Film Review : Spectre ( James Bond )

'Spectre ' by Sam Mendes ( 2015)

Images Courtesy of Columbia Pictures

 Daniel Craig Hemmed in by 'Playing it Safe'  Scriptwriting

When I was a spotty faced youth in college, I studied History. Sometimes, at least. A fellow undergrad and buddy explained to me how he chose his history courses ( It wasn't easy deciding what to focus on - the intricacies of the wool trade in the thirteenth century, or fourteenth century farming methods ?) .
" Yeah" he explained " I just choose the courses that are closest to what I studied in high school" .
" Really ? " I asked ; " Isn't that kind of boring ? Don't you want to study new stuff ?"
" Nah" he replied : " This way I just have to rehash my old high school essays, which are already good,  and then I'm passing easy, with time to kill."
I kinda feel like that is what Sam Mendes has done with Spectre.

The appeal of Daniels Craig's Bond, at least to me, was the dark realism of what we imagined spy work was really about. When Bond contemplated  his first kill in Casino Royale, and later almost had his man-bits smashed off with a rope in a  torture scene, we knew were dealing with a fresh, if somewhat unsettling take on the debonair British spy. It was chilling, but exciting, and rang true. This was Bond post 9-11 ; he was a thug with high tech skills, who radiated menace in a world of no mercy. But, in an apparent homage to the old Bond traditions, Mendes now plays it safe in Spectre. Consequently he somewhat loses the unique appeal of Daniel Craig's Bond that was such a breath of fresh air in Casino Royale.

 

A small detail in the opening action is perhaps a  hint of things to come. As Bond inadvertently collapses a building, he flees a wall that tumbles towards him. In Casino Royale, he would have run faster and made it out of there unscathed. In Skyfall, he would have slipped and twisted an ankle with dark but interesting consequences. But in Spectre, he plops nonchalantly onto a sofa that has fallen with him. It' s a telling metaphor for what is to come  ; some chuckle-level humour is substituted for breathtaking danger. Bond is never quite up to it, and yet we never feel he is in real danger either. In Skyfall the consequences of being an aging spy were laid bare and grim ; in Spectre they are politely ignored. Bond breezes airily through the danger of the movie, only really fighting for his life in one scene (  reminiscent of Connery and Shaw's classic train fight in From Russia With Love ). It's a promising slug-fest that is thrown away at the end. David Bautista's henchman had a promising introduction, and should have been sent off with a more intimate and brutal end. Eyeballs for eyeballs, me thinks. But Craig's character now seems unable to summon the dark, cool rage that would have kept Casino Royale's Bond alive. This was always part of the problem inherent though in Craig's Bond. The menace was in no small part due to physical presence and attitude ; difficult to maintain in late middle age. In Skyfall this was confronted head-on and dealt with effectively. In Spectre, Mendes tip- toes unsatisfactorily around the issue. Bond has transferred an inch from his arms to his belly, and the response is to scale down the effectiveness of most of the villains. The latter part of the movie is guilty of  'storm-trooper syndrome', as Waltz's henchmen can't seem to shoot fish in a barrel.

The story of the film revolves around the organisation Spectre, who it turns out is behind all the previous machinations since Casino Royale ( a stretch, and sloppy plot writing, or at least uncomfortably contrived ). In a plot akin to Quantum of Solace ( not a good sign ), Bond must penetrate the shadowy organisation that is threatening to take control of the worlds spy agencies. The problem is, the implications of Spectre actually winning are not really made menacing enough. Bond is not be killed by Spectre, but instead... fired by them, as the 007 program will be closed down in a menacing merger. Oooh ! Corporate callousness and job insecurity ! Shiver ! Will Bond survive without dental benefits ? He is British after all ! A '1984' scenario is only hinted at, as is Spectre's amoral involvement in the sex trade and human trafficking. It's all rather vague and never really made real and concrete to the viewer. At least in The Winter Soldier the war machine was going to proceed immediately to liquidate liberals and opposition with some really big guns. Or even in Skyfall, Bond actually met a victim of human trafficking, and the personal tale of revenge felt more real from Javier Bardem.

Christoph Waltz is part of the problem here ; his villain in Spectre is far less frightening than the Nazi of Inglorious Basterds. His personal connection to Bond is revealed with as much passion as the reading of a menu in a cheap restaurant. Perhaps the scriptwriters needed to think back to what made Le Chiffre so chilling in Casino Royale ; the man swung a low tech rope to devastating effect. Waltz meanwhile, in the formulaic 'Bond trussed up' torture scene, directs needles with a laptop whilst wearing slippers. He seems disconnected and mildly bored . So was I. The effect is of a slightly uncaring dentist. Perhaps it was intended to be reminiscent of Dr Mengele, but it falls flat. When Bond jokes that he would prefer death to listening Waltz anymore, you can hear some seriousness in Craig's voice and tend to agree with him. He really does seem a little less excited than in previous outings.

The dentist will see you now.

Throughout this film, we constantly feel like we have seen this all before. Exotic locations, bad guy headquarters, car chases, etc. Its pleasant, it's comforting, it's safe. Even the soundtrack is 50 % Skyfall, as if Mendes was afraid to venture beyond the confines of any previous Bond film. The theme seems to be a mix and includes that of Skyfall ; that 'the old ways are sometimes the best' ; but it's clumsily handled and lacks focus. There are few memorable quotes in this outing. The one original direction Bond is taken in is a strange one for the character ; his journey to potential normal family man. We almost went here before with Timothy Dalton, and it was not good ( Sorry, Timmy, I love you in everything else ). Towards  the end, Bond and Madeleine, the main heroine, even feel more like a couple on holiday than agent and tag-along.

 Nobody watches Bond films for this " I'm just like you" stuff. Callous as it sounds, we don't really care about Bond as a character that much. He knew what he signed up for, and we wanted to see him do a job, not become a rounded character. If anything we were more interested in what it took to do such an extreme job, and how it might change a man. In Casino Royale we sang with relish : "The coldest blood runs through my veins, you know my name ".


The film ends with Bond picking up his Aston Martin, as if to reassure us that he really still is the dangerous Bond of  (relative Craig ) old. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced. The bar was set high in Skyfall, and it was always going to be difficult to reach it again. By all means go see Spectre ; it's a competent Bond film, as exactly as it was supposed to be, and no more. It's a good film , but it could have been great if the writers had taken more risks.

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.