930 release, as well as being the most expensive movie ever made to date. It was also the film that launched one his most famous women: Jean Harlow. Whilst the acting is at times a bit primitive, the film coming in the early days of talkie, it helps highlight Harlow's star power. Here she plays a seductive temptress, and with her blonde bombshell look, it's easy to see why she would soon become the next big thing in Hollywood. Her low cut dresses and risque demeanour is very near the mark. Thankfully colour tinted scenes were found in John Wayne's private vault in 1989 and the film has been fully restored, allowing the world to see the stunning Jean Harlow in colour for the first and only time of her career.
As great as Harlow is, she isn't the real star of this picture. That accolade goes to the aerial stunt footage created by Hughes. It should be noted that Hughes' obsessive and perfectionist nature resulted in the deaths of 3 air stuntmen on this movie. His strive for realism even drove him to perform one of the film's stunt himself, one in which all other stuntmen refused to do, as they said it was impossible. Hughes' performed and filmed the stunt, but crashed the plane afterwards, one of the first of his ailments that would no doubt affect him for the rest of his life. The resulting aerial footage is nothing short of a masterpiece as a large German Zeppelin wreaks havoc over London and a squadron from the Royal Air Force launch their defence.
Admittedly plot wise it lacks any depth or sophistication, historically it's inaccurate and the German's are perhaps overplayed as nationalistic evil doers; but none of this matters, as the film's good, is nothing short of magnificent; with the climatic shots of the dogfight, being something to marvel at. Even over 80 years' later it remains a special effects stalwart. This was undoubtedly Hughes' finest hour in film.
Red River was the film that made Montgomery Clift a matinee idol; and though it was also the first film he made, it was The Search, that was released first. The style of neo-realist cinema from Italy was evident in this film about the post-war rehabilitation of surviving children from the concentration camp. It was possibly the first time, this style of neo-realism had been brought to an American audience, and it's a style that was very befitting of the subject matter.
Another unique thing about The Search, is that I believe it is probably the only film I've ever seen that dealt with the difficulty of having to reaccommodate the child victims of the concentration camps; not only to new homes, but to post-war society. The film had a great power in showing these vulnerable children struggling to cope with a new world, where the alien notions of trust and understanding were hard to comprehend. The film was greatly helped by being filmed against the backdrop of a rubble-laden Nuremberg; as well as the exemplary performances from the actors involved.
The most compelling performance was that of child star Ivan Jandl, who spoke no English and learnt his lines phonetically. Despite this, nothing was lost in his performance, and his on screen relationship with Montgomery Clift felt as real as the debried laden backdrop. Clift and Jandl also worked together off screen in order to enhance their performances further. Without Jandl the film may have felt a bit false and the film would have lost some of it's authenticity. The same may also be said of Clift, who is at both his most paternal and fresh faced, he gives possibly his most endearing performance on screen, and this is without having to resort to overwrought melancholy. Aline MacMahon and Wendell Corey give appropriate, albeit a little stoic support. Whilst opera star Jarmila Novotna works well as the indigent mother longing for her son.
Director Fred Zinnemann would go on to become a Hollywood stalwart, but this was the film that propelled him to the forefront of studio projects. As such it is probably one of his few films that succumbs to the Hollywood magic element that were prevalent in their post-war films. It manages to remain grounded and naturalistic, in spite of it's broad and tragic subject matter.
It's certainly a film that's hard not to dwell on afterwards; but despite it's hard to watch scenes, they are rewarding on an emotional and intellectual level. This isn't just a storytelling exercise, it's a history lesson and very enjoyable and rewarding one at that, showing it's audience the often overlooked logistical difficulties resulting from the war.
Michael Haneke is probably German most respected director at this moment in time, and on the eve of his Oscar triumph I watched his 2009 film The White Ribbon. Set in a small German village before world war 1, a lot of strange events start occurring, that appear to be some type of retribution against the villagers themselves. Alongside these events we are showing the abuse and repression that is experienced by the children of this village.
For a film that has to rely on the performances of it's young cast, it really does excel. The entire cast delivers this emotionally packed screenplay to a tee, and it really is a privilege to watch so assured performances in so many child actors. The cinematography is also fantastic, and the black and white filming set up the dark tone of this film nicely. Some of the shots in the film are sheer beauty and serve as a reminder of what foreign language films offer over today's output from Hollywood.
For all the technical quality this film has, it does unfortunately lack in a few areas; it's well crafted nature seems to come at a compromise to the pacing of the film and it is a little arduous to watch. It's ambiguous nature, whilst obviously an intended device, may leave the viewer a bit let down at points. However, as an allegorical satire of German society during this period it works perfectly, and when you do ponder upon some of the ambiguous aspects, you will discover the films intellect. It's a film that's hard to watch, but easy to admire; and one that simply would never get made in Hollywood.
