The Stepfather (1987)
The evil stepparent is a common trope in cinema. One can argue that is does perpetuate a negative stereotype but then Hollywood has never been quick to reflect social change or been overly concerned about its depiction of certain aspects of society. However, as a plot device this is money for old rope. So dovetailing a murderous stepfather into a slasher movie was a logical step in 1987 when the genre was booming. In many respects The Stepfather is an arbitrary, low budget movie, with all the associated hallmarks. Its cinematography is functional but no more so and it is shot on low grade film stock. Hence the colour palette is somewhat lurid. It is mainly a housebound production with standard suburban exterior shots. The score is a typical eighties synthesiser offering, that both under performs and dates the proceedings. Yet one thing stands out and makes The Stepfather better than what it deserves. The central performance by Terry O'Quinn is compelling and drives the movie forward.
The evil stepparent is a common trope in cinema. One can argue that is does perpetuate a negative stereotype but then Hollywood has never been quick to reflect social change or been overly concerned about its depiction of certain aspects of society. However, as a plot device this is money for old rope. So dovetailing a murderous stepfather into a slasher movie was a logical step in 1987 when the genre was booming. In many respects The Stepfather is an arbitrary, low budget movie, with all the associated hallmarks. Its cinematography is functional but no more so and it is shot on low grade film stock. Hence the colour palette is somewhat lurid. It is mainly a housebound production with standard suburban exterior shots. The score is a typical eighties synthesiser offering, that both under performs and dates the proceedings. Yet one thing stands out and makes The Stepfather better than what it deserves. The central performance by Terry O'Quinn is compelling and drives the movie forward.
Jerry Blake (Terry O'Quinn) has recently married widow Susan Maine (Shelly Hack) after moving to a small town. He sells real estate and extols the virtues of the American Dream; of family, home and hard work. Yet his stepdaughter Stephanie (Jill Schoelen) is suspicious of him and still grieves for her natural father. She shares her fears with her therapist Dr. Bondurant (Charles Lanyer). Meanwhile, in the next town Jim Ogilvie (Stephen Shellen) searches for evidence regarding the murder of his sister and her family by the mysterious man she married. The police have no clues and the local press are disinclined to pursue the story any further. Jim suspects that there may be a serial killer travelling the state preying on widows and searching for the perfect family. Is Jerry Blake that man? Are Stephanie’s fears about him founded or is she just struggling to come to terms with the changes in her family.
The Stepfather has a good cold opening which clearly establishes where the plot is going. Although the rather formulaic screenplay by Donald E. Westlake unfolds in a somewhat expected fashion, it does have a few points of interest along the way. This is the era prior to DNA evidence and the proliferation of CCTV. Local police departments simply don’t have the manpower to undertake extensive door to door searches. If clues are not immediately forthcoming then a murder investigation quickly goes cold. Such a time obviously made moving around the country and changing one’s identity a lot easier. The film also touches upon the American love affair with small towns and how they represent all that is considered good and wholesome and about the American way of life. There are hints that the story by Brian Garfield (of Death Wish fame) is a metaphor for how this was considered under attack at the time, from social change.
The cast do the best they can and the screenplay endeavours to give some depth to the Mother and Daughter relationship and how it is unbalanced by the arrival of Jerry in their lives. But overall the proceeding are dominated by Terry O’Quinn. The way he veers from the quietly spoken Father figure to an angry sociopath is quite startling. There is not an excess of violence in The Stepfather but when it comes, it is powerfully handled. When Jerry finally snaps and has his iconic “who am I here” moment, where he momentarily forgets what identity he has currently assumed it remains a standout scene. Director Joseph Rueben gets as much mileage from his cast and the film’s 90-minute running time as possible. He refined this process even further to better result in 1991, when he made the similarly themed movie Sleeping with the Enemy with Julia Roberts.
The Banana Splits Movie (2019)
I was very surprised when I first saw a trailer for The Banana Splits Movie. It is unusual for a big studio such as Warner Bros. to allow one of its intellectual properties to be “repurposed” in this way. However, a little research online has yielded a few interviews in trade magazines where the inference is that this movie is a test. Naturally the studio wouldn’t take such a risk with a more popular franchise like The Flintstones or Scooby Doo, so The Banana Splits were chosen instead to see if they could successfully crossover into another genre. And the horror genre lends itself to low budget productions that can quickly be made, marketed and yield a satisfactory return on investment. It will be interesting to see if this gamble pays off and whether we’ll see a sequel or another beloved children’s show turned into a blood-soaked comedy horror.
I was very surprised when I first saw a trailer for The Banana Splits Movie. It is unusual for a big studio such as Warner Bros. to allow one of its intellectual properties to be “repurposed” in this way. However, a little research online has yielded a few interviews in trade magazines where the inference is that this movie is a test. Naturally the studio wouldn’t take such a risk with a more popular franchise like The Flintstones or Scooby Doo, so The Banana Splits were chosen instead to see if they could successfully crossover into another genre. And the horror genre lends itself to low budget productions that can quickly be made, marketed and yield a satisfactory return on investment. It will be interesting to see if this gamble pays off and whether we’ll see a sequel or another beloved children’s show turned into a blood-soaked comedy horror.
The Banana Splits Movie starts in a fairly innocuous fashion with an episode of The Banana Splits Show (which has been running in this movie universe since 1968) being recorded at the Taft Studios. But due to a change in programming policy the production is to be closed. Furthermore, the Banana Splits (who are robots for “some particular reason”) seem to be having problems with their latest software upgrade. Meanwhile young Harley Williams (Finlay Wojtak-Hissong) is visiting the studio with his Mother Beth (Dani Kind), older Brother Austin (Romeo Carare) and Stepfather Mitch (Steve Lund) to watch a live recording. It’s Harley’s birthday and he is a big fan of the show, although his parents worry that he’s a little old for such things. Since Harley’s Father died, he’s become very insular and Beth struggles to find one of his school friends to join his birthday celebrations. Zoe (Maria Nash) reluctantly comes along, although she finds the show somewhat “lame”. However, the Banana Splits have no intention of being cancelled and start reaping bloody revenge against both studio staff and the audience. After all, the show must go on. Will the Williams family survive?
The horror genre often lends itself to high-concept film making and The Banana Splits Movie falls clearly into this category. It has all the key ingredients required for such a movie, with its low budget, tongue in cheek approach and liberal quantities of gore. But this film has some of the flaws that are also inherent with these sorts of productions. The initial thirty minutes leading up to the first murder drag a little. The cast try hard and there is a little more backstory to the characters than you expect with such films, but performances are variable. Plus the screenplay by Jed Elinoff and Scott Thomas, dithers a little over what exactly to do with Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky. There is no attempt to explain why they’ve gone “bad”, not that it is essential to the narrative. Horror movies have their own fluid, internal logic and audiences tend to indulge such things. There are also some editorial issues which leave some minor gaps in the narrative. A character loses some fingers off camera. During the end credits we see them lying on the floor. Has a greater significance been edited out?
If you adjust your expectations accordingly and keep in mind the realities of low budget horror movies, The Banana Splits Movie can be an amusing 90 minutes. The cast are sincere and there is an inherently creepy quality to the idea of something as benign as The Banana Splits behaving psychotically. Gore fans will not be disappointed as there are several quite detailed and grisly kills. If only the screenplay had focused more upon the interaction between Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky. Naturally there are some obvious homages to The Terminator franchise and gamers will see clear parallels with Five Nights at Freddy’s. As for cries of “you’ve ruined my childhood” from the usual suspects, these can be dismissed as hyperbole from people who patently aren’t familiar with the writings of Marcus Aurelius. The Banana Splits Movie ends with plenty of scope for a follow up. It just remains to be seen whether this movie finds an audience who take it in the spirit it is intended.
NB Snorky is my favourite.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
In a prologue sequence set in 1928, a solitary mountaineer encounters a glowing sphere. He loses consciousness after touching it and upon waking, he notices a scar on his hand where a sample of his DNA has been taken. Moving on to the present day, Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) is summoned to a military facility along with several other scientists when an alien spacecraft arrives in New York City. Aboard is a human-like alien (who looks like the earlier mountaineer) and a giant robot of immense size and power called Gort. The alien identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) and states he has “come to save the Earth”. The US Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson (Kathy Bates) sees him as a threat decides to have him interrogated more robustly. Dr. Benson considers this unethical and decides to facilitate Klaatu’s escape. However, when she learns exactly what his words mean, she tries to convince him to rethink his views on humanities iniquities and change his intentions.
