The Saint in New York (1938)

Posted on July 26, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #59
Ben Holmes | 67 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

The Saint in New York is a B-movie in every sense of the term, but it’s certainly one of the fun kind.

There’s a crime wave in New York City. The police know which gangs are responsible but have been unable to successfully prosecute their leaders. So a bunch of people who are somehow involved in the policing of the city elect to call in elusive vigilante-type Simon Templar, aka the Saint, to sort it out for them. It’s the sort of premise you only get in pulp fiction and comic books, and these days the kind of thing that needs subverting or justifying (look how Batman of the ’60s (and even ’90s) works with the police, but is (officially) at odds with the law throughout Nolan’s trilogy)… and I love it. And despite what I just said, you could completely sell it today as a back-room conspiracy of powerful men — I’d love to see this film remade well (and I’ll return to that).

As the Saint, Louis Hayward makes for an appealing hero. He’s cocksure, and you could well argue (as Mike does in his spot-on review at Films on the Box) that he “seems to float through all the perilous situations in which he finds himself, as though he knows he’s the hero of the story and can never die”. Alternatively, he’s a James Bond character, so justifiably confident of his own abilities and plan that he has every right to believe he’ll be OK. (Indeed, this is certainly readable as a proto-Bond movie.) The downside either way is that there’s no sense of jeopardy or danger, which I suppose is a shortcoming; but instead there’s a kind of comic inevitability to the villains believing they could ever beat the Saint.

Screenwriters Charles Kaufman and Mortimer Offner also bestow him with a clever wit. There’s every possibility this results from how he’s portrayed in Leslie Charteris’ original stories, but I’m not familiar with them so couldn’t say; either way, Kaufman and Offner pull it off here too. Hayward wears it well, making a mischievously entertaining presence. His habit of jumping into moving vehicles, much to the surprise of their drivers, is also fun. The other stand-out character is henchman Hymie, played by Paul Guilfoyle, who is enamoured of the Saint and constantly comments on his actions. Together they make the film a light, fun, amusing experience, with more memorable lines than a film of its stature deserves.

The plot is in many ways stock crime thriller filler, though I believe it has more potential than is realised here — again, I’d love to see a swisher remake. Hitchcock was apparently interested in helming it and I think there’s little doubt he would’ve made a better fist of it than Holmes, whose work is fine if workmanlike. So the story loses some of its impact because it’s under-explained, the final twist solid if guessable (at least by me) because it’s hurtled towards so quickly. The real weak link, though, is a ludicrously rushed romance between the Saint and gangster mol Fay (Kay Sutton). Apparently they fall in love during a 30-second visit to the zoo. Again, the potential joy of a remake: bulk that up and it’d fly well enough. Same with the main plot. Perhaps I should try reading the novel this is based on…

For all its flaws, The Saint in New York is a quick jolt of B-movie fun. Clearly it doesn’t rival the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series (it’s obviously not as fondly remembered, and that’s usually for a reason), but admirers of pulp ’30s/’40s thrillers are likely to be as entertained as I was. Daft, but certainly fun. Hopefully the rest of the series can live up to (or better) the enjoyment I got from this one.

The Saint in New York is available on iPlayer until 31st July.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)

Posted on July 24, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #47
John Sturges | 78 mins | TV | 2.55:1 | USA / English | PG

Bad Day at Black Rock comes with an air of the forgotten classic — or, at least, it did to me. I think that’s important to how I ultimately reacted to it. As is that wherever I first heard about it pitched it as a suspenseful mystery with a twist. I forget where that was now, but I remember consciously avoiding finding out the plot’s developments (more so than one naturally would anyway) before viewing.

The latter seems to pay off, at first. Spencer Tracy stars as Macreedy, who arrives in a tiny, remote town in the American West, shortly after the end of World War II. He’s there with an unrevealed purpose; the locals are, for some reason, immensely suspicious of him. Starting here, the story is built on slow suspense and mystery: who is Komoko? What happened to him? How does Macreedy know? And what does Macreedy want? Sturges happily lets this mull and build over the best part of an hour, before suddenly darting past the reveals as if they’re unimportant. I’m not saying they need to be sign-posted with dramatic camera angles, weighty overacting and thudding “dun-dun-DUN!” music, but they’re shoved in here as if they’re immaterial; a bit of bookkeeping before the all-action climax. Perhaps these reveals weren’t meant to be so vital to the story as I had been expecting, but it still undermined my expectation.

