TV : True Detective Season Two ( episodes one and two )

 An unpromising start

It would be hard indeed for a TV show to live up to the first season of True Detective. Harrelson and McConaughey had something special as the odd duo tasked to solve what looked like a troubling occult murder.  Harrelson was an interesting character in his own right, even if McConaughey did steal the show. The setting of the South added to the tension and mystery. The flashback aspect of the first season helped too ; what the hell had the case done to Rust to send him off the rails so and turn him into an alcoholic hippy? Had it in fact screwed him up to the extent that he was now a copycat killer, as the next generation of detectives seemed to be implying in their interrogation ?

Season Two looks at three different cops from three different jurisdictions tasked to investigate the murder of a corrupt city official north of L.A ( perhaps here is a problem straight away - how much do we care about the murder of such a man, compared to the innocent young women of season one ? ) . Vince Vaughn is the criminal overlord Frank Semyon. He has his hooks in one of the cops, Ray, played by Farrell. Rachel McAdams and Taylor Kitsch play the other two troubled officers.

Blank expressions says it all right now. 

(Image Courtesy of Parliament of Owls and Passenger)

Right now, Season Two doesn't seem to be trying very hard to outdo it's predecessor and keeps it's cards close to it's chest. To be fair, so did Season One at first. But whereas Rust was a mysterious character whom we wanted to know more about, that intrigue is not created in Season Two. Colin Farrell does a great job, and is particularly interesting with how he deals with his son being bullied at school ( needless to say, it does not involve a polite sit-down with the Principal ) . But on the whole he cannot compare to Rust in terms of uniqueness. For all intents and purposes, Farrell plays just another corrupt cop, albeit with an interesting story of how he became corrupt in the first place. Since this is revealed early on, we don't really want to know that much more, even if he has our sympathies.

Vince Vaughn right now is the weak link letting the show down, and to be fair his character and writing are largely to blame. The scene where his henchmen beat up an investigative journalist is particularly telling. Vaughn approaches the man afterwards and is the exact opposite of menacing. Sometimes an actor can convey menace even when polite, and it creates a scarier effect. Not here. This could be Vaughn from Old School or Anchorman. It's a particularly badly written and acted scene and shakes your faith in the series. Vaughn really needs a scene where we become convinced of how and why he came to be the boss of a criminal empire. Right now, he's coming across as the stressed boss of a donut shop, and not one the employees particularly fear either. When he sends Farrell on another errand in episode two, you almost get the sense Farrell agrees not out of fear, but because Vaughn is boring him to death.

Kitsch's character has a touch of the mystery we crave, with  his attempted suicide and sexual demons, but again they are not particularly unique. Likewise, Rachel McAdams struggles with family issues and alcoholism, ( indeed everyone in southern Cali seems permanently drunk ) but given this is near LA it seems pretty standard stuff all things considered ( No offence angels ). So your dad is a weird hippy cult leader ? Well, it is California. Your sister does cam porn ? Again, not the intriguing and more unsettling demons that Rust and Harrelson investigated in Season One. Indeed the writing seems to have used alcoholism  as an excuse not to create realistic characters but instead prop up drunk caricatures. Problem is, drunks are boring when you are sober and watching TV.

There is some vestige of greatness from the first season ; the amospheric music has returned and at times provides a haunting soundtrack. But even here, what was previously an omniscient background theme has become an exposed, lone broken looking woman in a bar ( Lera Lynn ), as if symbolising the decline of this series and the lack of mystery.

Yet, episode two does end with a nasty shock, and hints at greater things to come. The director Justin Lin now hands over to William Friedkin. But with some badly written scenes and a particularly poor leading character in crime boss Semyon, it will take extraordinary skill to get this up and running to Season one standards.

There is yet one direction this show could go in order to improve ; backwards. Season One quickly took us back to the past and focused there. Perhaps if season two does the same it may yet impress us. The three cops at least may have pasts that are worthy of our attention.

It's Nonsense of course, apparently everything is. But is it Delightful Nonsense ? Book Review : Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut

Too preoccupied with being witty to heed it's own message.

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut ( 1963 )

I'm going to warn people here that I'm not the greatest fan of Kurt Vonnegut. If you're reading this because you want some sort of confirmation bias for your own tastes, then turn away now.

Sure, Vonnegut's witty. Much of his dialogue between characters is particularly funny and shows great comic timing. He has mostly interesting things to say. His writing is okay ; although I think from video that I've seen  he was actually a better speaker and performer than author. I'll preface this by saying I have only read two of his books ( Slaughterhouse Five being the other one  ). But on the whole I find the man curiously over-rated and his popularity a little baffling. Some of this no doubt comes from my slight disdain for Postmodernism and Vonnegut's pessimistic take on that. More on that later.

Cats Cradle is the tale of a journalist, Jonah, who finds some strange coincidences driving him to the Carribbean island of San Lorenzo ( modelled on Haiti perhaps, complete with a dictator called 'Papa' and American Aid that focuses on military assistance rather than heath or education). Jonah originally started out writing a book about the day the bomb was dropped on Japan, but his investigation of the Hoenikker familyleads him down a strange path ( Felix Hoenikker is the oddball scientist most responsible for the invention of the deadly device ). Eventually he ends up on San Lorenzo with Felix's children ; Frank, Angela, and the charming midget Newt.  The scene is set for a farcical and tragic conclusion as the deadly legacy of Felix unravels.