Marnie was a film that is probably regarded, slightly unfairly as the beginning of the end for director Alfred Hitchcock. It is probably fair to say though it did signal the end of his most high profile films and his subsequent films became quite low key after this. Marnie is a film though that manages to maintain all the signature elements of a Hitchcock classic. Tippi Hedren plays the central blonde/ femme fatale, and her character shares elements of recent Hitchcock blondes Janet Leigh and Eva-Marie Saint's characters. Sean Connery play the role of the cunning love interest that tries to out manouevre the manipulative Marnie. Like most of his films, this tries to maintain the mystery and suspense throughout the movie, but despite the best efforts of the cast, it just lacks the electricity of his previous thrillers. Some of Hitchcock's technical elements and special effects in trying to inject more suspense and excitement into the plot, come off as over the top and it has the reverse effect in detracting from the film's story. Hedren also tends to overact in places, but this may be down to her director trying to stir up more suspense and drama.
That said, it is probably one of Hitchcock's most challenging films and he tries to push the boundaries in what is allowed on film here. Though most modern audiences won't be surprised by the end, of the film, I imagine that it was quite a revelation back in 1964. Though a good film by anyone standards, it is one that probably rightly gets overlooked in the Hitchcock catalogue, as it just lacks something that sets it apart.
Django Unchained has to go down as Tarantino's homage to the spaghetti westerns; with it's combination of heightened violence, it's matter of fact attitude, mixed with low quality film for flashbacks, as well as it's Ennio Morricone soundtrack; it was a film comparable to Death Rides a Horse, My Name Is Nobody and the eponymous Django. Django Unchained though, is ultimately a high quality rendition of it's inspirations.
Having been unimpressed with Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, I was hesitant about this, being such a fan of the same films that inspire Tarantino. I needn't had been so worried, as this film is everything it sets out to be, and manages to update the themes of the spaghetti western for today's modern audience. What I absolutely admire about this, is that Tarantino doesn't hold back for one single frame of film, and neither do any of his actors, who give it their all and really do immerse themselves into their roles and the script. Tarantino has been getting a lot of slack for his overuse of the 'N' word in this film, and as someone who hates gratuity, I was apprehensive about this in the film. However, it works brilliantly as the antithesis of those decades of Hollywood movies that have shied away from exposing America's sordid past. Even though the word is used over 100 times in the film, it never comes across as gratuitous; and although gratuitous violence is something which can be labelled at Tarantino in the past, it is appropriate here, as it tries to match those low budget European Westerns, which tried to compensate lack of finance with overwrought violence.
My one question in regards to the acting, is how Christoph Waltz was only nominated as a supporting actor. He has nearly 2 hours of screen time, more than the majority of past best actors winners, and he is seamless yet again for Tarantino, I've yet to see Lincoln, but surely he could have even challenged Day-Lewis. As someone who is ambivalent to Jamie Foxx, I thought he was superb in the title role, and really fit the role of "mysterious stranger" that was so prevalent in the original spaghetti westerns. Di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson were also revelatory in their performances, given them a bit of a departure from the roles they usually portray. With Di Caprio, he is on occassion guilty of over acting, but here he is so immersed in the role, that his method is never on show, and you feel as immersed in his character as he is. There are also some great cameos in this film from veterans such as Bruce Dern, Don Johnson (unfortunately Kevin Costner had to pull out again) and the original Django Franco Nero. The film is also littered with all the sycophantic nods to the films that Tarantino has grown up with and loved.
As for the film it is atypical of a Tarantino film, in terms of editing, style and direction; but the film's real technical strength is it's superb screenplay, which is soaked in jokes, satires and the monstrosities of the pre-Civil War south. The one real let down of the film, came towards the end, when a scene felt like it was shoehorned in to work as a plot device, which led to the film's climax. That aside, this is a very good film, and a fitting Hollywood tribute to the film's that reignited the Western genre: The Spaghetti Westerns. It's probably Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.
Frame for frame, you would be hard pressed to find a finer looking Hollywood film than Days of Heaven. Terrence Mallick's second film after his debut, the seminal Badlands (which is also the only other Mallick film I've seen). Set against the backdrop of a mid-west farmhouse, in a similar vain to the Benedict farmhouse in the film Giant, some of the shots in this are simply sublime. For some critics though, this seems to have detract from the film's plot.
Admittedly Days of Heaven isn't the deepest film to watch in a literal sense, however it offers a lot in the way of metaphor and imagery, that results in an experience that at times seems other worldly. The scenes a comparable to Visconti's best, including the locust ascending from the wheat farm, which is sublime. The accompanying score from Ennio Morricone and it's Saint-Saens motif from 'The Aquarium' sumptuously enhances each shot further. Leo Kottke's 'Enderlin' also fits the bill nicely for the more up beat moments in the movie.
It's stars also have also never looked more beautiful on film, especially the young Richard Gere and Sam Shepherd. What also doesn't help the film plot wise, is the fact Terrence Mallick destroyed the script a couple of weeks into filming, and decided in letting actors work the story themselves. What results is a rather simplistic tale of a couple, who moonlight as brother and sister in an attempt to steal a rich farmer's wealth. Some may argue that there is a far deeper meaning to this film, and it could be viewed as commentary on life itself, with it's lead characters representing natures elements. With the amount of shots of nature intertwined with the story, it's easy to see why people have alluded to this.