When you consider this production’s budget, the quality of the support cast, along with the advances in visual effects, this movie could have been so much better. Director Scott Derrickson is far from a genre hack and I consider his previous work on The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister, Doctor Strange to be of interest. I think his concept of retelling Robert Wise’s classic 1951 movie as a more benevolent tale, rather than an imperious threat, is a valid idea. Yet all these good intentions are lost due to a woefully inept screenplay by David Scarpa. One can’t help but feel that the narrative scope of the film tries too hard and that several well-intentioned casting decisions were ultimately a bad choice. Dr Benson’s stepson, played by Jaden Smith, is supposed to be conflicted due to the premature death of his father but comes off as simply intransigent and annoying. And then there is Keanu Reeves decision to try and play Klaatu in a similar disconnected idiom to David Bowie, in The Man Who Fell to Earth. Instead of being an understated performance it simply fails to convey any depth and conviction.
I’m a fan of unconventional casting when it works but Professor Barnhardt, played by a curiously deadpan John Cleese, whose character has won a Nobel prize for his work on "biological altruism” is too much of a stretch. As for the plot device of paranoid politicians, well if you want it to have any semblance of dramatic impact, then you really have to try and do something different with it. Sadly, such inspiration is sadly lacking and we’re just presented with the usual paranoid clichés about the military and our elected officials. Hence by the time the movie reaches its finale and the Robot Gort, transforms into a swarm of all consuming insect like nano-machines, the spectacular denouement lacks any emotional impact. Given what the audience has witnessed over the proceeding hour, I’m sure most right-minded people would say “fuck it, let humanity die, the bastards”. But at the last moment, Klaatu reverses his decision and sacrifices himself for the sake of humanity, thus ending an emotionally lacklustre and tonally deaf film.
The Day the Earth Stood Still lacks the portentous quality of its predecessor. Klaatu is no longer a biblical judge but a vaguely indifferent administrator, who is inconvenienced by humanity as he vacuum packs earth’s wildlife. Gort is robbed of his metaphorical status and is simply relegated to a MacGuffin designed to facilitate a spectacular ending. And the screenplay, instead of making the audience reflect upon the consequences of mankind’s propensity for violence and destruction, simply pays lip service to the environmental crisis and a few other token social issues. There is no conviction or gravitas present. Nor is there a soundtrack comparable to that of the original by Bernard Herrmann. This is big budget Hollywood science fiction, trying to be politically and socially relevant but refracted though the prism of a big studio that doesn’t really grasp either of those things. But returning to the original point, Keanu Reeves has firmly put this behind him and risen above it, thanks to impart to the John Wick Trilogy. Movies such as this have indefinitely stalled less fortunate actors’ careers.
Safe (2012)
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Safe is a throwback movie. It's central plot theme is very seventies. It seems to be an integral part of the action movie stars rite of passage, that at some point they have to make a movie involving a child (special needs is optional), a pet or sundry exotic animal. Therefore, when I saw the trailer for Safe, the first thing I thought of was Bruce Willis in Mercury Rising. The similarities are quite apparent. In Safe, Statham plays Luke Wright, a New York law enforcer turned cage fighter whose wife has been killed by the Russian mob. He encounters on Mei (Catherine Chan) on the subway and intervenes when she is attacked by assassins. The eleven-year-old maths prodigy is the key to crime boss Han Jiao (James Hong) accounts system and therefore a huge liability in the wrong hands. Wright swears to protect her and so the bodies start piling up.
Director Boaz Yakin’s script is again very old school. It depicts a very modern Manhattan as a hotbed of corruption as you would see in many seventies’ movies such as Serpico. The entire bureaucracy is on the take from the mayor (Chris Sarandon) down to the street cops. It should also be noted that even with the required suspension of disbelief needed to watch such movies, Safe taxes credibility to the extreme with the level of mayhem that ensues. The dialogue is ripe and the acting consists of the cast shouting at each other in-between chewing the scenery. With regard to the action scenes, there are an adequate amount of set pieces, with hand to hand combat and sundry shootings. Nothing is exceptional but nor is anything substandard. Movies such as Safe require a liberal helping of action and sufficient is supplied. But there is nothing of note. Do not go expecting a bravura ending like in Wanted: Dead or Alive.
Yet despite these numerous faults, Safe bowls along under the power of its own insane internal logic. It also does exactly what it says on the side of the tin and somehow manages to entertain on a basic level. A lot of this comes down to Jason Statham. He has the ability to carry a film such as this. It is far from his finest work but overall, it’s acceptable. And so Safe simply joins the ever-growing list of tolerable action movies that are ideal for late night consumption, sans any major critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see that as a bad thing. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, not every film can be a critical success or a genre milestone. Material such as this fills a very particular niche in the market, serves a specific function and has its fans.
Phase IV (1974)
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
Phase IV is a textbook example of this phenomenon. It’s a cerebral science fiction movie with the emphasis on plot and the big ideas that underpin it. There are no major action driven set pieces, tempestuous romances or excessive sex and violence. It has a somewhat clinical setting, matter of fact performances by the two leads and the wider theme about next stage in human evolution has a lot in common with Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Plus the film originally ended with an experimental montage that depicts the next stages in human and myrmecine symbiosis. Needless to say this was the final straw for the studio who had already gotten cold feet. The montage was edited out and Phase IV was given a limited release and arbitrarily marketed as a “creature feature” which it patently is not. The film died at the box office and has only in recent years found the audience that it deserves, through showings at film festivals and broadcast on stations favoured by movie enthusiasts.
The creative talent behind Phase IV was Saul Bass. Bass is best known as a graphic designer who created numerous classic motion-picture title sequences, film posters, and corporate logos. During his career he collaborated with such cinematic luminaries as Alfred Hitchcock, Otto Preminger, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese. After acting as a “visual consultant” on pictures such as Spartacus and dabbling in short film making, it was inevitable that Bass would want to turn his hand to a full-length motion picture. Paramount Pictures, seeing an opportunity offered him a deal and Bass set about developing Phase IV. Being an artist first and foremost, Bass was not going to produce an arbitrary science fiction movie. He saw a much greater potential in Mayo Simon’s screenplay and instead decided to explore much deeper themes, other than the basic man versus nature premise.
The film starts with an unspecific stellar event, which visually implies some sort of alignment of celestial bodies and the release of some form of energy. Scientists theorise upon the consequences of these events. Dr. Ernest D. Hubbs (Nigel Davenport), notices a rapid change in ant activities in the Arizona desert. It would appear that all-natural predators of ants in the immediate area have mysteriously died and that multiple species of ants are co-operating instead of fighting. Furthermore, they have built several large, geometrically intricate towers, instead of their traditional mounds. This unusual behaviour generates both concern and curiosity among the scientific community, who fund Dr Hubbs to research the matter further. A computerised laboratory is established close to the ant towers and fellow scientist and cryptologist James Lesko (Michael Murphy) joins Hubbs as he aggressively investigates the ant’s behaviour.
In many ways the real star of Phase IV is wildlife photographer the Ken Middleham, who shot the insect sequences. Nowadays such material would more than likely be computer generated but back in 1974, these things were done the hard way. And so we get intricate shots inside of the ant’s nest and later on it the film, of the ants crawling around inside the computer equipment and air conditioning units in Hubb’s laboratory. By forming chains they deliberately short out equipment. Middleham cleverly focuses on noticeably different types of ants so they can be clearly identified by the audience, making several key characters in the proceedings. Because the subject matter is handled in an intelligent manner, the idea of a hive mind remains credible. The concept of a queen ant that ingests the very toxins designed to kill her so she can breed a new generation that are immune, is quite disturbing and atmospherically handled. The film also has an eerie electronic score by Brian Gascoigne which enhances the off-kilter mood.
Phase IV was the first and last feature film to be made by Saul Bass. He returned to his regular line of work after this project. The poor marketing, studio interference and meant that the film simply didn’t find the right audience. The US theatrical poster clearly shows an attempt to sell this thoughtful and well-crafted film as a monster movie. Those who paid expecting a more violent version of The Naked Jungle must have been bitterly disappointed. However, in more recent years the film has been re-evaluated by critics, especially since the director’s death. In 2012 the missing end montage was found, remastered and shown along with the theatrical print at several US film festivals. Perhaps it may be re-integrated into the film at some point in the future for Blu-ray release. Phase IV will certainly be of interest to those with a passion for obscure and more intellectually driven film making. Comparable films are seldom made by big studios these days and when they are, still often share the same fate.