Much of this book is flavoured by Vonnegut's fear of science after seeing what the A-bomb did. In particular he seems to harbor a fear of 'pure research', believing it is irresponsible because it can lead to literally Earth threatening consequences (such as when the atom was split). It's this rather one-sided view of science that makes me bristle a bit against Vonnegut. I can see him reclining comfortably in his heated apartment, enjoying his booze and cigarettes, and railing against the dangers of the scientific method.

To be fair, it's not just science that is in Vonnegut's sights. Religion is the other big target, as Jonah also investigates the mysterious new religion that is Bokonism. By degrees, this Faith ( or rather lack of ) is revealed to us as Jonah recounts how he ended up on San Lorenzo as a devout 'Bokonist'.

In fact, any kind of institution seems to be on the table for Vonnegut. Though the book is not written in a very Postmodernist style per se with regards to structure, the ideas and philosophy are very much so. Country, patriotism, family ; any kind of bond that a politician or religious leader ever appeals to is roundly mocked in this admittedly effective and biting satire. Urbanisation ( " Illium was an ugly city. But then aren't they all ?" ) and capitalism are in for it too ( the Crosbys attempting to set up a bicycle factory in San Lorenzo are well lampooned ). Indeed, even the idea of Love itself is mocked for it's unhealthy tendency to exclude the un-Loved. Bokonism calls such foolish attempts to group humanity 'Granfallons' . Instead it asserts that chance or some strange sort of fate throws people together in a 'Karass'. That's what happened to Jonah, and that's how, after abandoning his book on Felix Hoenikker, he nonetheless finds himself coincidentally assigned on a magazine job to San Lorenzo where he meets the Hoenikker children ( Newt and Angela ) on the plane no less. Here we also find out the truth about Bokonism, and how " a religion founded on lies can be so useful."

Science and religion are perhaps the main targets here because they purport to tell 'Truth'. And perhaps Science is the premier target in Cats Cradle because it purports to discover truth with Knowledge, yet this knowledge has awesome destructive power. Science seems to believe it is better than religion, but are people putting their faith in another False Prophet ? Vonnegut gives us the impression with Cats Cradle that too many people are treating science like a God. We're being duped as badly as the Russians were with Stalin's Communism. Truth as a goal, in all it's many forms, is Vonnegut's real enemy behind all these thought systems. Human society yearns for Truth and 'answers' in various forms but it usually ends badly. If the Truth does exist at all, it's not useful or nice. Better instead to 'live by the Foma ( lies ) that make you happy'.  So rather than become a nihilist ( because that seems too close to pointless violence, as Jonah discovers when a Nihilist nails his cat to his fridge ), Jonah is ready to become a Bokonist.

It turns out that before Dr. Felix Hoenikker died, he invented a potentially world destroying crystal (?) called Ice-Nine. Ice Nine has the potential to turn all of the worlds water to ice at room temperature. Including the water that is in our bodies. Much of the message here seems to dwell on the fact that Felix discovered this world-killer simply for the fun of it (  although he was prompted in that direction by a marine who complained of always having to slog through mud ). Worse is what happens later when Felix's children get hold of Ice-Nine. The implicit message is that, perhaps instead of perverting the natural world for curiosity's sake, we should all just focus on being nice to each other, or at least not killing each other. That would be a start. Whilst Bokonism intimately connects people through ceremonies ( such as the rubbing of the souls of the feet together) , Dr. Felix Hoenikker is so disconnected from people that he once absent -mindedly tipped his own wife after she served breakfast. This indifference of scientists to other people  and the potential consequences of their work is also highlighted when Dr Breed, crucial in making the Atom bomb, shudders when recounting a serial killer who murdered twenty six people. It's his reaction that is particularly telling. "Can you imagine ?" he exclaims "Twenty six people ! " Yet Breed is utterly oblivious to his own status as a murderer on a God-like scale.

Yeah, I get it. Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five and went through a really tough time in World War Two with the bombing of Dresden ( Vonnegut was a POW there and saw the city reduced to rubble by Allied firebombing ). So did my Grand-dad. Then he came back like millions of others and did his best to build a better world, instead of whining about what had already been done. Perhaps Vonnegut was too much a victim of his own time and circumstances ; too sensitive and plagued by alcoholism and mental health issues. Then again maybe my Grand-dad and others just couldn't write like Vonnegut.

Admittedly 1962 saw the Cuban missile crisis and the World has never come so close to The End. In times like that maybe you just have to hold your nerve and wait for the danger to pass.  Hope is suspended but does not have to permanently abandoned as it seems to have been in Cats Cradle. Yes, there's a form of Hope in Bokonism, but it's delusional and aware that it's delusional. These 'bittersweet lies' are designed to comfort, but there is no real Hope. The German doctor to Papa is a case in point. He spends his spare time working at the  Mission hospital, trying to atone for his sins during the Holocaust. But what would Vonnegut have such people do ?  They can't take the Holocaust back. Yeah, a Nazi can't ever really make up for it, and he should face justice. But he's also better than those who chose to live it up in Argentina instead. Vonnegut dismisses him as beyond redemption. It's a cautionary warning to us all perhaps, and I agree with the sentiment ; I'm no fan of apologists for Evil. But it all adds to the sometimes overwhelmingly cynical and dreary tone of the book. Sometimes the humour just isn't enough to balance out the moroseness.