The film also raises issues that, in my opinion, it fails to adequately explore. Primarily, the American attitude to the Japanese in the wake of Pearl Harbor, and also notions of complicity and complacency in the face of crime. There’s room for these threads to be explored and commented on, to be better exploited than they are. I don’t think it’s an issue of subtly (that is to say, that they are present, but without a heavy hand), more that they’re only fleetingly touched upon. Perhaps that’s unfair — I’m entirely upon to the suggestion that I was so busy focusing on the mysteries, I missed the commentary. Indeed, in his piece at Riding the High Country, Colin notes that the issue of American reaction to the Japanese “is very obviously presented”. (He also examines the film’s representation of a third area, that of Bad Day… as a modern Western and by extension a commentary on “the nature of the west itself”, which as ever I heartily recommend.)

I’ve read that Spencer Tracy was reluctant to star (presumably because of the arguably-anti-American stance of the film), but he nonetheless gives an engaging Oscar-nominated performance, perfectly embodying the character’s odd mix of qualities. He’s authoritative yet acquiescent, disruptive yet quiet, placid yet can hold his own in a fight… In a film otherwise marked by its consciously single-note townsfolk, he makes an intriguing creation.

The most underused character by far is the only woman, Liz, played by Anne Francis, who is vital to the climax but barely has any screen time before that to make us care. Most of the other cast are served at least one scene which is ‘theirs’, in which we get to learn about their archetypal character and their piece in the town’s make-up and secretive past, but third-billed Francis is robbed any of that. Considering the film barely runs 80 minutes as it is, I can’t help but feel there was room to dig into her character a considerable amount more.

For a film so based in mystery and which has what I’d call a methodical pace (despite its short running time), there are surprisingly good action sequences to look out for: a car chase/battle along a thin path, a one-handed punch-up in a bar, and a climactic shoot-out that’s at its most tense once all the bullets have been fired. It’s not an action movie by any means, but these cinematic sequences stand out nonetheless.

I imagine I’ve come across as harsh on Bad Day at Black Rock. As noted, I’m not sure where I specifically heard it recommended — several sources, more than likely — but wherever it was made it sound like an under-appreciated minor classic, with a mysterious setup that specifically appealed to me. So perhaps that’s why I’m disappointed the mystery element wasn’t as foregrounded, and why I’m niggling at the ways it could have explored its own content better. At the very least, it leaves topics of consideration open for the audience to debate amongst themselves, and that’s never a bad thing.

Bad Day at Black Rock is on Film4 today at 5pm, and again on Thursday at 12:40pm.

Wallander: Before the Frost and other stories

Posted on July 22, 2012 by badblokebob

Tonight sees the finale of the third series of British Wallander adaptations, this one based on the novel Before the Frost. It was previously filmed seven years ago, as the theatrically-released first episode of the Krister Henriksson-starring Swedish Wallander series, and I reviewed it as part of 100 Films 2009, back when BBC Four aired the Henriksson Wallander, creating the vanguard of our current obsession with Scandinavian crime drama (without this, no The Killing! Guardian readers everywhere gasp at the horror of such an imagining). The broadcast of the English-language re-adaptation seemed like a good time to bring my review over here.

The Henriksson series ran for a total of 26 feature-length episodes. They’re mostly very good and I’d recommend them (they’re available in the UK across four DVD box sets from Arrow). After Before the Frost, three further episodes were treated to a theatrical release, so naturally I reviewed them too. Links to all four follow…

The Dark Knight Rises: Initial Thoughts

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

Everyone and their mother will be writing about The Dark Knight Rises over the next few days — I’m sure there’s already been an explosion in articles, blog posts and comments on both, not to mention various related terms trending on twitter almost constantly for most of the week already — so I figured I may as well add my voice to all the thousands shouting into the dark. But rather than a full review (which I’ll save for when things have quietened down a little, and perhaps there’s some kind of consensus or even just other reactions to respond too), here’s a couple of stray thoughts and paragraphs that immediately struck me.