Tolkien (2019)
Within its first five minutes, it becomes very apparent what Finnish director Dome Karukoski is attempting to achieve with his biopic Tolkien. Commencing with JRR Tolkien (Nicholas Hoult) as an Army Officer, searching the trenches of the Somme for a lost comrade, the film explores through a series of flashbacks key events that shaped the authors life and inevitably influenced his subsequent writings. Naturally, such a narrative conceit is to be expected when considering such a writer and his literary creations but often during Tolkien, viewers may get a sense that the screenplay is overreaching to draw parallels between real world events and key themes in The Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, when considering Tolkien’s professed dislike of allegory, it does seem a little too heavy handed. Yet despite this stumbling block there are still other aspects of the production to enjoy.
Within its first five minutes, it becomes very apparent what Finnish director Dome Karukoski is attempting to achieve with his biopic Tolkien. Commencing with JRR Tolkien (Nicholas Hoult) as an Army Officer, searching the trenches of the Somme for a lost comrade, the film explores through a series of flashbacks key events that shaped the authors life and inevitably influenced his subsequent writings. Naturally, such a narrative conceit is to be expected when considering such a writer and his literary creations but often during Tolkien, viewers may get a sense that the screenplay is overreaching to draw parallels between real world events and key themes in The Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, when considering Tolkien’s professed dislike of allegory, it does seem a little too heavy handed. Yet despite this stumbling block there are still other aspects of the production to enjoy.
During his youth Tolkien’s widowed Mother (Laura Donnelly) finds herself in “impecunious circumstances” and the young John Ronald Reuel and his younger brother Hilary are forced to move from the rural West Midlands to the industrial suburbs of Birmingham. Her subsequent early death sees JRR Tolkien and his brother come under the guardianship of Father Francis Morgan (Colm Meany). Tolkien subsequently finds himself at King Edward’s School, Birmingham, where his is a rank outsider. An orphan as well as an immigrant from South Africa, his gift for language and stories set him aside from other students. Yet through a quirk of fate, he find himself in the company of Robert Q. Gilson (Patrick Gibson), Christopher Wiseman (Tom Glynn-Carney) and Geoffrey Bache Smith (Anthony Boyle), who all have similar artistic temperaments that are frowned upon by the academic establishment. All become firm friends and form a very strong social bond.
Tolkien also becomes enamoured by Edith Bratt (Lily Collins), the companion of Mrs Faulkner, who runs the boarding house where he resides. She is feels similarly trapped by her lack of financial independence and societal constraints. Yet their burgeoning romance is further hampered when Father Morgan states that Tolkien must decide between an early marriage and studying at Oxford. Matters are further compounded as he struggles academically to find his way at University. However, a chance meeting with Professor Joseph Wright, leads to him changing disciplines and studying “the Grammar of the Gothic Language”. However, the events of 1914 lead to Tolkien and his companions enlisting in the armed forces and leaving for France. It is here that the movie comes full circle and the unparalleled carnage of “the war to end all wars” greatly challenges Tolkien’s strong religious convictions as well as romantic and artistic notions.
Tolkien endeavours to cover a lot of ground both historically and thematically. It explores and reflects upon the value of art in society. The screenplay by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford also attempts to capture Tolkien’s love of language and mythology. Something that is quite hard to do in a primarily visual medium whose foundation is the concept of “show, don’t tell”. There are some clever narrative parallels such as how language is both the life blood of a nation and institutions such as the Catholic Church and that both use words to express more than the literal. Yet while Tolkien is happy to approach these wider philosophical issues, it is surprisingly coy about addressing matter of its subject’s devout faith. For those with a keen cinematic eye cinematographer Lasse Frank creates some subtle religious imagery. Meaningful scenes play out below the stars, the shattered remnants of a Church still has a statue of Christ on the cross and there are cunningly place religious texts among the books on desks. But overall, Tolkien’s faith is not overstated.
Performances are earnest and competent. Lily Collins is very good as Edith, who is greatly confined within the strictures of Edwardian Britain but seems reconciled that a happy ending is unlikely to await her. Nicholas Hoult is clearly invested in his role and remains likeable in his portrayal of JRR Tolkien. There is a lovely camo from Derek Jacobi as Professor Wright. His little monologues about the importance of words is a standout and certainly points to where the character Treebeard may have originated. Visually Tolkien is a handsome biopic with both countryside and city vividly depicted, using a very bright colour pallet. The depiction of World War I trenches is similarly beautifully lit, reminding me at times of the work of Mario Bava. The bleak landscape frequently morphing into a kind of proto-Mordor, due to Tolkien suffering from trench fever. But this digital visual device is overplayed. If it had been done once at the movies climax, the point would have been made effectively. But it is belaboured and one is left feeling that the production is trying to stretch real life events to make its rather obvious point. It’s a shame, as there is much to like about Tolkien but it does feel that the entire film is trying to make Tolkien’s life as epic as the scope of his writing.
Cromwell (1970)
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Director Ken Hughes allegedly produced a three-hour rough cut before editing the theatrical release down to a more manageable 139 minutes. At times this seems apparent due to the rather rapid way in which the historical narrative moves from one key event to another. Some scenes provide the bare minimum of detail and character development needed to make their point before moving on. For example one of Cromwell’s labourers, John Carter, is seen resisting Royalist troops as they fence off common land. He is arrested and subsequently released sans his ears to simply reinforce the plot that the King is a tyrant. The character then vanishes from the story for a considerable amount of time only to return as a loyal soldier in Parliamentary New Model Army, who is now in dispute with Cromwell’s policies. This and other examples indicate that a lot of broader detail has been excised.
However, despite discrepancies in the plot Cromwell does boast accurate period costumes, handsome sets and solid lead performances. Richard Harris is passionate and credible as a man who is constantly hamstrung by the failings of others and who frequently has to look to his own resolve to master events. Alec Guinness maintain a quiet dignity as Charles I; a man who seems to grasp that events often control the man rather than vice versa. His death scene is quite poignant, although his actual execution is discrete. The supporting cast is a veritable who’s who of British character actors from the sixties and seventies. Stalwarts such as Charles Grey, Robert Morley, Douglas Wilmer and Nigel Stocke play sundry nobles from the time. Some of the deficiencies of the screenplay are carried by the quality of the actors present who all are at ease in such opulent period productions.
The battles scenes in Cromwell also hint at some judicious editing and not necessarily for reasons of running time. There is a distinct lack of violence in the close quarters fighting with most deaths being shown in long shots. Yet there are numerous stunts with riders falling from mounts and infantry being blown up by incoming artillery fire. However, there are a few shots of the battlefield that feature bloodied corpses. Considering the rather jolting earlier scene where Frank Finlay staggers into the church with his ears cut off, I suspect that this movie was specifically trimmed for violence, as there are some tonal inconsistencies in the finished edit. Perhaps the producers wanted to focus more on the historical elements and not get bogged down in rating related issues.
Overall, Cromwell is an adequate movie, if you merely want a period drama that is light on detail and relatively easy watching. It is the performances that are its primary selling point. For those looking for something as cerebral and as multi-layered as The Lion in Winter or A Man for All Seasons, you may wish to adjust your expectations. For good or ill, Cromwell is a prime example of a genre of movie that is seldom made these days. The recent historical drama Mary Queen of Scots stood out among other mainstream theatrical releases for this very of this reason. The Outlaw King, which told the story of Robert the Bruce opted for Netflix as a medium to reach its potential audience. Cromwell also serves as a reminder that the UK still had robust stars of note and was capable of competing with the US film market at this time. Nowadays such a subject matter would more than likely be tackled via a miniseries that was internationally funded.
Midsommar (2019)
There are numerous visual and narrative clues that telegraph both the plot and themes of Misdommar. A painting seen in the protagonist’s apartment offers a clear indication as to what is to come. Director Ari Aster deliberately and painstakingly creates a cinematic metaphor in which the emotional turmoil and distress of the lead character brought about by her disintegrating personal life, are mirrored in the real-world events that overtake her. However, this is far from a traditional horror movie with jump scares but more of a psychological thriller with a growing sense of disquiet and helplessness. The audience are presented with a fait accompli in so far as its clear that things are going to turn bad for all concerned and there is no deeper explanation for events other than what we are presented with. And therein lies the rub. Midsommar goes all in on “the journey” and it is down to the viewer as to whether that is an enthralling experience or not.