I had to read Cats Cradle a few times for it to stick. Vonnegut's writing could afford to be more descriptive ;  it's a bit minimalist for my taste, although the style works well for the the humorous conversations. The conversation between Jonah and Julian Castle, the hotel owner, made me laugh out loud. Some of the characters are a little crudely drawn. The plot is somewhat chaotic, with many characters thrown in that we meet only once ; but then such is the Postmodernist style I guess, and such is the message. Life itself is chaotic, and it's pointless to try and understand. People, come in and out of your life. Stuff happens. Nobody really knows what's happening. As Bokonon himself says : "Pay no attention to Caesar.  Caesar doesn't have the slightest idea what's going on."

On the whole, though Cat's Cradle is generally an amusing read with some laugh out loud moments, I just found Vonnegut's story a little too pessimistic. Whilst much of the message seems to be : 'Just be nice to each other ' and 'stop worrying about Truth or Knowledge', there is also a strong vein of fatalism ; that life is pointless and meaningless. Yet clearly science has relieved much suffering. Science is quantifiably superior to Religion ( remember that whole 'The World is Flat' debate, and pretty much every one since  ?) yet Vonnegut thinks the A-bomb cancels all that out. Science is not to be crudely characterised as 'magic that works' ( the insinuation from Papa here is that it can be used like black magic e.g to abuse power ) but science is also medicine and arguably knowledge that can make us more humane. Ask the victims of the Salem witch-hunts. Have we really just replaced superstition with something worse, because it is so much more powerful ? It's a lot easier to be kind and love one another with advanced medicine and agriculture. Plus, the Knowledge that when my kid died it wasn't my neighbour throwing a curse could stop me lynching them ( Just an analogy, I don't have a kid. Or a neighbour  ).

Vonnegut initially studied BioChem at Cornell before switching to writing. He was clearly a bright chap. Perhaps if he had persisted with science he could have done something useful with it. He needn't necessarily have found himself working at a Germ Warfare division as seems to be implied with Cats Cradle. We did also eradicate smallpox and pretty much polio. Again, maybe the guy was just too much a victim of his time ; World War Two and the Cold War at it's height were the depressing backdrop here.

I think we can all agree with Vonnegut on some points; there is indeed no point or meaning to life that can be 'found'. Religion is utterly redundant in this respect, and scientific discoveries do not tell us what we should do with our time on Earth. Prophets don't  know the Truth. Scientists can tell us it's something to do with 'protein' ( as Vonnegut satirizes it ) but that doesn't change our lives ( again, at least according to Vonnegut ) . Newt Hoeniker sums it all up when he comments on the title of the book.  He points out that the Cats Cradle toy with strings is confusing, just like life  : " No wonder kids grow up crazy....No damn cat, and no damn cradle".
But that means you can make your own meaning of life up. And it doesn' t have to be apathetic fatalism like Bokonism. Perhaps Bokonism hints at this in it's creation story, though sadly it's a little overshadowed by the rest of the novel  :

God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close to mud as man sat, looked around, and spoke. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.” 

Here is the real Humanist message of the novel that unfortunately gets a little lost in the overwhelming pessimism ( Vonnegut was the honorary  President of the American Humanist Association ).

It's no accident perhaps that this book seems to be popular with angst-ridden twenty-somethings who rail against 'the system' and how authority can't be trusted. The realisation that the people in charge of the world are  actually idiots is indeed an unsettling one. I think we all felt that way a bit when George W Bush was elected, and we discovered that somehow Condeleeza Rice has a PhD. But it doesn't have to be that way forever. Maybe according to Vonnegut, because of human nature it will be that way forever. I disagree, and admittedly it's coloured my bias against the tone and message of what, for many, is a much loved novel.

Ok, Vonnegut, people stink. A lot of the time. But you could also say "Right on, let's get up and do something constructive". Foot-mingling ( Bokonist style ) might be a start, but you could do a lot more. Maybe one day we will destroy the world with technology. If Vonnegut's message is that we need to be mindful of this, I'm on board. But I refuse to be depressed about it and wait for it to happen. This for me is the biggest failure of the book ; a key message seems to be : 'Life Sucks and you can' t change that ; so therefore try and laugh and enjoy the absurdity of it all'. Unfortunately Cats Cradle puts a bit too emphasis on the former rather than the latter. It is a lot easier to be cynical and pessimistic than it is to be genuinely funny. I'm afraid Vonnegut has proved this here. His reputation for humour and intelligence seems much overblown.

Life is indeed short and precious. Too short and precious to dwell too much on books like this. If life is meaningless, then literature should at least be entertaining and enjoyable, and Cats Cradle falls down a little bit on on it's own message here. We made it through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Maybe we 'll keep on making it. Unlike Vonnegut, I'm hopeful. But then I guess I've had an easier life.

For those new to Postmodernism I recommend instead the brilliant 'Immortality' by Milan Kundera ( Review to follow ) or perhaps a well known book by Vonnegut's good friend Joseph Heller : 'Catch-22'.

Key Quote ( from the Books of Bokonon ) : 'The Fourteenth Book is entitled, "What can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?" 
It doesn't take long to read The Fourteenth Book. It consists of one word and a period. 
This is it: "Nothing.” '

Image and Quotes courtesy of Dial Press Trade Paperbacks.

Film Review : Unforgiven by Clint Eastwood ( 1992 )

The Best Western ever. Or is it ?

Film Review :  Unforgiven by Clint Eastwood ( 1992 )

Unforgiven has been called an 'anti-western'. This truly great film seeks to overthrow some of the myths of the Wild West. It does so in convincing and masterly style.