Whilst the narration from the vindictive couple's little sister can grate at times, it serves well as a guide to this simplistic story through the narrator's simplistic point of view. The films editing is also questionable to time, as it tends to jump during transitions, where as gentle fades would have been more befitting the cinematography and story. However, I think the brevity of some shots, sets it apart from other beautiful films of it's ilk, and helps move the story forward. Though this results in a short film, nothing feels underdone, and the film is left with that "rewatchability" factor, predominantly for it's sheer beauty; but admittedly also for it's poignancy. Maybe not as profound as his debut Badlands, but Days of Heaven is nonetheless a special film.
I kicked of the New Year by watching Oscar winning classic From Here To Eternity a film that is probably most known for it's passionate beach scene with Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster. Set in Hawaii just before the attack on Pearl Harbour, it tells the story of a young private army boxing champion (Montgomery Clift) who is punished by his superiors for his failure to box. At the same time his captain wife (Kerr) and second in command (Lancaster) begin a tumultuous affair.
It's a film that is full of melodrama, and whilst there's a tendency in these types of films for performances to be overacted and the film to become schmaltzy; the entire cast manage to underplay it so it remains for the most part grounded. This is probably also helped by the good direction and guidance of Fred Zinnemann. Though there are a few parts in the script that are overplayed in order to justify the moral ambiguity of some of the characters, especially when Deborah Kerr justifies her numerous affairs. In that sense the film does at times come off as a little dated. Regardless of this the performances from the now legendary cast are worth the price of admission alone. Montgomery Clift is in fine form, and it seems that Clift manages to achieve more in one frame of film, than most actors produce in a lifetime. Frank Sinatra won an Oscar for his supporting role, which helped rejuvenate his career; but the performances from a young Ernest Borgnine and a promiscuous Donna Reed that are just as notable and perhaps more powerful. I'm not the biggest Burt Lancaster fan, but it's hard not to connect with his character, and his scene with Clift are amongst some of the most potent in the film. (Lancaster said that he was so nervous about working with Clift that he was visibly shaking in their first scene together.)
Overall it's easy to see why this film garnered such praise; it is a times riveting and compulsive viewing, and it is helped by an enjoyable closing action sequence of the Japanese attack. It's not quite as timeless as other films from this period, but it's certainly one worth viewing on repeated occasions.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame was one of the myriad of classic horror novels adapted for film in the early 20's and 30's. It feature the legendary Charles Laughton as the titular character, and a young Maureen O'Hara in one of her first film roles (at Laughton's insistence). There is also support from the usual range of character actors such a Thomas Mitchell, Cedric Hardwicke and a young Edmond O'Brien.
It is for the most part an entertaining adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel, that does deviate from it's source in parts. Most impressive in the film are the huge set pieces, and of course Charles Laughton''s tour de force as Quasimodo. In one scene after Quasimodo has saved Esmerelda from being hanged, he gives a lucid and moving self assessment of his deformities, even by today's standard it is one of the most powerful pieces of on screen acting ever performed. Cedric Hardwicke is also very disturbing as the corrupt Notre Dame priest. Despite all the great things about the film, I was a bit disappointed with the ending, as it seemed to be more an oversimplistic commentary on society, and didn't quite make for a believable conclusion. However there was a great closing scene with Laughton on the cathedral roof.
It's a film that is certainly worth watching, as it gives credence to Laughton's reputation as one of the 20th century's finest film artists. I will be interested to see master of disguise Lon Chaney's 1923 adaptation of the story, to see how it compares.
Sometimes I have to just hold my hands up and say I was wrong. In this case I had speculated that the film adaptation of Les Miserables the musical would fail to succeed and fall short of recreating the magic of the stage version. I can now concede that I was wrong.
It is a film that manages to recreate everything that is good about the musical, and it finally delivers a worthy big screen version for fans and newcomers a like. I saw Les Miserables numerous times growing up, and even managed to see the universally acclaimed cast version (including Colm Wilkinson, Michael Ball, Alun Armstrong, Ruthie Henshall and Lea Salonga); so it's fair to say I'm a fan myself. The film version follows the stage musical to a tee in terms of plot and storyline. Where it differs though, is in some of the musical arrangements and the style of singing. It comes across as more raw and therefore packs more of an emotional punch. Russell Crowe particularly excels from this, as whilst he doesn't have the greatest singing voice, the vulnerability of his voice shines through and works perfectly with his tortured character Javert. Hugh Jackman's natural likeability factor, and his obvious experience in musical theatre made him the ideal choice for the main protagonist Jean Valjean. Somehow he manages to encapsulate everything that was great about Colm Wilkinson's version, and improve it by adding a more rounded characterisation of Valjean, that in my opinion is more reflective of Victor Hugo's Valjean. Anne Hathaway as the tragic Fantine performs aptly, but it is unfortunate for her that she shares the majority of her scenes with Crowe and Jackman, who are quite simply, the better actors. Her singing however more than makes up for any traces of overacting that she succumbs to.