Naturally, this is all spoiler free.

Christopher Nolan’s film is properly epic, and a proper trilogy-closer too. We’re so used to superhero stories that never end that even when he said this would be an ending I half expected something spectacularly open-ended. But no, this is as much a fullstop as we’re ever likely to see on a big-screen superhero… unless it proves really popular and they all start doing it, of course. It feels really weird, but only because it’s not something we’re used to.

The epic part has its pros and its cons. It creates a grand close to the trilogy, but it’s a very busy film and arguably the makers bit off more than they could chew. There’s probably enough story and characters for two whole films here, and maybe they should have pulled back a bit on some threads. Equally, that sense of scale creates the uniquely epic sensation, and maybe it will reward repeated viewings and more leisurely contemplation, each apparently-short moment loaded with information. Or perhaps not — it is literally something only time can tell.

There’s been some backlash already, and though I’ve only skimmed it the feeling I get is mostly one of mismanaged expectations, rather than flaws of the film itself. It’s definitely more comic book-y than The Dark Knight, but only about as much so as Batman Begins. That has clearly disappointed some, but may delight others, and not bother others still. The marketing is part of the problem: the final trailer’s slow, measured, elegiacal style suggested Superhero Movie As Art, whereas Nolan has instead delivered a proper summer blockbuster — albeit one with a more measured pace and less frenetic action than usual. It’s more ‘traditional’ in that respect — I’d wager the pacing is similar to a blockbuster of 20 years ago, rather than the non-stop-bombast we get today.

I also think it might have benefited from a title change — the fan-mooted Gotham City seems ever so apt. Perhaps that would have aligned some expectations in the right direction. Ultimately, you see, this isn’t A Batman Film for the people who want that — it’s The Conclusion Of Christopher Nolan’s Bruce Wayne Story. And I think that’s fine, but perhaps you need to expect that, or at least be open to it as a possibility.

Stray thoughts:

On BD I may watch it with subtitles, not just for Bane (one review I read noted that some of Gordon’s lines “seem to get lost in his moustache”, which is an amusing way of putting the fact that half the cast offer muffled lines at some point; could just be cinema sound systems though).

Criticism of Nolan’s action direction, which has gone on since Begins, is increasingly unwarranted. Some may feel there isn’t enough action, or that what we get doesn’t go on in enough detail, but that’s the style of these films — they’re story movies with action sequences, not Action Movies. The previous two were the same. But the actual shooting and cutting of the action we do get is never less than fine.

Related to the epic-ness, I’ve seen numerous complaints of poor pacing or a slow middle. I didn’t feel that once. Similarly, this epic-ness may be why it can feel certain cast members are underused. The one that surprises me is Matthew Modine — is he really a big enough name for his supporting role here to be labelled “underused”? I didn’t think so. The stand out for me was Michael Caine, who may bring a tear to your eye, but there are several other noteworthy performances.

This is why I’m going to write a full review later, though this has already turned out a tad long.

The big question on everyone’s lips has always been, can it equal or better The Dark Knight? I don’t think it does. I didn’t ever really think it could, so perhaps I just correctly managed my expectations in that regard. But it not being as good as one of the greatest action-thrillers ever made doesn’t mean it isn’t a fantastic film in its own right, and it has a tone and a feel that’s both connected to the previous two Nolan Bat-pics and distinctly its own.

I think it’s wonderful stuff.

My ‘official’ drabble-length review can now be read here.

The Batman Series

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

In the run up to the release of The Dark Knight Rises I’ve been re-watching all of the modern-era live-action Batman films. I haven’t watched any of them since 2006, well before The Dark Knight was released and only shortly after Batman Begins had signalled a new direction for the Bat-franchise. I think everyone’s view of Batman on film has changed considerably in the last six years, so it’s quite an interesting context to be viewing them in.

I’ve decided not to provide full-length reviews because, quite frankly, I can’t be bothered (I’m 47 behind for pity’s sake!); but because I’ve been having New Thoughts, I thought I’d share a few below. Plus a score, because these are really reviews nonetheless. (I’d give them each their own page, but I don’t want to swamp you yet again, dear treasured email subscribers.) I know I’ve reviewed The Dark Knight twice already, and I didn’t especially want to get into the habit of reviewing it every time I watch it, but I’ve made a couple of quick observations on it in this context.