Clint Eastwood plays William Munny, an old reformed hell-raiser turned pig-farmer, struggling to raise two kids alone. When a young gunslinger, The Schofield Kid,  ( Jaimz Woolvet )  tracks him down, the prospect of a semi-righteous mission with a big pay-off seems enticing. Munny lives in poverty. His pigs have the fever. But what will be the consequences of resurrecting the terror that was once William Munny ?

Eastwood decides to accept the offer, and along the way picks up his old partner Ned ( Morgan Freeman ). The three men are headed to a small armpit of a town to avenge (and of course be paid for the task ) the mutilation of a prostitute by a cowboy customer. But the town Big Whisky has a Sheriff, an old hell-raiser himself by the name of Little Bill, magnificently played by Gene Hackman. Little Bill has already dealt with the issue in his own way ( unsatisfactorily ;  hence the bounty put on the offending cowboys by the prostitutes ) and he wants no vigilantes in his town. Thus the stage is set for an epic confrontation. Except it isn't really epic in the traditional sense. Before Munny, Ned and the Kid arrive, Little Bill has already met and dealt with 'English Bob' and exposed some of the old myths of the West. When English Bob loses his cool, his Queen's English disappears and his true working class slang splutters forth. " You're all just a bunch of bloody savages ! " he rails. Indeed Bob, all of us are. Before the movie is done, more facades will be exposed.

Little Bill is on a mission to tell the truth of what the Wild West was really like ; dictating memoirs of some sort to a writer ( well played as a slippery hack by Saul Rubinek ). Problem is, Bill may well find that his own version of events will itself be overturned.

Little Bill. He ain't so little. And he's got back-up.

The first encounter between the vigilantes and the cowboys tells you this will not be your usual western. It's awkward, painful to watch, and has the ring of truth. Nobody dies well, or kills well for that matter.Until the grand finale, myth after myth is taken down. The young Schofield Kid is the foil by which many of these myths fall, both as an agent and witness. At first he finds Munny does not remember, or will not remember , the deeds of the old days ( Munny asserts that he was simply drunk all the time ). Later, after some killing has been done, he confesses to Clint : " It don't seem real." Woolvet, by the way, is outstanding as the Kid, proving sometimes good things do come out of Hamilton, Ontario. You would have pegged him to go on and be a star, but it didn't happen. Nothing in this film quite turns out the way you expect it, and most of the time that is a good thing, but not here.

Who ? Jaimz Woolvet. Whatever happened to this guy ? 

This is a performance by Eastwood as actor and director that matches Million Dollar Baby and Gran Turino. Eastwood as Munny is a grizzled old veteran paying for the sins of his younger days, maybe both as a character and an actor.  It's as if Clint is making up for all those moments in earlier action movies that made killing look easy and glamorous. This isn't Dirty Harry in a suit in shiny San Fransico ; this is Munny in an old raincoat looking like crap and covered in pig-shit. But it's real. Hackman and Freeman are on fine form and complement Eastwood brilliantly. This trio of titans are in their prime as actors. The supporting cast is excellent too, particularly Frances Fisher as the de-facto leader of the prostitutes. The filming was done in Alberta, and the bleakness of the landscape adds to the harsh truths of  the film.

There's mud in yer eye.  Other one too.

The final showdown captures all the brilliance and message of the film ; it's tragic, farcical and messy, just like real life.
Yet all myths have a grain of truth, and William Munny is here to remind us of that truth.
Amen to that.

Memorable Quote : "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

Images courtesy of Warner Bros.

Film Review : Interstellar by Christopher Nolan ( 2014 )

"We were never meant to stay"
 

Film Review : Interstellar by  Christopher Nolan  ( 2014 ) 

We have high expectations of Christopher Nolan. By and large, he delivers yet again in Interstellar.

It is perhaps 30 years into the future. The Earth is dying. We gather that crop failures have drastically reduced the population. There is peace on Earth at least, but humankind is struggling as crop after crop seems to die permanently due to blight. Declining biodiversity and climate change have taken their toll. Our days are numbered.

Matthew MaConaughey plays an ex-astronaut turned farmer, struggling to adapt to a world that appears to have given up on space exploration and is instead pre-occupied with putting food on the table. As his father-in-law tells him : " You're not meant for this world, Coop". Prophetic words.

Life seems to be about coping with corn farming in Nebraska, until one day that is, when a strange anomaly appears in his daughters bedroom. Murphy, his girl, asserts her room is haunted by a ghost, but Cooper recognises a gravitational phenomenon. Ironically, it turns out that Murphy is more right than she knows.

Through a strange turn of events Cooper once again finds himself flying for NASA. Their mission : to use a discovered wormhole to find a viable planet in another solar system.

I'm not going to give too much away ; it's difficult to review such a film without spoiling it. But at least I can say Interstellar is a visual spectacular. Alien landscapes, space phenomena, craft and various gadgets that will delight sci-fi fans. The soundtrack is suitably epic ; but then most scores by Hans Zimmer are. Okay, occasionally it sounds like he passed out on the organ, but for the most part the soundtrack matches the grandeur of the vision. The robots TARS and CASE are a particular treat, playing surrogate Man's Best Friend. With their sense of humour, loyalty and capabilities they give the actors a run for their money.