Now to the weak points in both the cast list and the film it self: The Thenardiers. Probably the most obvious cast choice on paper with Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter taking up the cudgels. For me though, they just don't quite work, whilst relatively amusing, their tone is just too light hearted in contrast to the rest of the movie. I suppose it's a problem with the musical itself, as the Thenardiers have always been the comic relief of the piece. For the song 'Master of the House', I suppose visually it's always how imagined it would appear on screen, but for whatever reason it just doesn't quite work. It seems to be a little too slapstick, and doesn't maintain enough darkness of the characters how they appear in the novel. Sacha Baron Cohen is also guilty at times of over playing it for the laughs, whereas maybe a bit more subtlety was in order for this role. An even bigger problem for me, was Amanda Seyfreid. It seems like they forced her into this film on the back of Mama Mia!, unfortunately for her and us she just a). is no Cossette and b). simply not good enough. Her singing at times is just too weak for my ears, and her acting is so hollow. Her relationship with her adoptive father seems to unnatural for me. I understand that Valjean is distant to protect her from his past, but there seems to be no love there, which is the whole essence of their relationship and in truth the story. Finally, I can't not mention Eddie Redmayne, who was undoubtedly the one slightly obscure casting choice. His character boyish innocence, yet quite determination and will of revolution is well portrayed; and for me, one of the most striking moments of the whole production is his version of 'Empty Chairs and Empty Tables'.
Technically the film is at times spectacular, though the opening CGI shot's are a bit too much for me to stomach, from that point on, most of the action takes place using sets and props. Tom Hooper uses the wide pan shots well, especially as the revolution begins after General Lamarque's death. The showstopping song 'One Day More' was captured well, though it is such a great ensemble piece that I feel no big screen adaptation could ever do it justice. I also felt that at times the film could have expanded on areas, but this is a problem with the stage production too. It omits too much of the backstories of some of the characters, especially Fantine and the Thenardiers; some of Hugo's greatest passages in the book are his description of how Fantine's liaisons when she was a teenager led to her demise. Indeed important plot points such as how Valjean came to break his parole and his saving of his doppleganger's condemnation is simplified. Other areas are simply alluded to, such as Javert's background in the song 'The Confrontation'. However, I must say that many of the Boubil/ Schonberg songs do manage to add ample character developments, as well as included lyrics at times directly lifted from the source material.
For the most part though, Hooper's direction wholly captures the essence of the musical and despite personal preferences here and there, it's hard to really fault his effort. It is without doubt one of the finest musical adaptations of all time, and one that I will no doubt watch numerous times again. I can't however shake this nagging feeling that it could have been ever better.
Before reviewing my next film I'm going to have a rant at Warner Home Videos. In future if you are going to release a film on DVD, I'm not too bothered about a complete film restoration, but it would be nice to have a studio recorded score added to the film. It doesn't necessarily have to be composed by Carl Davis, a young up and comer would suffice. What the viewing public do not want is a live theatre recording, where you can here the audience laugh and cough throughout the entire film. This lack of care and attention was given to their release of the 1927 Garbo/Gilbert silent Love. It was made worse by laughter at the most inappropriate moments; silent movies are different entities and the audience didn't seem to understand the overly expressive nature of the actors. I wonder if this same audience laughed whilst reading the source material Anna Karenina.
Having somehow endured the film with the sound on, I can say that overall it was a decent film, although maybe lacked the integrity of the Tolstoy novel it was based on. The contemporary low cut dresses were not befitting the Czarist Russia the film was set in, plus the ending was completely different to that of the novel. Though I understand that an alternate ending was made and also distributed worldwide upon the film's release. Again Warner Home Video decided to omit this from their version, which seemed to act more as a quick way to make a buck, rather than put any graft into releasing a version that would befit the film itself.
The film holds a certain interest for both Garbo fans and film historians alike as she went onto make a talkie version of the film 8 years later. The latter version did come closer to the novel itself, and a more mature Garbo seems like a better match for the role of Karenina. In this version she was only 21 years old when making the film, and was far to young to be this mother of a pre-pubescent boy. However, John Gilbert is far and away the superior Vronsky to that of Frederic March's character in the remake. Gilbert just looks more the part, and for me gives a far more accomplished performance. March I think struggled by being overawed by Garbo, and was dominated. Whilst the husband Karenin is played amicably in this silent version by Brandon Hurst, he is no match for Basil Rathbone's even more manipulative interpretation later on.
I feel that this version is let down quite a bit by the story not being fleshed out enough, and in the end it's a very loose adaptation of the book. However it's great to see one of the greatest ever film partnerships onscreen together again, and whilst their chemistry isn't as electric as their first film The Flesh and the Devil; they still work so well together. Gilbert was one of Garbo's few leading co-stars who was able to compete with her on screen, and though she has a tendency to overact in places here she still manages to convey so much when the cameras focus on her eyes. Next time though, I will have to watch this on mute.
The Last Stand marked Arnold Schwarzernegger's return to the big screen, in his first major role since he became governor of California. It's easy to dismiss Arnold Schwarzenneger and his films as being mindless action; but to be honest, the world needs them, especially in this day and age where film's tend to try too hard to be some kind of cerebral, intellegentsia masterpiece, and ends up falling flat (*cough Looper).