There are numerous visual and narrative clues that telegraph both the plot and themes of Misdommar. A painting seen in the protagonist’s apartment offers a clear indication as to what is to come. Director Ari Aster deliberately and painstakingly creates a cinematic metaphor in which the emotional turmoil and distress of the lead character brought about by her disintegrating personal life, are mirrored in the real-world events that overtake her. However, this is far from a traditional horror movie with jump scares but more of a psychological thriller with a growing sense of disquiet and helplessness. The audience are presented with a fait accompli in so far as its clear that things are going to turn bad for all concerned and there is no deeper explanation for events other than what we are presented with. And therein lies the rub. Midsommar goes all in on “the journey” and it is down to the viewer as to whether that is an enthralling experience or not.
College student Dani Ardor (Florence Pugh) four-year relationship with anthropology student Christian (Jack Reynor) is in serious decline due to the emotional trauma of her parents’ murder at the hands of her bi-polar sister. Dani is grudgingly invited by Christian to attend a nine-day festival celebrating midsummer in rural Sweden. Along with three mutual friends, Josh (William Jackson Harper), Mark (Will Poulter) and Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) whose family comes from the region, they travel to Hälsingland. The Hårga community greet them and it initially seems to be a very traditional event, complete with white linen garments, floral motifs and copious amounts of folk music played on woodwind instruments. But the imbibing of hallucinogenic mushroom tea results in a bad trip for Dani and then a ritual takes very dramatic turn for the worse. The group try to rationalise events and Josh advocates staying as the festival is integral to his thesis. Yet matters continue to take a more sinister course and as they do Dani’s mental state becomes increasingly unsettled.
The second act of Midsommar in which the Hårga slowly become exactly what the audience suspected, is a long slow burn. The film is 147 minutes and revels in its languid pace. The clean, crisp beauty of the region is vividly capture by director of photography, Pawel Pogorzelski. The production is filled with geometric patterns, pagan symbolism and sun-drenched scenery. Often murals, artwork and the cultural history of the Hårga clearly indicate that our cast are doomed. Depending how you approach the film and your perception of the characters, dictates how quickly you start questioning the logic of their staying. You will either accept the western cultural propensity for people to eschew the bizarre and cling to the normalities of society. Or you will start yelling at the screen soon after the CGI drug trip. The dread and tension that is usually inherent in the way a genre movie is crafted, is optional here and dependent here on whether you choose to supply it yourself.
Regardless how you feel about some element of Midsommar, Florence Pugh is compelling as a woman trying to master her emotions as her mind and events spiral out of control. But the question remains as to whether this is really a horror movie or drama about mental health. The screenplay, also written by Ari Aster, manages to explore several cultural themes. It considers how commercial tourism commodifies and feeds off other countries culture. The central story of Dani and Christian is ultimately a rather vindictive breakup drama and is honest in showing that most relationships do not end “on good terms”, despite the pop culture narrative to the contrary. Ultimately, the Hårga community and its festival are simply a Hitchcockian "MacGuffin" to hang a series of contemporary social talking points upon. As mentioned, this is not a study of the pagan world versus modern society nor is it a traditional story with all the associated cinematic trappings. Midsommar paints a protracted vignette for your consideration and then ends.
Once again I find myself returning to a subject I have referenced before; my own overfamiliarity with not only the horror genre but cinema per se. For me Midsommar is a modern variation on a classic theme, presented in a semi-arthouse fashion. If you have not experienced anything like it before then it’s style, attitude and candour may well leave a marked impression. It certainly doesn’t pull its punches and it is also happy to provide a suitably bleak conclusion. But if you have a wider familiarity with the folk horror genre then it lacks the impact that some critics and fans are lauding. Naturally, the shadow of Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man looms large and one cannot watch Midsommar without referencing that movie at some point in the proceedings. For me the film is an interesting curiosity. I was impressed by aspects of the production but also critical of its length and the indulgences of the director. Like his previous movie Hereditary, the enthusiasm and excitement of vocal genre fans has generated an expectation that is not necessarily going to be met among casual viewers. Horror movies have always been successful at the box office but the press is hellbent on claiming that there’s a genre renaissance at present. If you like the meat and two veg approach of the recent Pet Sematary remake, don’t watch Midsommar expecting the same. It is a nuanced and acquired taste that will not be to everyone’s liking. I don’t believe it was to mine.
Hellboy (2019)
Hellboy begins with a pre-credits prologue, set in the Dark Ages and establishing the basic premise of the movie. Milla Jovovich plays the Blood Queen Vivian Nimue who unleashes a plague upon England (for some particular reason). She is defeated by King Arthur, dismembered and her body parts scattered to the four corners of the isle. It’s a graphic opening that clearly states the movies intent to be different to its predecessor. This reboot of the franchise aims to be gritty with liberal helpings of ironic banter and dry humour to offset the grim world the characters traverse. For those familiar with Mike Mignola’s work, this vision of Hellboy tries to embrace many aspects of established canon. The story broadly follows the comic books Darkness Calls, The Wild Hunt, The Storm and the Fury. There’s also an attempt to reflect the aesthetic of Mignola’s style. Yet all of this, along with the patent desire to be a R rated movie and to set itself apart from Guillermo del Toro’s versions, makes for a sprawling film that sadly over reaches itself.
Hellboy begins with a pre-credits prologue, set in the Dark Ages and establishing the basic premise of the movie. Milla Jovovich plays the Blood Queen Vivian Nimue who unleashes a plague upon England (for some particular reason). She is defeated by King Arthur, dismembered and her body parts scattered to the four corners of the isle. It’s a graphic opening that clearly states the movies intent to be different to its predecessor. This reboot of the franchise aims to be gritty with liberal helpings of ironic banter and dry humour to offset the grim world the characters traverse. For those familiar with Mike Mignola’s work, this vision of Hellboy tries to embrace many aspects of established canon. The story broadly follows the comic books Darkness Calls, The Wild Hunt, The Storm and the Fury. There’s also an attempt to reflect the aesthetic of Mignola’s style. Yet all of this, along with the patent desire to be a R rated movie and to set itself apart from Guillermo del Toro’s versions, makes for a sprawling film that sadly over reaches itself.
Although Hellboy has clear faults, the casting of David Harbour is not one of them. Contrary to what a lot of people expected; he does handle the role well. He clearly grasps the stoical, everyman quality of the character and the way these personality foibles contradict the arcane fantasy world in which he exists. But where Harbour excels, the rest of the cast tend to tread water. Ian McShane steps into John Hurt’s shoes as Trevor Bruttenholm, Hellboy’s adopted father, but the role is hardly taxing for him and the screenplay offers his little to do beyond the arbitrary and expositionary. Milla Jovovich similarly is a very generic villain as Blood Queen Nimue. Her character wants revenge for her summary execution and the disruption of her plans but beyond this, there is no depth to her motivations. Ed Skrein was originally cast as Ben Daimio, but then stood down as he was cognisant of the controversy surrounding changing of the character's ethnicity. He was replaced by Daniel Dae Kim but after all the fuss, the role is still somewhat bland and is nothing more than functional.
The screenplay by comic book creator, film producer, and screenwriter Andrew Cosby, encompasses multiple elements from the comic books. This does lend itself to some enjoyable set pieces but it also results in a story that rapidly moves between multiple locations and characters, resulting in many plot strands simply vanishing from the story. The desire to do so much means that the core relationships which are the foundation of this franchise and whichwere so robust in del Toro’s films, are underdeveloped. And then there are the film’s visual effects which favour the digital over the physical. As ever with modern productions, numerous studios have been contracted to provide work, including Mr. X, Rhythm & Hues, Rise FX and Worldwide FX. Luminaries such as Steve Begg feature in the credits. However the results are varied and somewhat impersonal. Violence without context or emotional content, is often just a spectacle devoid of any cinematic impact.
I have enjoyed director Neil Marshall’s previous work. Dog Soldiers and The Descent were above average genre outings that showed a greater intelligence than their rivals. His absence from cinema in recent years has been due to him working in television and such shows as Game of Thrones, Black Sails and Westworld. Hence a lot of genre fans were quite excited when they learned that he’d be helming the Hellboy reboot. Yet, it would appear that Marshall was not given final edit over his movie and the film has the air of a production that has been continuously “tweaked” throughout its development. The involvement of five production companies may well be the reason for this. It’s a real shame because during the course of its 120-minute running time, there are hints that Hellboy could have been much better. Fantasy as a genre and super hero franchises often explore issues of “difference” and use their tropes as metaphors to scrutinise discrimination, or the difficulty of straddling two cultures. Such ideas are referenced in Hellboy but sadly sidelined in favour of action scenes. I have no problem with the idea of making Hellboy darker and more palatable for adult audiences but not at the expense of the characters soul. But that is sadly what has happened.