Not to say Anne Hathaway and MaConaughey do a bad job either as the lead astronauts. Both actors are as reliable as ever, and the supporting cast are solid. Back on Earth, Casey Affleck, Michael Caine, John Lithgow and Jessica Chastain as a grown-up Murph all do a good job. It's great to see Lithgow continuing to grow into a great actor. He's come a long way since Bigfoot and the Hendersons. Murph's character is irritating at times perhaps, unable to understand why her father left her in order to try and save the rest of Earth. Chastain plays her as perpetually crestfallen, and maybe doesn't display the greatest range as an actress. You want to ask her : "Hey are you playing depressed scientist, or glum-faced analyst from Zero Dark Thirty ?". To be fair, maybe there's not a lot to be done with the role. You can't tell her " Cheer up ! It's not the end of the world ! Oh, wait..."

 

Most of the plot is actually based on real theoretical science, as top physicist Kip Thorne was a close advisor. There is plenty of intellectual meat here for cerebral sci-fi fans. Whilst the effects of gravity on slowing down time are believable, some of the later events that tie up the plot are less so. But hey, science will only take you so far in a movie, and at some point the fiction part has to take over.

Regardless of whether you  find the plot resolution satisfactory, Interstellar is an epic ride and one that is well piloted by Matthew MaConaughey. Boy, I am glad this guy gave up romantic comedies. Anne Hathaway too, for that matter !

Forget Gravity with Sandra Bullock. Aim higher, reach for the stars.

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Film Review : The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson ( 2014 )

Enchanting Tale that is perhaps a little too self-aware.

Film Review : The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson ( 2014 ) 

From the moment you start the Grand Budapest Hotel, you know this is going to be something a bit different ( I'll confess I'm not very familiar with Wes Anderson's work ). As the author of the tale narrates how he came to write the story, his son suddenly runs in and shoots him with a spud-gun. Thus the quirky humour of the film is established pretty much right away. As the tale of the Hotel in the 1930's and it's most legendary concierge unfolds, the quirkiness continues. Most of the tale is narrated in turn by Zero ( Tony Revolori ) ; now an old man but once a young lobby boy at the Hotel.  Ralph Fiennes plays Gustave ; a concierge of extreme competence who treats the Hotel like a religious institution that must be kept sacred as a beacon of correct service. Servicing his guests, it turns out, involves literally servicing them. Particularly if they are old blonde heiresses.When one of these heiresses dies and leaves Gustave a priceless painting, her gangster like son ( played by Adrian Brody ) undertakes to dispute the will and retrieve the painting. Thus the scene is set for what is essentially a long drawn out chase.

A large part of the film revolves around Zero and Gustave breaking out of prison and attempting to evade and deal with the Heiress's family ; in particular trying to evade the spooky henchman well played by William Defoe. It's all done with beautiful filming ( the Alps and the architecture of Germany and Poland where most of the movie was filmed are particularly picturesque ), witty writing and great comic timing. Ralph Fiennes somehow turns the role of concierge into a tour de force, and as the film develops you realise he is something more akin to a knight ; a courageous gentleman from another time.



It is admittedly a love story as well as a chase ; Zero falls for a local young lady, and it could be said Gustave is very much in love with life and  himself. He's a larger than life character with an intoxicating lust that is both hedonistic and refined ; he recites poetry to the hotel staff whilst they are efficiently served dinner. In prison he makes the most of things ; doing his best to serve the mush as though it was soup from a French restaurant, and winning over thugs with the sheer persistence of his charm.  It might also be said the film is built very much  around the love that is friendship, as Gustave and Zero bond over their adventures and become more a strange pair of brothers  than employer and employee.

Here's my problem with The Grand Budapest Hotel.
 It's an enchanting tale, and immensely enjoyable whilst you're watching it. But because the humour and style are a little too wacky, they take away from the seriousness of the subject. Its almost as if the actors are really conscious that they are performing for an audience ; it all has the feel of a bit of a pantomime. Even in his greatest moment, standing up for the Asian Zero against SS-like thugs, we feel like Fiennes is light-heartedly making up for his role as camp commandant in Schlinders List ( "sorry about playing an SS commmander ; here's to make it up old chap " ).
Added to that, it does have some unnecessary frills and is a little too convinced of it's own cleverness. At the beginning we see a girl reading a book, then we switch to the narrator, who relates how he met Zero, who then in turn relates the bulk of the story. Perhaps there is a point here about how stories are passed down, perhaps I'm missing something. Is the girl at the beginning reading the book somehow connected to the story ? Either way, it doesn't add anything at the time.

Grand Budapest Hotel will do more to cement the reputation of Ralph Fiennes and may be a breakout film for Tony Revolori. It's worth watching to see the true talent and range of Fiennes, and the film as a whole is quite a spectacle. Perhaps it has pinned just a bit too much on that.

Key Quote : "Rudeness is merely an expression of fear. People fear they won't get what they want. The most dreadful and unattractive person only needs to be loved, and they will open up like a flower."

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Film Review - Mad Max : Fury Road ( 2015 )

Stomping Adrenaline Rush keeps the heart pumping like the clappers for 2 hours straight.

Film Review :  

Mad Max : Fury Road  by George Miller ( 2015 ) 

Mad Max may not have anything profound to say, but it's the most interesting and gorgeously executed chase scene ever. Somehow Miller has taken something akin to the climax of Mad Max 2 : Road Warrior, made an entire movie of it, and kept the pace up for a full 2 hours. When you stumble out of the cinema gasping, you'll feel as though you have had a hard workout, and enjoyed it to boot.

There are but a few pauses to the action in this film, which pretty much jumps straight into the action with a Post-Apocalyptic warlord's lieutenant ( Charlize Theoron ) fleeing her master with some precious cargo. He ( Immortan Joe - interestingly played by the same actor, Hugh Keyes-Bryne,  who played Toecutter in the first Mad Max ) is soon in hot pursuit with a small army, and Max is caught up in the ensuing road battle.