Yes The Last Stand isn't going to win any Oscars, but to be honest there are things about it that aren't too far off Oscar material. For instance some of the direction and camera work is incredible slick and well captured, especially with the main antagonist's early escape from custody and the subsequent car chases. This was director's Jee-woon Kim's first Hollywood film, and it seems like a great choice for both the director and stars alike, and one that should benefit both parties based on the resulting output. The film also has a talented support cast including Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare and a brief cameo from Harry Dean Stanton; as well as the likes of lesser knowns Eduardo Noriega. Luis Guzman and Jaime Alexander. Though Johnny Knoxville plays his usually idiotic character, he has limited screen time, so doesn't grate too much and does at least a few funny moments. In terms of action the film is pretty relentless, and some of the violence isn't for the squeamish, and whilst over-the-top it really is quite exhilarating to watch.
The film does lose it's way at the end a bit, and verges on dragging out; but for the most part this film is a refreshing return to the simplistic action films, that Arnie made so popular. Whilst he looks a lot older now, and the one liners didn't quite flow as memorably as before, it's hard not to immerse yourself into his films, as they are what they are, and they certainly provide a fun and enjoyable cinema-going experience.
Kevin Costner's Swing Vote was a somewhat far fetched story of a man, whose vote on the night of the presidential election isn't counted due to a malfunction on the day of the presidential election. It turns out that his county in the state of New Mexico is the last one to declare on the night of the election, and it's a dead heat, therefore he has the chance to recast his vote and decide the Presidency. He has 7 days to recast his vote, and of course both candidates (played by Dennis Hopper and Kelsey Grammar) try their best to win his vote.
It's far fetched to say the least, and sadly the film itself is equally as bad. The problem with it is that it has no real depth to it, it's more just a series of events that happens. Whilst it could be assumed that the message of the film is the importance of voting,as well as highlighting the flippant nature and hypocrisy of modern politics and media; but the film oversimplifies it and the film lacks the punch to make these statements powerful. It also becomes a bit too farcical as both candidates use over elaborate campaigns (as well as sacrificing their own values and ideals) to try to secure this one vote. Though it could be argued that it is a microcosm of modern election campaigns on a wider scale. The film is caught somewhere between a drama and a comedy, but neither really to suit the film and it all comes of a bit of a mess.
There are also some big names in this film in the supporting roles, such as Stanley Tucci, Nathan Lane and Judge Reinhold; but it comes off as a low budget, made for TV affair unbefitting these star names. Even as a fan of Kevin Costner, this film is admittedly one of his weakest. Even the much maligned Waterworld, The Postman and The Bodyguard are very engaging films and certainly provide some moments of real entertainment, that despite their flaws are quite fulfilling.
Sightseers was one of the first British films I had seen at the cinema for a while. It was a black comedy that followed a couple of outcast's caravan journey across some of Britain's most eccentric landmarks. Soon the trip takes a turn when they accidentally run over a fellow visitor to one of the landmarks, and so play out there blood lust by murdering everyone who antagonise them along their journey.
It is a very offbeat film, and for me personally it's just a bit too detached from the audience for one to really fall for it. The main problem is that the main characters are pretty unsympathetic, which I suppose is important considering they are serial killers; and indeed both stars (comedy writers Alice Lowe and Steve Oram) play the very characters one imagine British serial killers to be like. Both are socially awkward and the film is reminiscent of Natural Born Killers and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, albeit distinctly more British.
Despite this main negative, the film does have it's moments; and whilst it isn't necessarily laugh out loud funny, it maintains a certain level of amusement throughout. It's the type of humour that has become a stalwart in British comedy in the last 10 years; that awkward to near the mark type, that leaves many uncomfortable. It was also a film that lingers in the mind, which is never a bad thing, and although many have likened it to Mike Leigh's Nuts in May (a television play I've yet to see), I found it quite original. Ultimately it was just a bit too challenging, and is probably a film I wouldn't go back to.
The Three Stooges was a reboot of the classic 40's comic trio, which I had little desire to watch, especially after seeing the trailer for the film and having never even seen the original comedy troupe. However, the casting of one of my comedy heroes Larry David, was enough to sway me into giving it a chance. I was glad I did, as it was one of the more pleasantly surprising film's I've seen this year.
Full of slapstick and simplistic humour that were tantamount with the original Stooges, as well as the directors of this version the Farrelly brothers; it's a film that may not be everyone's cup of tea. In my opinion though, it was refreshing to see a comedy film that was simple, silly and family friendly. It never tried to get clever and become something it was never going to be, and whilst like most comedies it resorted to inserting contemporary culture to win the casual viewer with the inclusion of Geordie Shore; it seemed more like the Farrellys were making a veiled attack on modern day television programming. It was for the most part stupid, immature and crude (like most Farrelly movies), but it was also obviously made with a lot of heart by the directors who wanted to share with the world their own love, and what influenced them. It was great to see a reboot made, with such affection, rather than simply a money making opportunity. I could certainly see where they were influenced in previous works, most notably their greatest work Dumb and Dumber and Jim Carrey's Lloyd Christmas was clearly based on Moe. It also opened my eyes to other ways The Three Stooges has influenced some of my other favourite comedies, such as The Simpsons, Futurama and Robin Williams. Sometimes there's a bit too much love as the skits and catchphrases are a bit overplayed and overexposed, but it still generates a chuckle. The film also gets a bit stale on the laughs in places, and maybe a bit over the top; but it was certainly amusing and entertaining enough to keep me interested for the 90 minutes.