Changeling (2008)
Los Angeles, 1928. A single mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) returns from work to find her nine-year-old son gone. She calls the LAPD who initiate a search. Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovitch) champions Mrs Collins cause and publicly criticises the LAPD for its endemic corruption and incompetence. Five months later, a boy is found in Illinois who fits the description of the missing boy, Walter. Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan), the head of the LAPD's Juvenile Division, hoping to capitalise on a successful resolution to the case, organises a press conference when reuniting the Mrs Collins with her son. However, Christine quickly denies that the boy is Walter, stating that this child is three inches shorter than her own son. The authorities dismiss her claims and label her hysterical. Matters are further compounded when Mrs Collins joins Reverend Gustav in his public criticism of the police. The establishment subsequently closes ranks and attempts to intimidate and silence her.
Los Angeles, 1928. A single mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) returns from work to find her nine-year-old son gone. She calls the LAPD who initiate a search. Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovitch) champions Mrs Collins cause and publicly criticises the LAPD for its endemic corruption and incompetence. Five months later, a boy is found in Illinois who fits the description of the missing boy, Walter. Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan), the head of the LAPD's Juvenile Division, hoping to capitalise on a successful resolution to the case, organises a press conference when reuniting the Mrs Collins with her son. However, Christine quickly denies that the boy is Walter, stating that this child is three inches shorter than her own son. The authorities dismiss her claims and label her hysterical. Matters are further compounded when Mrs Collins joins Reverend Gustav in his public criticism of the police. The establishment subsequently closes ranks and attempts to intimidate and silence her.
Clint Eastwood's Changeling is a finely crafted, no-nonsense, concise telling of an extraordinary true story. This is hardly surprising when you consider Mr. Eastwood's career and the cinematic greats he learnt his trade from. The influences of the likes of Don Siegal are often evident in his work. In the hands of a lesser director, it would have been so easy for the more sensational aspects of the plot to have turned Changeling into a melodrama. Yet Eastwood’s minimalistic style actually creates a sense of docu-drama and certainly allows for a greater focus upon honest and credible performances from all concerned. The production design by James J. Murakami and minimal use of digital effects does well in capturing the aesthetic of the period and there is a strong sense of atmosphere. Yet these embellish the film and do not get in the way of the story telling.
Angelina Jolie excels in her role as Christine Collins and her performance really should have garnered greater attention at the time. The cast of character actors including John Malkovitch, Michael Kelly and Colm Feore all acquit themselves well. The screenplay by J. Michael Straczynski is focused and credible. It accurately portrays a Mother’s desperation to find her child as well as her shock when the very authorities she trusts to help, turn upon her. It is also interesting to note that the tangential story of the Northcott Murder’s is kept in the background and is not a key focus of the film. This is very much the story of Christine Collins and how she fell victim to a corrupt system, as opposed to an exploration of a “sensational and lurid” child murder case. Eastwood does well in keeping the story within very clear parameters and not casting his net too wide.
Changeling takes an interesting stance with regard to capital punishment and contains a rather clinical depiction of a hanging. Whatever your own personal views on the death penalty, this scene is very powerful and is certainly food for thought. Clint Eastwood has once again proven that he is a director of note and that he has a strong grasp of what constitutes a good story. He has crafted a film that maintains intellectual integrity and doesn't concede to melodrama, despite the “based on real events” moniker that prefixes the film. This is lean, well written, well-acted and focused film making and it not only provides a solid evenings entertainment, but a succinct example of how you make a quality drama.
The Standoff at Sparrow Creek (2018)
Inside a dark, remote warehouse, seven members of an unnamed midwestern militia meet. They’ve all heard via radio or police scanners that an unnamed, armed shooter armed with a modified AR-15 has opened fire on a police funeral. The assailant also plant IEDs and the casualty rate is therefore very high. This means the authorities will be scouring the countryside, raiding all known militia groups and their affiliates in the region. The men’s concern quickly turns to panic when they discover that one of their AR-15 is missing from their weapons cache, along with body armour and explosives. Is one of their own the shooter? Ford (Chris Mulkey), the group’s no-nonsense leader, asks fellow member Gannon (James Badge Dale), a former police interrogator, to question all the men and determine who is responsible. However, matters prove more complicated as Gannon knows that one other member, Noah (Brian Geraghty), is an undercover cop. Can a solution be found before the police inevitably come calling?
Inside a dark, remote warehouse, seven members of an unnamed midwestern militia meet. They’ve all heard via radio or police scanners that an unnamed, armed shooter armed with a modified AR-15 has opened fire on a police funeral. The assailant also plant IEDs and the casualty rate is therefore very high. This means the authorities will be scouring the countryside, raiding all known militia groups and their affiliates in the region. The men’s concern quickly turns to panic when they discover that one of their AR-15 is missing from their weapons cache, along with body armour and explosives. Is one of their own the shooter? Ford (Chris Mulkey), the group’s no-nonsense leader, asks fellow member Gannon (James Badge Dale), a former police interrogator, to question all the men and determine who is responsible. However, matters prove more complicated as Gannon knows that one other member, Noah (Brian Geraghty), is an undercover cop. Can a solution be found before the police inevitably come calling?
The Standoff at Sparrow Creek is a rather unique variation on a what is essentially a Reservoir Dogs scenario, which is in itself is just a modern riff on an Agatha Christie plot. The movie is a claustrophobic, sombre and dialogue driven slow burn. Director Henry Dunham’s presents a series of mind games,bluffs and double bluffs, all of which have a basis in psychology and police interrogation techniques. Gannon explores the men’s pasts and uses different tactics with each one. Morris (Happy Anderson), has a chip on his shoulder about the police, which as Gannon discovers, may be justifiable. Meanwhile Keating (Robert Aramayo), a hyper-intelligent young man who chooses not to speak has an annotated copy of The Catcher in the Rye among his possession. Something that Gannon feels may indicate repressed feelings of superiority. And as these frantic cross examinations play out police band radio indicates that the local attack has inspired other militia groups around the country and that a potential uprising is underway. Should the group try to distance themselves from events or simply embrace what is happening. It is after all what they’ve been preparing for.
The underlying strength of The Standoff at Sparrow Creek is in its central performances from seven distinct character actors. James Badge Dale provides a strong intensity to Gannon yet manages to remain ambiguous in his motivations. Morris (Happy Anderson) is belligerent and bellicose yet has a deeper story to tell when pushed. Hubbel (Gene Jones) also has a tale to tell of an everyday life that slipped out of control over a logistical tragedy. Patrick Fischler is interesting as the technically literate Beckmann, who handles most of the group’s radio communications. This expositionary role provides information from the outside world and is used as a means to up the ante within the sealed warehouse. Writer and director Dunham films the environment effectively, creating atmosphere with backlit wide shots, and cavernous corridors with occasional patches of light. Not only is this an aesthetic choice, possibly driven by the film budget, it contributes to the oppressive themes.
Because the acting is solid and the scenario absorbing, viewers are draw attention away from some of the screenplay’s weaker elements. The director clearly want to make metaphorical point and maintain the movies allegorical quality. Hence the politics of the militia and its members are not fully explored, beyond establishing the narrative. These are disillusioned men, but their wider goals and motivations are left ambiguous. As the plot clearly focuses on the need to protect the group there is naturally a strong bond between them, irrespective of their superficial dislike of each other. Yet this is put aside to make room for the films philosophical point, which comes at the story’s climax. However, irrespective of this deliberate choice by director Henry Dunham, The Standoff at Sparrow Creek remains a memorable directing debut offering a strong, thoughtful and well-acted ninety minutes of drama.
In Time (2011)
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
The beginning of In Time establishes a very bleak and divided world which reminded me of Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men. Director Niccol competently establishes the Timekeepers, the police who enforce time management, as well as Minutemen, thugs who rob you of precious minutes. There are plenty of promising ideas referenced in the first act of the film. However, like so many high concept movies these days, In Time simply fails to develop these themes and elects to pursue a more traditional “chase and romance” approach to its narrative. It is this marked change of direction which derails the movie from its promising start. Viewers au fait with the genre classic Logan’s Run are will quickly predict the direction the film is taking and guess its respective outcome.
This change of gear is not sufficient to rob In Time of all its virtue. There are still some intersecting ideas to be had such as our hero redistributing time among the needy. It’s a minor nod towards the current social trend towards criticising capitalism, but it isn't explored sufficiently. Performances are also surprisingly better than expected. Mr Timberlake is not excessively wooden and has a reliable nemesis in Cillian Murphy. The action is adequately managed within the parameters of a PG-13 rated movie. In Time, like so many recent films, is a production pitched at a specific demographic by film makers. One they think is not that demanding. Thus we have a film that is somewhat superficial and light on content. It may warrant a casual viewing but does not require any in-depth analysis or further consideration.