And with that said…

It’s important to re-emphasise what I just said: that this Bat-retrospective was provoked by my realisation that I hadn’t watched these films for six years, since a time when Begins was the pretty-successful new kid on the block. To an extent the changed perspective brought about by the events of the last six years (primarily, The Dark Knight, and (I perceive) a boost in acclaim for Begins by association) colours how we see all of these films now, but I think none more so than this first.

This used to be the dark and serious take on superheroes, treating them in a more grown-up fashion. In the wake of memories of the camp ’60s Batman and the colourful, optimistic Superman film series, that’s certainly what it is. Watched today, it looks positively comic book-y. Sure, it’s a bit grown-up — there’s elements of psychology and adult relationships, not just Boy’s Own Adventure — but the level of heightened reality and camp… it’s nothing like comic book adaptations now. I honestly can’t think of anything made in the current wave of superhero movies that has this tone.

Also, you forget just how true it was that the earlier Batman films focussed more on the villains than the hero. Batman’s in the first scene, but that’s it for a while, and it takes Bruce Wayne ages to appear; when he does, he barely speaks and the scenes aren’t really about him. The story instead follows Jack Napier/the Joker and a pair of journalists, primarily Vicki Vale, though (again) I think it’s easy to forget how prominent her partner (Alexander Knox, played by Robert Wuhl) is. The film puts a little more emphasis on Wayne/Batman later on, but for a hefty chunk it’s not really about him at all. You can really see why Nolan & co thought that was a seam waiting to be tapped when it came to Begins.

Batman feels dated today. I know it’s 23 years old, but it really feels it, in a way the next few films just don’t. There’s still a lot to like here, but it doesn’t impress me in the way it used to when I was younger. It still retains huge nostalgia value at least. Perhaps, with the scales now fallen from my eyes, when I next come to watch it (whenever that may be) I’ll enjoy it more again.

P.S. The first three Batman films have a chequered rating history, but Batman has perhaps the least explicable. Rated a 12 in cinemas in 1989, it’s consistently been given a 15 for home video. since 1990. The first two times it was classified (in 1990 and then 1992) this would’ve been because the 12 certificate wasn’t available for video, but why it wasn’t downgraded to a 12 in 2004, God only knows. It certainly feels like a 12.

Tim Burton’s first Batman film is great, no doubt, but Returns is a much better film in so many ways. The direction, writing, acting, action and effects are all slicker. They spent over twice as much money on it and it really shows. Plus they have exactly the same running time (to the very minute), but Batman feels surprisingly small scale and Returns feels epic. Watched today, Batman feels Old, whereas Returns… it’s from ’92 so of course it doesn’t feel New — but it feels more like newer films, in a good way.

Some criticise it for being too dark. Well, it is and it isn’t — there’s a lot of black humour in there. I think it works as a tonal whole — it’s not one-note, but it doesn’t swing wildly around either. What’s wrong with a film having a dark tone? Should every blockbuster pitch for exactly the same light-but-not-too-light area? Because they went for that in Forever and it didn’t go down as well.

And that’s related to another thing — some people criticise it for being a Tim Burton film rather than a Batman film, as if that’s a bad or even valid thing. It’s directed by Tim Burton and you don’t expect a Tim Burton film? I’d rather have a director who puts his own stamp on the material than a hired hand who churns out something generic. What’s the point in hiring someone good if they can’t bring their own influence? You don’t think the current films are as influenced by Nolan’s sensibilities as anything else? Look at his personally-authored Inception and tell me that’s in a vastly different style. Then look at Burton’s Planet of the Apes and see what happens when an individualist director is forced into a studio style. Bad things happen, that’s what.

These are meant to be short reviews so I won’t go on about all of Returns’ plus points, but oh my are they many. This is easily the franchise’s best effort until at least Begins, arguably even until Dark Knight; and for those who prefer their Batman less grounded and more fantastical, it could well be the best of all.

P.S. Believe it or not (and some will know this and so believe it, but I didn’t until now), Returns is only uncut in the UK as of 2009! Back when the SE DVDs were classified in 2005 it was still cut by seven seconds for “imitable techniques”, and then got a 12. I don’t know if an uncut 15 was offered then, but that’s what it has now.