I also thought that for the most part the acting was handled well, and though I've only seen brief clips of the original Stooges I thought Sean Hayes, Chris Diamantopoulos did good jobs, and Will Sasso was particularly notable as Curly. Larry David worked well as Sister Mary-Mengle, as did Sofia Vergara who was quite funny as the conniving villain; but I was a bit bemused as to why Jennifer Hudson cast, as she was given limited screen time considering her Oscar winning status.
It's a shame that a film such as this can quite easily be swept aside, when there are so many more forgettable, generic comedies that are praised by critics, that are both more shallow and mediocre than this. I also feel a bit for the Farrelly brothers, as whilst their output may not always be the funniest; they do manage to create more often than not, enjoyable films, that on first look seem simplistic, but actually a bit more wit and depth than first glance; an ability that not many other comedic film makers manage to emanate. If The Three Stooges delivers one thing above all else, it's that it will make most movie-goers want to discover the original Stooges.
Moonrise Kingdom was the antithesis of The Three Stooges, but again directed by a comedic director with a certain style. The offbeat Wes Anderson comedy was very much of the same ilk as The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums, with another all star cast that we have become to expect from his films. Despite the big name, the plot actually resolves more around the children in the film as a young boy scout runs away from a camp with a local school girl. They are soon hunted down by the adult stars (including Billl Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton); as well as the belligerent remainder of the scout troop.
As with the other Wes Anderson comedies, it had that melancholic underbelly to the humour, as well as the retro style of the set and production. Though I can respect and sometimes admire his style, I do at times find his work frustrating to get into, whilst Moonrise Kingdom is probably one of his most accessible films; I still struggled to immerse myself into the film. It is undoubtedly witty and endearing, and even entertaining, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it is a stalwart of modern comedy, again something I can say about any Wes Anderson comedy. I always come away from his work with the same overall impression, as if I'm missing something that others have found with them. I did prefer this latest effort to his previous The Royal Tenenbaums and it possibly just pips The Life Aquatic and Rushmore too; but for me it's still short of greatness. It was though helped by some good performances, especially Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and an impressive film debut for Kara Hayward. The dialogue at times is also sharp, but with a bit of sentiment too.
I suppose one thing that can certainly be said about Wes Anderson's films, is that he always puts a lot of heart and soul to all his characters, and even the smallest role is fleshed out with even the most minor nuances. Admittedly Moonrise Kingdom is one of the better films released this year, but it has been a poor year overall from Hollywood.
William Friedkin is a man responsible for two of the most memorable movies of the 70's (The Exorcist and The French Connection). Since then it's fair to say that he's failed to match those heights, with a fair amount of low key output. Killer Joe certainly reminded people that Friedkin still directed films though. Based on a dark plot, where a small time drug dealer (Emile Hirsch) decides murdering his mother for the insurance money is the only way to pay off his large debts. He plots with his family to kill his mother, with the help of bent police detective (Matthew McConaughey), who also doubles up as a hitman.
Naturally it is a very dark film, and is at times a tough watch, with uncomfortable levels of violence and equally disturbing sex scenes. But this is the William Friedkin that we like, and it seems that the veteran director has rediscovered his magic, as well as his passion for film making. The film's unabashed style is certainly akin to The Exorcist, and I personally revel in the masochistic manner of some of cinema's darkest films. During a time when another gun slaughter has taken place in North America, the ignorant amongst the world, will turn to blaming films' such as this in order to gloss over the more obvious problem of gun control. All art forms should never be censored, it is through censorship that humanity's greatest crimes have come to fruition. It's for this reason that I can't help but admire Killer Joe. It is over the top, but I don't think it goes too far, films should be allowed to offend as well as challenge, and this does both. If there was any issue with the film it was possibly an underdeveloped plot, but a few nice twists maintained the interests. As for the stars, I'm not a McConaughey fan, but he is beautifully sadistic as the eponymous Joe, and Emile Hirsch is always engaging. Juno Temple probably gives the most impressive performance as the naive 20 year old sister of Hirsch's character; who becomes part of Joe's payment. The young Brit will hopefully be given more substantial roles in the coming years.
It's not without it's faults, but for sheer two fingers up to modern sensitivities, it get's my vote. Alhough that may sound a bit unfair on the film, as it does have a lot of merit to it. Maybe Friedkin still has one last swansong in him too, judging by this effort.
Conquest was the last dramatic role of Greta Garbo's career, and it would signal the beginning of the end of her film career. After the enormous success of Camille, Conquest told the story of Napoleon's Polish mistress Marie Warlewska and their illustrious affair. Charles Boyer was the ideal casting as Napoleon given his shorter stature and French accent; the Academy thought so too, awarding him the Oscar.
Despite solid performances from the leads, the film suffers a bit from questionable plot devices. For instance the first love scene between the two comes across as tantamount to rape; and it becomes pretty unbelievable after that point that she would fall in love with this man. At least in Gone With The Wind, it's still believable that Scarlett O'Hara would swoon after being violently taken by Rhett, due to their previous relationship history and Scarlett's character. The script is the main problem with this error, and it is also at fault for the characterisations of both characters and why these two would fall in love with each other. As for Garbo herself, she looks very radiant in the piece and adopts a similar style to her appearance in Camille.