The Mule (2018)
Clint Eastwood is 88 years old and has a successful career spanning over six decades. During that time he has proved to be one of America’s most bankable box office stars and established himself as an actor and director of note among his peers. If The Mule turns out to be his swansong, then it is certainly a fitting end to a prestigious career. Because in many respects The Mule is a distillation of many of the themes and concepts, we’ve seen in previous Eastwood movies such as Gran Torino and The Unforgiven. Perhaps the core story of an ageing man trying to reconcile himself to a modern world and make peace with it, is in some way Eastwood commenting on the movie industry himself. It is very much his film and his performance underpins the proceedings.
Clint Eastwood is 88 years old and has a successful career spanning over six decades. During that time he has proved to be one of America’s most bankable box office stars and established himself as an actor and director of note among his peers. If The Mule turns out to be his swansong, then it is certainly a fitting end to a prestigious career. Because in many respects The Mule is a distillation of many of the themes and concepts, we’ve seen in previous Eastwood movies such as Gran Torino and The Unforgiven. Perhaps the core story of an ageing man trying to reconcile himself to a modern world and make peace with it, is in some way Eastwood commenting on the movie industry himself. It is very much his film and his performance underpins the proceedings.
Earl Stone (Clint Eastwood) is a dedicated horticulturalist who has spent his life putting work before his family. While competing in a flower show he misses his daughter’s wedding which further strains family ties. However online sales soon take a toll on his cottage industry and Earl finds himself in danger of the bank foreclosing on his house. “The internet has ruined everything” he grumbles. Only his granddaughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga) has any time for him. After a row with his ex-wife Mary (Dianne Weist) at a family function, Early is approached by one of the guests who suggests that he can get paid for “just driving”. His spotless record, along with his age and ethnicity, make him potentially very useful to the local drug cartel. Caught between a rock and hard place Earl agrees to do just one job and becomes a drug mule.
The Mule is a leisurely movie and despite being set in the violent world of international drugs trafficking, is not steeped in action or mayhem. It is a character driven film in which Eastwood’s performance dominates. Earl is a microcosm of the ongoing societal age divide. He is polite, traditional and struggles with contemporary etiquette. In one scene he helps a stranded African American family whose car has a puncture and clumsily refers to them as “negros”. It’s not something done out of malice and highlights how he’s just a product of his generation. Earl also builds a rapport with the minor foot soldiers of the cartel who he meats when collecting and dropping off his shipments. He asks after their families and discusses trivial everyday things, revealing that for these men are just doing “a job”, often in default of anything else.
Beyond Eastwood’s charismatic performance, some of the other plot elements of The Mule are somewhat perfunctory. The parallel story that sees DEA Agent Colin Bates (Bradley Cooper) tracking the cartel and slowly closing in on its mules is functional but nothing more. The brief scene that Cooper and Eastwood share in a diner where they unwittingly swap homespun philosophy, is a little contrived. Also the machinations of the drug cartel and its internal power struggle is also just a functional plot device. However, the narrative does pick up in the third act where Eastwood and Wiest share several scenes together and reflect upon their failed marriage. It flirts dangerously with excessive sentimentality but mercifully stays on the right side of the line, due to solid acting and an air of earnestness.
The Mule lends itself to comparison with Robert Redford’s recent movie, The Old Man & the Gun. The latter is the better of the two, having a more nuanced plot and allowing the cast to contribute more to the proceedings. But because of the viewing public’s esteem for Clint Eastwood, I’m sure they will overlook the short comings of The Mule. As for the moral lesson that Earl is a “late bloomer” who finally learns that he needs to devote as much time to his family as to his flowers, it is a lesson that we can all reflect upon in todays busy world. Overall, despite a slow pace and numerous narrative digressions along the way, The Mule is a very accessible movie with the usually dour and grouchy Eastwood showing a far more amiable side to his persona. If it were any other actor, this would be a distinctly average movie.
Safe House (2012)
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Frankly it is a mystery to me (and Toyah Wilcox) as to why actors of the calibre of Denzel Washington, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shepard would deign to grace Daniel Espinosa's distinctly average action thriller, other than because it’s easy money. That is not meant as an insult. Actors have to make a living and regular work in average roles is more practical that infrequent parts in quality dramas. So I understand why generic action fodder such as this can be tempting to good actors. Sadly the presence of such a good cast does little to elevate this film to the standard of Training Day, Man on Fire or The Equalizer.
Rogue ex-CIA operative Tobin Frost (Washington), turns himself into the authorities and is subsequently held in a safe house in Cape Town. Rookie agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) endures a battle of wits with his enigmatic charge as well as swathes of bad guys queuing to kill Mr Frost. The Cape Town location is interesting initially. I believe the production balked at filming in the Favalas in Rio De Janeiro for security reasons. However, once the story moves to Europe and the US it really does become less engaging and far more formulaic. Denzel Washington is always watchable and brings a degree of gravitas to most pictures he appears in. Reynolds does what he can with a very formulaic role. The remainder of the cast advance the plot in true “Basil Exposition” style.
Safe House provides two hours of car chases, hand-to-hand fighting and sundry mayhem, all courtesy of contemporary film making’s favourite medium; shaky cam and lightning editing. The plot is neither staggeringly crass, nor above average. It simply follows the standard beats that you expect from this genre. For some viewers that is sufficient, providing adequate post-pub home viewing, via video-on-demand. Sadly the allure of the “A” list cast may raise expectations which are ultimately not met. Perhaps Swedish director Daniel Espinosa should have cut one of the more expensive named actors from the production and spent the money into revising the screenplay by David Guggenheim. A twist ending is only really works if you don't see it coming.
American Gangster: Unrated Extended Version (2007)
What is it with director Ridley Scott and his predilection for multiple edits of his films? Is he indecisive and a consummate tinkerer (like George Lucas) or a victim of studio politics? I suspect none of these are true. So how come there are always multiple cuts of his movies? Do his terms of employment always deny him final edit on a movie? I would think not. A film maker of his stature must surely get far more favourable terms when contract to make a film? Whatever the reason it leaves audience with a problem. How is one exactly to determine which is the best version of any of his films to see? For example, Kingdom of Heaven was greatly improved in its extended format. Yet his revised version of Alien is actually inferior to the original theatrical cut. And don’t even get me started on the plethora of versions of Blade Runner. His penchant for multiple edits therefore makes it difficult to debate his work.
What is it with director Ridley Scott and his predilection for multiple edits of his films? Is he indecisive and a consummate tinkerer (like George Lucas) or a victim of studio politics? I suspect none of these are true. So how come there are always multiple cuts of his movies? Do his terms of employment always deny him final edit on a movie? I would think not. A film maker of his stature must surely get far more favourable terms when contract to make a film? Whatever the reason it leaves audience with a problem. How is one exactly to determine which is the best version of any of his films to see? For example, Kingdom of Heaven was greatly improved in its extended format. Yet his revised version of Alien is actually inferior to the original theatrical cut. And don’t even get me started on the plethora of versions of Blade Runner. His penchant for multiple edits therefore makes it difficult to debate his work.
In 1968, Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) a driver, bouncer and minor collector, witnesses the death of his crime boss and mentor Bumpy Johnson. The loss of leadership causes unrest in Harlem crime circles. Frank decides to import heroin directly from Bangkok, using US military airplanes from Vietnam to USA. The quality of his drugs along with the lower prices makes Frank Lucas the number one distributor of heroin in USA at the time. Meanwhile, in the Essex County, detective Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is studying for the Bar Examination. Due to his service record and tough stance on corruption, he is invited to join and head a Federal Investigation Team and set about bringing down all the biggest dealers in the US. Inevitably his path is destined to cross that of Frank Lucas.
I recently viewed the Unrated Extended version of American Gangster. I had not previously seen the theatrical release so can’t make any comments about major differences and which is the superior cut. What I can say is that it’s a well written drama with very strong central performances. Exactly what you would expect from such a director and cast. However, although the core subject is very interesting, American Gangster does not bring anything radical or new to the genre. It is absorbing, rather low key and driven by the two leads. It is not epic in its scope or especially illuminating with regard to the subject matter. Perhaps therein lies the problem. We have reached a point where we always expect the directors work to be visionary in scope and are therefore somewhat wrong footed when he sets his sights lower.