 


The action, apparently done with minimum CGI, is flawlessly executed. Cirque de Soleil were hired for a lot of the stunts ; an inspired move. They make a moving brutal road battle look harsh but somehow graceful and beautiful. The spectacle is accompanied by an absolutely stomping soundtrack ( gym meat-heads have their new workout music ) that keeps the heart-rate above 90, and gorgeous but appropriately harsh desert scenery. An electrical sandstorm early on in the movie looks like the end of the world, and takes away your breath.
You never quite get it back.
The chase is high speed,and unlike other Mad Max films, there's plenty of explosives as well as the usual crossbows, sawn off shotguns and other adapted weaponry. Petrol bombs/grenades and RPG spears abound, with far more vehicles involved. As you'd expect of course, the adapted vehicles are a delight. These vehicles are less dune buggy than previous films and more chrome edged super-charged monster trucks with lots of deadly bells and whistles.

As ever with the Mad Max movies, it's the creation of the post apocalyptic world that catches the eye and lends authenticity to what at first seems such a fantastical creation. Ingeniously adapted gadgets from the Old World abound, but the most enjoyable creations are the people themselves ; their values, dress, culture and perhaps above all language. Immortan Joe's army are 'War Dogs'. No longer the mere punk gangs of previous movies, they're a brainwashed corps of religious like kamikaze warriors, driven by their own creed of honour and glory, fed and sustained by a slave like society far more developed than the pig fart driven Bartertown of Mad Max 3. Yes, I suppose they're the bad guys, but your terror of them is somewhat balanced by the nuance of one Nicholas Hoult ( more on him later). It's hard not to run around in  the parking lot after the movie doing Parkour and screaming "Witness Me ! I am Shiny ! I go to Valhalla ! "

It's not just the action that drives this film. The actors do not let the spectacular visuals overshadow them completely. Theron is excellent as a warrior to rival most men. The lady can now act with subtlety, conveying everything with a shift of her eyes. She plays the role something akin to Clint Eastwood's nameless gun slinger from A Few Dollars More, but with depth and sensitivity that lends the film real gravity. In fact this is a film with a numerous and well developed female cast, and they rather act out the boys, who seem to try and compensate by blowing up ever bigger things.
 

Thomas Hardy as Max seems to have immersed himself fully  in the role. He's less a man now and more a haunted beast. One can imagine him grunting wildly at the set staff who are gingerly trying to bring him a cup of tea during filming breaks. Arguably, the real star of the show is Nicholas Hoult ( About a Boy ). The Boy has grown up, and how. His character provides the real insight into the new post apocalyptic culture. An ailing War Dog eager to please his master, his interactions with Hardy and Theron propel the movie onwards when it's occasionally running low on nitro. Which isn't often.

 

I'm not going to say a lot about this film. Just go see it, and enjoy. It's a guilty pleasure maybe ; this is a film that does arguably glorify violence. But it does it so much better than anyone else.
Watch. Be amazed. And remember to breathe.

Key Quote :  " It's a mistake, you know. To hope...."

Images courtesy of Warner Bros.

Film Review : Spartacus by Stanley Kubrick ( 1960 )

Timeless Classic Ages Well

Film Review : Spartacus by Stanley Kubrick ( 1960 )

Compared to the recent TV series Spartacus, the 1960 film by Stanley Kubrick might at first glance appear quaint and dated. With it's ketchup blood, somewhat tinny brass band soundtrack, and generally very average physiqued gladiators, the old production feel might put off modern audiences these days.

But don't be fooled. Underlying this 55 year old film are great actors and great writing. This is an epic that arguably outdoes Ben-Hur. Kirk Douglas is surprisingly sensitive as the leader of a gladiator rebellion against the Roman Republic. Opposed to his dreams of freedom is Crassus, played by Lawrence Olivier, and the real star of the film. Olivier plays a truly chilling villain ; a man of immense wealth and cunning, but above all one who is completely immoral.  In a scene with Tony Curtis, who plays a young slave, Olivier asks his servant :
" Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?...Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?"
Seems a bit of an odd conversation at the time, but then you realise what Crassus is driving at.  For Crassus, there is no objective morality. Nothing is wrong, and he is completely justified in doing whatever it takes to satisfy his ambition. So he subordinates everything to his dream of taking over the Republic. Spartacus and his army of gladiators are but an opportunity for Crassus to finish off the waning democratic spirit in Rome. This will set up the fall of the Republic to Caesar, who is a young protege here under Gracchus and then Crassus. This is a classic story which has been mimicked many a time, in both film and reality ; the rise of the Dictator. It's a warning for our own and all times, as Crassus seeks to restore security and 'order' as he puts it, at the expense of freedom.
Crassus is not afraid of getting his hands dirty.

Crassus is not without enemies in Rome, and his chief rival in the Senate is Gracchus, memorably played by Charles Laughton. Laughton dominates the screen as much as Olivier, and also shines in his  exchanges with the brilliant Peter Ustinov, a slippery slave owner who originally owned Spartacus.  These scenes crackle with humour and wit, as Gracchus makes observations such as in defence of chubbiness : " Corpulence makes a man reasonable, pleasant and phlegmatic. Have you noticed the nastiest of tyrants are invariably thin?". Both Laughton and Ustinov of course excel on their own ; Ustinov particularly brilliant as a minnow, albeit a cunning one, trying to survive amongst bigger fish. As is characteristic of many great films, the supporting roles are consistently excellent, such as Herbet Lom as a Silesian pirate.