Four observations I personally hadn’t made before:

1) everyone goes on about how the pre-Begins Batman films dealt with the villains and ignored Bruce Wayne. That’s true of Burton’s pair, but this one spends a ton of time with Bruce (a lot of that’s about Robin, but it’s about Robin in relation to Bruce). The one who’s hard done by is Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who gets relatively little screen time and most of it is spent as a cackling halfwit sidekick to the Riddler. Not befitting the character at all.

But 2) talking of Two-Face, wow does Tommy Lee Jones over-act furiously! Perhaps that’s not news, but crikey it’s so unlike anything else I’ve ever seen him in.

And 3) I swear Elliot Goldenthal’s score referenced the music of the ’60s Adam West series on several occasions. Which, considering the overall tone of the film, feels entirely possible. (I watched the featurette on the BD about the music but they didn’t mention it, sadly.)

Finally, 4) I was aware they’d completely re-edited the first act to put an action scene up front (and get a lower certificate in the US after all the furore that accompanied Returns), but I wasn’t aware of all the casualties. At one point Batman and Two-Face engage in a car chase that happens for no good reason; in the original cut, Two-Face & co ambush Batman on his way back from attending a Bat-signal call. That at least makes some sense, whereas in the film as-is he seems to go out simply for the purpose of having a chase, then goes home.

Believe it or not, Batman & Robin isn’t a complete disaster. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to mount a defence of the film — it is mostly awful. But only “mostly”.

Relatively significant screen time is given to a subplot involving Alfred being very ill. Thanks to the general warmth of feeling felt toward the character, plus the acting abilities of Michael Gough and George Clooney (who is severely untested by the rest of the movie), this storyline deserves to be part of a far better film.

Also, the realisation of Gotham is impressive. Mixing gigantic sets, model work and CGI, Schumacher and co crafted a towering fantasy landscape straight out of the comic’s wilder imaginings. The neon colouring may not be to the taste of those who prefer Burton’s darkly Gothic interpretation or Nolan’s real-world metropolis (if forced to choose, I’d be among them), but this is an animated-series-style Gotham writ in live-action, and judged as that it’s a resounding success.

The rest of the film is an irredeemable mess, however. Characters speak almost exclusively in one-liners centred on dodgy puns, and even when it’s not a one-liner it’s delivered as if it is. Schwarzenegger is the worst culprit for this, but Uma Thurman overacts horrendously also. She’s defeated by being kicked into her chair, just another of the script’s multitudinous stupidities. Her origin is a weak rip-off of Returns’ take on Catwoman; Bane is reduced to a monosyllabic idiot (at one point he has to plant a series of explosives, grunting the word “bomb” every time he puts one down); Barbara ‘borrows’ a bike from Bruce’s collection and, thanks to editing, appears not to return it for about two days without anyone noticing; and so on. I know they were aiming a little more in the direction of the camp ’60s TV series, but even if you allow for that it just doesn’t pull it off (and I gave the ’60s movie 4 stars, so I believe it can it done).

The “toyetic” approach (i.e. focusing more on the tie-in merchandise that could be generated than the story, etc) results in a foul new look for the Batmobile (though the DVD featurette on the film’s vehicles almost makes you appreciate it — the behind-the-scenes version is much more impressive than what we see in the film) and, famously, the heroes arriving at the climax in new costumes with absolutely no explanation! All it needed was them returning to the Batcave, “we better put on our ice-suits”, something like that. Heck, it would’ve allowed Schumacher to indulge in his suiting-up T&A shots one more time. But no, they just magically change into nastily-designed toy-ready outfits. Ugh.

There is ever so much to hate about Batman & Robin that even the really-quite-well-done Alfred plot can’t prevent me from placing it with the lowest of the low at a single star.

Chris Nolan’s first foray into Bat-world really is a stunning piece of work in many respects. It’s a film with the confidence in its story to take its time and do things its own way. The first 40 or so minutes jump back and forth constantly between Bruce Wayne’s childhood around the time of his parents’ murder, his college-ish days when he runs away around the world, and his present day training with the League of Shadows. But, as is Nolan’s trademark, this mixed-up chronology is never confusing, never unclear, and always serves a point.