American Gangster doesn’t make the obvious mistake of glamorising the genre. Its portrayal of drug addiction is ugly and harsh, which is exactly as it should be. For a film that focuses on one of the most violent aspects of American culture, it is quite restrained in its depiction. The sub plot relating to Police corruption at times seems the more intriguing of the multiple story lines. The involvement of US Army personnel and the violation of the war dead, whose caskets are used for smuggling heroin could have been explored further. Considering the magnitude of this particular crime and the reverence with which the US public holds veterans, I had hoped this matter would have been played a greater dramatic part in the proceedings. However, the central performances are exemplary from both Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, exactly as you would expect, although the films ending does somewhat strain one sense of credibility.
The gangster genre has not performed as well with critics in recent years as it has in the past. For example The Departed did not clinch the Best Film Oscar it so desperately wanted in 2006. The most interesting entries in this field of late have mainly been international releases, such as Mesrine and The Baader Meinhof Complex. All of which have brought a new European perspective to a traditional genre. American Gangster strives to be worthy and certainly covers a lot of ground (especially in the 176-minute Unrated Extended version) yet it strays too far from the historical facts and ultimately despite good performances, feels a little too routine and less than the sum of its parts. The story has many wider sub plots that are insufficiently developed and subsequently squandered. In many respects, the viewer is left wanting to know more despite the strong central performances. Overall, American Gangster is by no means a poor way to spend three hours, but viewers should adjust their expectations accordingly.
13 Assassins (2010)
13 Assassins is one of Takashi Miike's most restrained and mature movies. Set in Feudal Japan and based on true events, a venerable clan suffers under the reign of the cruel young Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), who commits atrocities at will. Unable to break their oaths, the samurai are torn between duty and shame. Some of the masters in the clan even go so far as to commit Seppuku in protest. Unable to endure the status quo, a plan is formed to gather a small team of the deadliest samurai and assassinate Lord Naritsugu while he is travelling between clan territories. The responsibility falls upon Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) to take on this potentially fatal task. The matter is further complicated by Lord Naritsugu’s personal bodyguard (and Shimada’s former rival) master samurai Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), who is a force to be reckoned with.
13 Assassins is one of Takashi Miike's most restrained and mature movies. Set in Feudal Japan and based on true events, a venerable clan suffers under the reign of the cruel young Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), who commits atrocities at will. Unable to break their oaths, the samurai are torn between duty and shame. Some of the masters in the clan even go so far as to commit Seppuku in protest. Unable to endure the status quo, a plan is formed to gather a small team of the deadliest samurai and assassinate Lord Naritsugu while he is travelling between clan territories. The responsibility falls upon Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) to take on this potentially fatal task. The matter is further complicated by Lord Naritsugu’s personal bodyguard (and Shimada’s former rival) master samurai Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), who is a force to be reckoned with.
The storyline of 13 Assassins plays to the strengths its director. Despite the formality and traditional nature of the story, he still manages to imbue scenes and characters with his hallmark quirks and foibles. The first act clearly established Lord Naritsugi's evil credentials and establishes the moral framework within the story to justify his death. Once the violent introduction is complete, the film settles into a measured second act punctuated with a degree of gallows humour. This relies on the formulaic assembling of the titular assassins, and the planning of Lord Naritsugu's demise. The climax is an epic battle that dominates the final third of the films running time. The action is gritty and credible and the fight scenes although technically accurate are not designed to be excessive balletic in their choreography, like some other Samurai movies.
It is to Miike’s credit that he maintains a strong narrative throughout all three acts. His direction is thoughtful, and he does well with managing a large number of protagonists, many of whom are not especially well defined. The cinematography is gorgeous and makes an interesting counterpoint to the unpleasantness that unfold within the story. There is minimal use of CGI and a reliance on traditional physical effects. This combined with the strength of the script and performances ensures that the film never becomes boring or baggy. Overall, 13 Assassins is a very moral film in a perverse way, with a very surprising conclusion. It maintains the right balance between exploring philosophical themes and providing dynamic escapist entertainment. For those not familiar with the work of Takashi Miike, this movie is a very good starting place.
Classic Movie Themes: Alien
Alien is a unique genre milestone. It challenged the established aesthetic created by 2001: A Space Odyssey of space travel being pristine, clinical and high tech and replaced it with a grimy, industrial quality. The space tug Nostromo is also a conspicuously “blue collar”, civilian venture, underwritten by a large corporation. As for H. R Giger’s xenomorph, it redefined the depiction of extraterrestrial life in movies. Director Ridley Scott brought visual style and atmosphere to particularly unglamorous and dismal setting. He also scared the hell out of audiences at the time with his slow burn story structure and editing style that hints, rather than shows. Overall, Alien is a text book example of how to make a horror movie and put a new spin on a classic and well-trodden concept.
Alien is a unique genre milestone. It challenged the established aesthetic created by 2001: A Space Odyssey of space travel being pristine, clinical and high tech and replaced it with a grimy, industrial quality. The space tug Nostromo is also a conspicuously “blue collar”, civilian venture, underwritten by a large corporation. As for H. R Giger’s xenomorph, it redefined the depiction of extraterrestrial life in movies. Director Ridley Scott brought visual style and atmosphere to particularly unglamorous and dismal setting. He also scared the hell out of audiences at the time with his slow burn story structure and editing style that hints, rather than shows. Overall, Alien is a text book example of how to make a horror movie and put a new spin on a classic and well-trodden concept.
Jerry Goldsmith’s sombre and portentous score is a key ingredient to the film’s brooding and claustrophobic atmosphere. Yet despite the quality of the music, Goldsmith felt that the effectiveness of his work was squandered by Ridley Scott and editor Terry Rawlings who re-edited his work and replaced entire tracks with alternative material. However what was left still did much to create a sense of romanticism and mystery in the opening scenes, then later evolving into eerie, dissonant passages when the alien starts killing the crew. The fully restored score has subsequently been released by specialist label Intrada and has a thorough breakdown of its complete and troubled history.
Perhaps the best track in the entire recording is the triumphant ending and credit sequence, which was sadly removed from the theatrical print of the film and replaced with Howard Hanson's Symphony No. 2 ("Romantic"). This cue reworks the motif from the earlier scene when the Nostromo undocks from the refining facility and lands on the barren planet, LV-426. It builds to a powerful ending which re-enforces Ripley’s surprise defeat of the xenomorph and its death in the shuttles fiery exhaust. Seldom has the horror genre been treated with such respect and given such a sophisticated and intelligent score. Despite its poor handling by the film’s producers, Alien remains one of Jerry Goldsmith’s finest soundtracks from the seventies and yet another example of his immense talent.
Contagion (2011)
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
Although the movie is driven by the technicalities of the narrative, there is still a strong ensemble cast. This includes that includes Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, and Jennifer Ehle. But Contagion is mainly concerned with the logistics of managing an outbreak of global proportions. It also scrutinises the governmental procedures and protocols for dealing with public health issues. The story interestingly draws parallels between the spread of the virus and the resulting panic via social media and Internet. It clearly demonstrates that the weak link in any national strategy for containing a pandemic is the public themselves. The film excels at showing the transference of germs via the most innocuous means. You could also argue that the original source of contamination, made via a credit card, is a broader metaphor itself.
There are some very modern themes included into the story. The idea of blogging and social networks as a potentially negative force (within the confines of the plot) is a clever concept. There is also an exploration of homeopathy and the trend among certain areas of society to reject science and the look for solace elsewhere. The juxtaposition between the proliferation of technology and its failure to cope with the growing public health issue is handled well. Although a lot of traditional ideas and imagery associated with this subgenre are used, they are dealt with in a subtly different fashion from other movies of this idiom. The military response, the use of mass graves and the subsequent social unrest are not skewed by any moral stance. They are simply shown as cause and effect.
There were allegations of racism from some quarters, upon the film’s release, but I do not think this is the case. The fact that the virus originates in the Far East, simply reflects genuine issues that real countries face due to rapidly growing populations and industrialisation. The plot reflects genuine health scares of recent years and does not carry any subtext or message that I was aware of. Viewers have also questioned the irrational behaviour of cast, especially those representing the wider public. Has not history continuously shown us that people often make poor decisions in times of trouble? I would also argue that this is a plot device which enables the narrative to move forward and hence is a necessary evil.
Unlike Wolfgang Petersen’s Outbreak, Contagion purposely avoids an excess of human drama among the wider catastrophe. Rather than grim scenes of carnage, the film builds tension through depicting a credible disaster and remind viewers of the ongoing battle against the microscopic world that society fights every day. I enjoyed Steven Soderbergh’s somewhat cold approach and certainly did not feel that Contagion was a hectoring faux science documentary, as some is labelled it. This is not Irwin Allen. There are no noble sacrifices, broken relationships fixed upon the way, or valuable lessons learned about life. It is Soderbergh’s refusal to add any cinematic sweetener to the proceedings that makes Contagion so effective.