The plot builds to a great final battle as Spartacus seeks to take his slave army out of Roman reach. After initial victories, he is ruthlessly pursued and finally trapped in southern Italy. Along the way relationships develop, most notably between Spartacus and his love interest Varinia ( Jean Simmons ) and also his friendship with Tony Curtis's character Antoninus. Kirk Douglas convincingly plays the role of a leader who fashions a real family out of what starts out as a gang of marauding thugs. Women and children are picked up on the way and the gladiator army develops into a virtual nation, striving only to get away from Rome and start a new life.






But Rome cannot let this stand, and the scene is set for a great showdown ; the ruthless, de-individualised professionals against a ragtag but inspired army of civilians. There's little  doubt Mel Gibson's Braveheart battles were inspired by the set pieces of Spartacus, and Douglas's speeches. Spartacus's army is ultimately driven by humanity and love, hence the famous ' I am Spartacus ! ' scene.

Where the film diverges from history is when Spartacus and Crassus finally meet.  The film takes a good half hour to resolve the relationships and deals with the aftermath of the battle and rebellion in an original and satisfactory manner.

A big story, big battles, epic scenery ; Spartacus has all the prerequisites of a great film. But it is the films original take on gladiators that often reveal it's true greatness. Whereas Russell Crowe's Gladiator seemed to bond effortlessly with his fellow killers, Spartacus take a more thoughtful tack. Early on in the film, Spartacus asks a gladiators name in the training school. The gladiator rebuffs him : " Gladiators don't have friends. If we meet in the arena, I might have to kill you." In the first fight scene, the tension builds unbearably as Spartacus considers his opponent to be, well played by Woody Strode ( one of the first famous African-American actors and one of those who helped integrate the NFL ). Before they enter the arena, Crixxus re-enters after his battle, visibly shaken by having had to just kill a man.



It is later as the slave army grows that the brotherhood develops, and though some of the dialogue amongst the good guys seems a little corny ( especially in contrast to the sharp political insights on the Roman side ) it is still well developed enough to bring a lump to your throat as the final battle and grim resolution plays out.

Ridley's Gladiator may have been slick, but the real substance is in Spartacus.

Key Quote :  "I'd rather be here, a free man among brothers, facing a long march and a hard fight, than to be the richest citizen of Rome."

Images courtesy of  Bryana Productions.

Film Review : The Thin Red Line by Terrence Malick ( 1998)

One of my favourites ; a haunting war film

Film Review : The Thin Red Line by Terrence Malick ( 1998)

After a long hiatus from film making, legendary director Terrence Malick ( best known perhaps for Badlands with Martin Sheen ) returned with a film in 1998 that had most critics raving and a lot of the public distinctly underwhelmed, downright dissatisfied, and sometimes baffled. It was one of those films that seemed to show the strange divide between what is often popular with the masses, and what a critic rates.

The film, based on a Jim Jones novel,  follows a company of marines trying to take an entrenched Japanese position at Guadalcanal during World War Two. It features a stellar cast and a beautiful setting, which in particular serves to contrast with the horrific brutality of the battle to come. But more on that later.

I wasn't sure about this film at first, and I can understand the reaction of some. Several people I've spoken to said they couldn't actually finish The Thin Red Line. One saw it in the cinema and walked out after 30 minutes.

At first, and maybe especially because I had recently seen Saving Private Ryan, I too found The Thin Red Line slow and dull ; long cinematic shots  and a droning poetic soundtrack mumbling away in the background. It certainly didn't match up to the frenetic, gut wrenching excitement of the beach scene of Private Ryan, or most scenes of that film for that matter. It takes a good thirty minutes before the action commences. Even when the battle starts, as American marines storm a hill at Guadalcanal, the action looks average compared to saving Private Ryan and other contemporary war films. Explosions, people flying through the air 'A- team' style ; big deal right ?  However, it's the quiet moments strangely inserted within the action that start to capture your attention, and you soon realise that something else is going on here.

In the middle of a bombardment that is destroying his platoon, one marine hiding in the deep green grass inexplicably reaches out and strokes a small plant. It recoils at his touch and shuts its leaf, as though the very Earth itself is rejecting the battle around it . Another shot in the same sequence shows a baby bird crawling painfully out of it's destroyed nest ; alone, terrified, horrifically fragile. Somehow the scene can make you cringe even  more than seeing a man being obliterated by an artillery shell. The absurdity of such destructive power raining down on such a helpless creature is a painful and powerful metaphor. It's here the gifts of Malick show themselves ; and eventually convince you to watch the film again and really appreciate the layers built into it.
 


A second viewing for example made me reappraise the  first gun-shots fired in the movie. Two American scouts are ordered up the hill, and two shots ring out, seemingly from nowhere. The men fall and disappear into the grass, and then the sun washes over the scene. In the eerie silence that follows, the grass changes from dark to light and then ripples in the wind like an ocean.  It's as if the Earth has cleansed  itself and the two poor souls never existed.