The film overall is largely forgettable, but for Boyer and Garbo and the natural draw of Napoleon's life. It's also interesting to see these two on screen together as he was one of her few co stars who she remained friendly with in both their later tragic lives. (The full movie can be viewed below)
It's safe to say this is the one film I've always wanted to see on the big screen above all others (including the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Ben-Hur and even The Good, The Bad and The Ugly). It was wonderful to learn that Lawrence of Arabia was being given a high definition restoration to mark it's 50th anniversary. My anticipation for a film has rarely been matched, especially as this was for a film I had viewed on numerous occasions. Finally I was sitting in a cinema and listening to the now legendary musical interlude of Maurice Jarre's timeless theme, allowing it to sink in before the film was to begin.
At nearly 4 hours long, there were those in the audience I had sensed were wary of it's run time, having not seen this stalwart of cinema before. I had no such worries, safe in the knowledge that I was about to watch one of the great adventure epics, and of course a performance from Peter O'Toole often lauded as the finest in cinematic history.
What was immediately apparent was the finer resolution of this transfer, the colours more prominent, the background finer and the sound even sharper. This, more than perhaps any other film, was sorely appreciated as that first remarkable cut of Lean's first graced our screen, as O'Toole's Lawrence blows out the match, only for we the audience to be transferred to the majestic sunrise on the Arabian desert.
It was truly invigorating watching these incredible shots in such detail on the big screen. The vast expanse of some of these shots have never looked more remarkable and the now synonymous Lean lens, has again exposed it's full potential on screen, through the advancement of technology. The scene that struck me most, was of course the now infamous Omar Sharif entrance through the mirage. Arguably the most famous scene in film history, this transfer really did do it justice and I can say with utter confidence that it's effect was far more powerful than any time previous I had seen it.
Of course the beauty of this film didn't stop with this scene, and it continued to dazzle as Lawrence advanced through the Nefud desert, launched his assault on Aq'aba and ultimately ascended on Damascus.
It is undoubtedly one of the most accomplished films ever, as it's not just the motion capture aspect of it, that provides it's power, but the performances of it's stars. The first time I had ever seen this film I had read a lot about O'Toole's performance being arguably the greatest ever, and whilst I recognised it as great at the time, I wasn't sure whether it could be considered the greatest ever. It's only been on repeat viewings that the complexities of the character and his interpretation can be discovered and revered. Lawrence is a man destined for greatness, but his own egotistical and at times masochistic demeanour only serve to prevent him from achieving his destiny. He is forever standing on the precipice of martyrdom, and is whispered to of being some type of prophet by his peers. There are also subtleties to his character, that alludes to the darker and mysterious side of Lawrence, certainly in regards to his sexuality, as well as his morality.
Ultimately though he, as well as we the audience, learn that he is merely mortal, and is only flesh and blood. Lawrence's own realisation of this and his inner turmoil is at times tragic, but needed, as his arrogance goes too far as his self importance goes too far. This in my opinion is what makes his performance so remarkable, in that by showing what an 'extraordinary' man Lawrence was, we are always prevented from falling for him. Lean and O'Toole's genius, is in painting a no holds barred portrait of the man as he is and as he was.
It is testament to O'Toole that for a four hour film he never lets up, and Lawrence is forever engaging. The film is also aided by an incredible pool of talent supporting O'Toole. Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle, Jose Ferrer, Claude Rains and Alec Guinness all put in superb turns in their respective roles. Ferrer always pointed to his small cameo in this film, as his finest piece of screen acting. It is however Lawrence's Arabic allies in Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn who provide the finest turns in their respective roles.
Like O'Toole, Sharif was a complete unknown in world cinema, though a star in Egypt. Aided by the already mentioned entrance through a mirage, Sharif lives up to his grand entrance. At first he conflicts with Lawrence, as both parties questions each other's cultures, but like the majority of romantic films, he falls in love with Lawrence. It is a love that is purely platonic, and one built first out of respect and admiration for the man, but eventually he clings on to his love through sympathy and fear for Lawrence. In my opinion, their love is a personification, of Lawrence's own love with the desert. Mostly one way, with the desert causing more harm to Lawrence both psychologically and physical.
Anthony Quinn gives a more hard nosed turn as Auda Abu Tayi, who is portrayed as ultimately a mercenary. It could be argued that Quinn's character is complicit of Lawrence's demise, whereas Sharif's Ali tries to appease him and maintain Lawrence's ideals and ambition. Quinn's character seems to be symbolic of the reason why Lawrence ultimately failed in Arabia, as not only was there too much inner turmoil between the different tribes, but the Arab's had different (as well as more superficial) goals to Lawrence.
It should be added that the main controversy of this film, is it's historical accuracy, with some of the events shown in the film never actually happening, as well as some characters not existing. Ultimately though, I feel that some films should be allowed artistic license, especially if the essence of the story is still being told. Robert Bolt's screenplay seems to justify any inaccuracies, as the story told is exhilarating and immersive; It rightly won the Best Screenplay Oscar that year. The inaccuracies though are one of the few blemishes on this film, and are scant reason to disregard it in any way. One can always read 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom' if they want a first hand account of events.