Overlord (2018)
For the first ten minutes or so, World War II action horror movie Overlord ticks a lot of boxes. The film has a surprisingly high budget ($38,000,000) for a niche genre product and as a result has a handsome production design. The cinematography by Laurie Rose and Fabian Wagner is striking, capturing the beauty of the French countryside as well as framing the various unpleasantness in a suitably Teutonic fashion. The visual effects both digital and practical are also of a high calibre, further adding to the authentic atmosphere. Yet despite all these positive points, Overlord is a somewhat slow and underwhelming affair, running fifteen to twenty minutes too long. Like so many modern movies, the focus of the production is on spectacle, rather than on character and script. Hence Overlords fails to meet its potential and makes for a somewhat frustrating viewing experience due to it squandering such a good opportunity.
For the first ten minutes or so, World War II action horror movie Overlord ticks a lot of boxes. The film has a surprisingly high budget ($38,000,000) for a niche genre product and as a result has a handsome production design. The cinematography by Laurie Rose and Fabian Wagner is striking, capturing the beauty of the French countryside as well as framing the various unpleasantness in a suitably Teutonic fashion. The visual effects both digital and practical are also of a high calibre, further adding to the authentic atmosphere. Yet despite all these positive points, Overlord is a somewhat slow and underwhelming affair, running fifteen to twenty minutes too long. Like so many modern movies, the focus of the production is on spectacle, rather than on character and script. Hence Overlords fails to meet its potential and makes for a somewhat frustrating viewing experience due to it squandering such a good opportunity.
On the eve of D-Day, a squad of crack paratroopers (are there any other type?) are tasked with destroying a German radio tower in an old church in France. Their plane is shot down before they can reach their target, leaving only four survivors; Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell) and soldiers Boyce (Jovan Adepo), Tibbet (John Migaro), and Chase (Iain De Caestecker). A local villager, Chloe (Mathilde Ollivier), offers them shelter in her house where she looks after her younger brother and sick aunt. The unit subsequently learns how many of locals have been taken away to the laboratory under the church by SS Hauptsturmführer Wafner (Pilou Asbæk). What are the nature of the experiments that are conducted there by Dr. Schmidt (Erich Redman)? It soon becomes clear that the Third Reich is seeking to create a Übermensch, using a strange tar that is found under the foundations of the old church. Can Corporal Ford and his men foil this sinister (and extremely formulaic) plan and destroy the radio transmitter before the allied invasion commences?
Overlord is written by Billy Ray who has penned successful screenplays for The Hunger Games and Captain Phillips. During the movie’s production, genre writer Mark L. Smith was brought in to “polish” the existing script. Smith had previously garnered attention with his work on The Revenant. Sadly, despite their efforts the film’s dialogue, story and pacing are distinctly off. Now as this is a genre movie that expects us to embrace the concept of mutant Nazi’s, I’m not going to be too picky about some of the film’s historical inaccuracies. This is not meant to be an authentic historical recreation but an entertaining horror movie, so let’s not get bogged down in issues such as racial segregation that are conspicuously absent from the plot. No Overlords main failing is that not much happens for the first half of the movie. We’re simply presented with characters, a setting and a hint of sinister events. All of which could be established far quicker.
The two main antagonists are sadly two dimensional. For example, how do the writers establish that SS Hauptsturmführer Wafner is “evil”? By having him attempt to rape the only female character within five minutes of him being introduced into the narrative. As for our Mengele-esque Doctor Schmidt, he wanders around with a blood-stained apron and barks orders to verify his “baddy” credentials. It really is extremely lazy writing and a waste of a good cast. Everyone involved seems to be a cut above the standard journeyman genre actors that usually populate such movies. If the writers had taken some of the slack out of the initial story set up, they could have used the screen time to flesh out the various characters back stories. Especially the Nazis. Introducing racial tensions or focusing on the fact that one of the soldiers is a Jew could also have provided some further depth and interest in the proceedings.
There are some good action set pieces in Overlord but most of them are just regular combat sequences. The mutants have surprisingly little to do and appear on screen far too infrequently to be taken to heart as a tangible threat. The science, ideology and human suffering behind these ongoing experiments is never really explored. We briefly see a few “subjects” that have out lived their usefulness, put to the torch but as we don’t know who they were, the drama of the scene is diminished. When the horror elements finally do kick in, they are suitably grim and turned up to eleven. The cast do their best to engage with the story and are surprisingly polished given the paucity of the material. The quality of the production, along with dogged determination of certain cast members to deliver a “performance” irrespective of the scripts failing, is just enough to get things over the finishing line. Although not a complete dog’s dinner, you can’t help but feel that there is a part of the jigsaw missing from Overlord, and if that piece was found and added, you’d be left with a far superior movie.
The Three Stooges (2012)
I had mixed feelings about whether The Three Stooges could be successfully re-imagined and revitalised for a modern audience. When the first trailer was released it seemed to highlight the major differences between the old school slapstick humour of the forties with the worldly adult style of present comedy movies. However, as more information came out regarding the production and it became clear that the Farrelly Brothers are consummate fans of the source material, I began to revise my expectations. After finally having caught up with the movie, six years after its theatrical release, I am afraid all my initial fears have proven true and that The Three Stooges falls into all the traps I anticipated it would. That is not to say that the film is not without merits, but overall it fails to deliver in a manner that pleases all parties.
I had mixed feelings about whether The Three Stooges could be successfully re-imagined and revitalised for a modern audience. When the first trailer was released it seemed to highlight the major differences between the old school slapstick humour of the forties with the worldly adult style of present comedy movies. However, as more information came out regarding the production and it became clear that the Farrelly Brothers are consummate fans of the source material, I began to revise my expectations. After finally having caught up with the movie, six years after its theatrical release, I am afraid all my initial fears have proven true and that The Three Stooges falls into all the traps I anticipated it would. That is not to say that the film is not without merits, but overall it fails to deliver in a manner that pleases all parties.
First off let me make it clear that the casting of Sean Hayes, Will Sasso and Chris Diamantopoulos as Larry, Curly and Moe is spot on and their performances are exceptional. They have successfully captured the style, idiom and physical technique of the original trio and are very funny in themselves. I cannot fault their work. However, the story that the actors have to hang their performance on, is weak, poorly paced and littered with asides that don't work. The depiction of the Catholic Church, nuns and orphanages is lazy and tired. To cater to contemporary tastes there is a degree of cruder material and sexual under current to a lot of the humour. The problem is that it seems out of place and doesn't fit well into the narrative. Therefore, there is a tonal tug of war between slapstick gags that you expect from this franchise and the earthier humour you find in other Farrelly Brothers movies.
I love comedian Larry David, but his character Sister Mary-Mengele has little to do and nowhere to go. Plus naming a nun after a Nazi war criminal really isn't exactly going to have the target audience rolling in the aisles is it? In fact, a lot of the humour centred around the antagonists and support characters seems out of place in a movie that is marketed heavily towards kids. For example, I laughed a lot at Larry (Sean Hayes) giving a dolphin a Heimlich Manoeuvre, but when the offending peanut is then shot out of its blow hole and into a Lion’s testicles, it become an embellishment of a very different nature. The final act which involves Moe appearing on a reality TV show fails as a concept. I can see why it was used as a plot device to try and bridge the cultural divides between prospective audience members, but it just doesn’t work.
The Three Stooges also has another major obstacle to overcome in so far as we now live in extremely litigious times, in a culture dominated by health and safety. The movie ends with a coda in which the directors, the Farrelly Brothers played by male models, explain that all of the Stooges physical hijinks are stunts and should not be imitated. It really does further derail an already flawed production. In the UK, the BBFC still expressed concern over some of the slapstick violence and as a result the distributors elected to re-edit the movie and remove some of the problematic scenes so they could secure a lower rating for theatrical release. The Blu-ray release for the United Kingdom is uncut, however.
The box office taking for The Three Stooges were not bad. The movie recouped its production costs and turned a profit. Whether this means we will see a second movie, I do not know for sure. However, because the lead actors are so good, I would not actually mind giving them a second chance, as long as a greater effort was placed on finding a suitable comedy vehicle for them. Therefore, if you do decide to watch The Three Stooges, then do curb your expectations and focus on the central performances. Try to tune out the wider comedy as it is very poor and at odds with central theme. Then you may then be rewarded with an enjoyable tribute act to Larry, Curly and Moe. However, a sequel will certainly need to be more than just a homage.