Whilst the film has many great and well known actors and features a veritable army of cameos, three oppositional  pairs hold the movie together. Jim Caviezel, in one of his early roles, is the main character who faces off against a cyncial, hard-bitten seargent played competently by Sean Penn. Caviezel's character Witt is an easy-going dreamer who refuses to be beaten down and brutalised by the war. Penn's character Top thinks the best we can do is hope for survival : " If you die, it's gonna be for nothing. There's not some other world out there where everything's gonna be okay ." But it seems to be Witt's reflections that overlay the film, as, like the camera, he seems to see beauty in even the most horrible of circumstances. It's a stoical performance from Caviezel that is hard to read at times, but nonetheless is an arresting one. Sometimes, admittedly, the smirk on his face gets a bit much and you wish Top would wipe it off with a left hook. But he has screen presence, and much of Charlie Company seems to agree and sees something special in Witt. Even Top, despite his apparent antagonism, seems drawn to Whit like a better half. There is something almost messianic about the portrayal of his character with his calmness and his belief in some other beautiful world. One wonders if this film convinced Mel Gibson, in a sober moment, to cast Caviezel as Jesus in Passion of the Christ.



















 Witt, smirking.






But it's Nick Nolte and the ever reliable Elias Koteas who give the most memorable performances ; Nolte as the ambitious Colonel who sacrifices lives for the glory of the regiment, and  Elias butting  heads with his commanding officer as he tries to save the men he has come to view as sons. In my favourite moment of the film, the greatest acting is done by, yes, a forehead.  Koteas tells Nolte he will refuse to order his men to continue their suicidal frontal assault on the hill. The stunned expression on Nolte's face as he sees his dreams of regimental glory crumbling is priceless, and shows genius acting ability ; the man moves a few muscles in his face and conveys EVERYTHING.



For most of his scenes on the island, Nolte looms large in the camera like an old dinosaur. Even sitting in a chair doing nothing, his craggy features seem to out-act his fellows.
Less powerful perhaps, is Ben Chaplin's character ' Bell' and the correspondence that links us to his wife. Nonetheless, Chaplin holds his own in the battle scenes. The other minor characters feature John C. Reilly, Adrian Brody, Woody Harrelson and John Cusack amongst others, and all do a sterling job. Dash Mihok, whom I've always thought was underrated, puts in a particularly strong performance.
 
Dash Mihok ? Oh yeah, that guy from Romeo and Juliet. 

Even John Travolta puts in a quick minute, though he has as much military presence as fudge on a stick and might be a weak link.  By the time the film is drawing to an end we have seen such competent acting from most, that when George Clooney himself makes a brief cameo ( and this is '98 remember, when Clooney was at the height of his career ) , our reaction is like that of the hardened veteran whom he briefs and vainly attempts to impress  ; ' Big Deal !'

It says a lot about this film however  that even these great actors are sometimes lost in the cinematography and writing. The location, soundtrack and poetical commentary provide perhaps the most powerful moments. This is a beautiful landscape, with rolling green hills and gorgeous orange sunsets. The viciousness of the war seems amplified in such a setting. This is indeed War in Paradise. Philosophical commentary, almost in a Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass style, adds to the moments that focus on the natural setting, and also catches the soldiers in their lone moments as vulnerable men, boys even. The background commentary, though slightly irritating at first, soon becomes an integral part of the film. The charming southern twang helps. Though the movie was nominally based on the book by Jim Jones, much of the dialogue is actually taken from the better known novel 'From Here to Eternity' and is provocative and thoughtful.  In a particularly moving scene, Caviezel comforts an obviously traumatised soldier and the voice-over comments on the futility of  : " Each man looking for his own salvation, like coals drawn from a fire". Alone, we fade and die. Another striking scene builds tension before the main face -to- face battle. As the camera focuses on a Japanese face, dead and half buried,  the voice of the dead man asks incredulously : " Did you think because you were good, kind, that your suffering would be less ? Know that I was, too..". Unnerving, and one of many moments that made me return to the film again and again. The soundtrack that accompanies the following battle builds to a truly terrible climax and has been well used in many other films. Other lighter moments in the film use Pacific Island gospel singing to good effect. Hans Zimmer is on particularly good form here.
 


As the effects of the battle  become apparent on the men ( " War don't enoble men ;  turns 'em into dogs ") we realise the war is not just against the enemy, it is against each other, and ourselves ; against that in us which stops us reaching out and embracing each other as brothers. War is an extreme, organised form of the madness that makes us strike out at our fellow human beings.  In a later scene, Caviezel returns to the idyllic native village that he earlier lived in when he was AWOL. As if they are infected by the imperialists battling it out on their turf,  Caviezel now sees villagers fighting amongst themselves. But was it ever really idyllic ? A peek at  a row of human skulls inside a hut prompts the question :  Are they trophies ? Is violence inherent in all of us ? Are we doomed forever by our nature to fight and kill each other ? Meanwhile, others comment on the " war in the heart of nature" and how " the land contends with the sea ". As Nolte's character tells Koteas ( Captain  Stiles )  when firing him : " Look at those vines. Way they wrap around that tree. Nature's CRUEL Stiles." Maybe, but we must listen to our better instincts, and fight the madness, as Stiles did.
In another striking scene that is as heartbreaking as any, a Japanese officer attempts to separate the soldiers in  a final battle.  Like a schoolteacher pulling children apart, he  screams vainly for the insane killing to stop. He speaks for all of us ; how did we ever get here ??

If you didn't like this film first time around, I urge you to give it another go. Every viewing will add to the richness of this masterpiece. There is much, much  more I could write on this film, ( it speaks to the impression it made on me that I am quoting from memory and have not watched it for a year ) but I will sign off with a quote from one of the fine starring actors. At the Hollywood premiere, Koteas called the film ' haunting.' Indeed. It has haunted me, and I return to it often. I think I know what I'm watching tonight.

Key Quote : "What difference do you think you can make, one man in all this madness?"

Images courtesy of Phoenix Pictures.