Then there’s the fact that Batman himself doesn’t turn up for a whole hour. That’s nearly half the film. But that’s fine — we’re not left wanting, it’s just the right time for him to emerge. When he does, the film becomes suitably action-packed and drives its plot on. Until that point, we’ve had such a thorough basing in the world of Gotham City and the mental character of Bruce Wayne that it seems plausible he’d choose to fight crime by dressing up as a bat.

The Nolan Batman films have become known as the ‘real world’ superhero movies, but of course what we see depicted isn’t the real world, and things wouldn’t happen like this in real life. But it’s the way Begins identifies itself with other movies that creates that feeling. The previous Batman films occur in the exaggerated world of Superman and other superhero fantasy movies; here we’re in an exaggerated world more like James Bond, say, or indeed any other technology-driven action-thriller you choose. It’s not our real world, but it’s the real world of that genre; one closer to our own than the dark fantasy of Burton’s films or the dayglo cartoon of Schumacher’s.

There’s much more that could be said about Begins and naturally I’m limiting myself here (this is meant to be a short comment, after all), but it’s important to note what a fine job Nolan does of making Gotham City a character in the film. All of the Batman films have done this to some degree — it was Burton’s stated aim to make Gotham “the third character” in his first effort — but by giving the city recognisable landmarks, districts, a true sense of history and on-going interrelations, it feels like a real place. And those recognisable landmarks continue into The Dark Knight (particularly spottable are the split-level roads, the Narrows and its bridges, even if the vital-to-this-film’s-plot elevated railway completely disappears between films), cementing the importance of this cityscape. I do hope it continues into Dark Knight Rises. I’ve already read one review that said they should’ve named the final film Gotham City, so I’m optimistic.

The monumental achievement of The Dark Knight has come to overshadow Begins, which is now rendered as a functionary prequel to the next film’s majesty. Don’t let that reputation fool you: on its own merits, this is very much a film at the forefront of the action-adventure, blockbuster and superhero genres.

I was, oddly, a little nervous sitting down to watch TDK for the first time in four years. I’d had such an incredible experience viewing it in the cinema (twice) and, by not watching it since, it had built up some kind of aura in my mind. But I dismissed such silliness and damn well got on with it.

Thank goodness, it’s a film good enough to stand up to such memories. That’s the main thing I wanted to add, I suppose, because everything I had to say in my earlier reviews still stands. The IMAX sequences look almost as incredible on Blu-ray as they did in the theatre (as much as they ever could), but I’m sure you knew that.

What’s interesting is watching this directly after Begins. While Nolan’s first film isn’t even close to being as all-out fantasy as the earlier entries, it errs more in that direction than this one, in my opinion. Begins has a kind of fantastical warmth to it, alongside the more urban-realism aspects. I say “warmth” probably because of the sepia/brown hues of the sequences set in the Narrows and so on. The Dark Knight, by comparison, is set in the cold grey-blue steel world of skyscrapers and the modern metropolis, inspired by towering architecture in its visual style and by epic crime-thrillers in its plotting. Compare the two posters I’ve used here for the gist of what I’m driving at.

Begins is, at heart, still a superhero action-adventure; Dark Knight is a crime thriller that happens to take place in a world with superheroes. Does that make it inherently better? No. But it does make it more unusual for the genre. And as Nolan & co pull off the crime thriller style and feel so damn well, it flat out makes it a great film.

The star rating, of course, stays the same.

In case you missed the links above, my two previous Dark Knight reviews can be read here and here.

And that’s it for the Batman films… so far. Because at the exact time this set of reviews is posted, I should be sat in a large darkened room with a number of other people, about to embark on the concluding chapter of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. I imagine later today or tonight I’ll have some initial thoughts on that one too.

Batman @ 100 Films

Posted on July 15, 2012 by badblokebob

You may have noticed that a little film by the name of The Dark Knight Rises is out this Friday. (Believe it or not, I was going to see it on release day. The possibility of that is now looking less certain, sadly. Fingers crossed this doesn’t turn into another Avengers…) In some kind of celebration of this I’ve decided to bring over all my Batman-related reviews to the new blog. (I imagine I’ll keep referring to this as “the new blog” until all the reviews are moved over. So a couple more years, then.)