What is also striking about this film is that it's a 4 hour film without one line of dialogue for women, and considering it's setting and the story it's telling, it's fitting and appropriate. Indeed Lean, had been forced by the studio to insert a love scene for his previous film Bridge Over The River Kwai; which just came across totally gratuitous and unnecessary. It would have been highly ludicrous for a film such as this to insert something that would have come off as desultory.
Finally seeing this on the big screen, was truly awe inspiring, and of course I am now faced with the realisation that I will never see another film on the big screen that will surpass this. I envied those around, who were watching it for the first time, gasping at each twist and turn, and their anguish when the film ended 4 hours later. The restoration only added to the richness, vibrancy and beauty of the desert, as well as O'Toole's baby blues. The only detriment to this restoration, was that the make up was at times more prominent and O'Toole really could have been Florence of Arabia. Whilst this is only number 2 on my list of greatest films ever, it is probably the greatest film ever made, certainly on a technical level.
Blue Lagoon was a controversial film, released in 1980, that starred a then 14 year old Brooke Shields as a shipwrecked castaway, who is forced to grow up and mature on a remote island with her cousin (Christopher Atkins). The film however wasn't as controversial as Shields' previous role as a child prostitute in 1978's Pretty Baby, made when she was just 11 years old.
The film starts as the children are left on the island as pre-pubescent castaways, and follows them as they mature from the age of innocence, to an age of sexual awareness. They are initially guided to life on the island by fellow castaway Leo McKern, who soon after dies, after drowning whilst drunk. It is at this point that the children's loss of innocence begins, as they begin to deal with the darker side of life. Mirroring the children's evolution are images of natures on cycle of life, which they cohabit with on the island. However, these scenes come off as rather amateurish, simplistic and a bit too pretentious to really aid the film. The acting does manage to get away with any accusations of woodenness, due to the subject matter at hand, and both Atkins and Shields' manage to do an adequate job at portraying their naivety. McKern in fact manages to pull out a wonderful cameo at the start of the film, that matches his usual onscreen energy and persona.
Apart from the occasional flashes of child nudity, there is nothing really explicit that suggests this film should have garnered the controversy it did. In fact it comes across as quite pure, but ultimately a bit too sweet for it to be considered an accomplished work. Unfortunately, it does struggle to compete with the similarly themed Death in Venice and Lolita, which are far superior in style and execution. It's biggest strength comes from the source material from which it is based: Henry De Vere Stacpoole's novel of the same name; which leads me to think that this is a film that may do better being remade.
No Way Out was an espionage thriller starring a youthful Kevin Costner, as a naval officer who gets involved with the defence secretary's (Gene Hackman) mistress (Sean Young). The defence secretary kills his mistress by accident, and Costner's character is the man brought in to divert suspicion away from the defence secretary.
For such a convoluted plot, it is actually pulled off far more impressively than the synopsis suggests; although it may seem a little bit dated these days. There are moments of genuine tension and the film has one of the truly most bizarre endings in film history. The performances are also quite good, especially from Costner, who manages to carry the film well, though he is sometimes let down by Young's at times erratic demeanour. His scenes opposite Hackman invoke some of Costner's best scenes, and Hackman manages his usual level of vigour. David Bowie's wife Iman and Will Patton also provide impressive support.
For a film of it's ilk, that is probably quite forgotten in this day and age, it does actually have something about it that will probably still resonate with today's audience. Whilst not a great thriller, it is worth watching, if not for the already mentioned ending that will leave you dumbfounded.
Silver Linings Playbook promised much, with many critics calling it one this year's best films. It told the story of a man (Bradley Cooper) recently released from a mental institution, who sets about trying to reconcile with his wife. Along the way though he meets a fellow troubled soul in the form of his friend's sister in law (Jennifer Lawrence), who promises to help him by being the go between with him and his wife. Along the way we encounter all the peripheral characters in this man's life, whose own idiosyncracies seem to point to Cooper's character not being the only one with mental health problems.
The film is refreshingly original, and one can see why the critics have fallen for it. However it is a bit too gimmicky at times to really be counted as something genre defining. Whilst it is both amusing and fun, it does try to cater too much for it's target audience by reverting to cheap sentiment at times. In many ways it reminded me of last year's Crazy. Stupid. Love., but this was definitely a bit more grounded, although not as enjoyable as the aforementioned. The acting was good in this too, with both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence managing to provoke a lot of likeability in his complex character. It was the first film of Lawrence I had seen, and she gave a mature performance that it's surprising to learn she is only 22. The film also featured Robert De Niro as Cooper's father, whilst recently De Niro has paled in the performance that made him once a true great of cinema, here at least he gives a likeable turn, with traces of his past bravura. Chris Tucker also gave his first performance in 15 years that wasn't part of the money cow Rush Hour franchise. Tucker showed that he isn't just a one trick pony, and gave an endearing turn as Cooper's equally troubled ex-inmate.
It's a film that will rise to the top of what has been a remarkably subdued year for films, especially from Hollywood. It is easy to see why it's garnering such praise, it's problem is though is that it is a little to unremarkable to be remembered beyond this year. Ultimately it's another film that leaves any film buff asking "Is this the best they can come up with?".