And then on Friday itself I’ll offer a quick overview of some thoughts on the other live-action Batman films, which I’ve been re-watching. There’ll also be my first thoughts on TDKR, if I see it — gotta get my opinion on to the internet quickly, I’m sure there won’t be thousands of other people doing that.

So expect the following links to go live, in this order, at some point over the next few days…

(And the other live-action films will have their own special new post on Friday too.)

Devil (2010)

Posted on July 11, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #19
John Erick Dowdle | 77 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Remember when M. Night Shyamalan was the wunderkind of Hollywood? Seems so long ago, doesn’t it? But clearly someone somewhere is still invested in him — or he’s managed to limp on well enough that stuff he works on seems worth a punt — because a couple of years ago he was able to launch a series of films dubbed “The Night Chronicles”. I don’t remember the details and they’re not worth looking up, but as I recall the idea is they were a series of low-key/low-budget horror-thrillers conceived by Shyamalan (he has a Story and Producer credit here) but helmed by others. Devil is the first of these. I don’t recall a second turning up yet.

Funny thing is, this is better than anything Shyamalan has done in a long time. At least since Signs, and I quite liked The Village (except the final act) and Lady in the Water (need to rewatch that, because it seems everyone else hated it). Without meaning to ruin the first act (which does take a little while to reach the point; but it sets up all the characters, so it works), the story concerns a bunch of people stuck in an elevator, one of which is an evil supernatural force… but which?

I like these small-group-of-people-in-one-small-room thriller/horrors — see also the exceptional Cube and the very good Exam. This is a solid addition to the sub-genre — not the best, but with enough action, intrigue and twists to fill its (admittedly very brief) running time. It comes to a head with a pretty good twist/reveal. Again, it’s kind of ironic that it’s the best twist in a Shyamalan film for years, but it comes in a movie he neither wrote nor directed. Maybe he should take another look at the kind of films he’s choosing to make. (I say “maybe”…)

The film impressed on a couple of technical fronts. The main titles, for starters (pun intended): they play out over upside-down aerial shots of a city. Sounds like a silly idea, perhaps, but it actually feels Wrong and terribly unsettling. It’s a highly effective start to a horror movie. Then there’s exceptional creepy sound design whenever the elevator’s lights go out. The filmmakers don’t overdo it, with (say) screams or possessed voices or goodness knows what else, and that’s why it works: the fact it’s quite understated, that you can’t tell what’s happening from the sounds — it’s just breathing, rustling, bumping, that kind of thing — is what makes it all the more realistic and therefore creepier.

As an aside, in my occasional run of Comments Paying Too Much Attention To Certificates, it’s funny what Americans allow at what age rating. Here we have neck stabbing, hanging, creepy devil stuff… Seems a bit much for a PG-13, to me. The UK’s 15 is much more appropriate.

I wasn’t expecting a great deal from Devil. As a Shyamalan film it starts off with, if anything, a negative perception; and as one he didn’t even want to direct himself, you have to wonder how dreadful it’s going to turn out to be. But John Erick Dowdle (previously only responsible for the US remake of [REC] and a couple of things no one’s heard of) does a solid job, creating an effective little horror-thriller that delivers a fair number of chills and a decent serving of mystery. That’s more than can be said of Shyamalan’s work this decade.

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010)

Posted on July 6, 2012 by badblokebob

aka Di Renjie: Tong tian di guo

This year’s 52nd film is, in many ways, thanks to DC’s The New 52 (the comic book initiative/publicity stunt that saw DC relaunch their entire universe across a series of 52 new #1 issues, for those who don’t do comics): it got me back into reading regular comics, and featured in multiple titles for several months was a cool-looking advert for the US release of Detective Dee, complete with the attractive review quote, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon meets Sherlock Holmes, only a lot more fun”. A little research finds it highly recommended in other arenas too: there’s a host of awards nominations and wins, from the Venice Film Festival to the Hong Kong Film Awards; an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; Blu-ray.com furnished the UK BD release with a glowing write-up; Time ranked it the third best film for the whole of 2011 (behind The Artist and Hugo). Even the unreliable film section of the Radio Times saw fit to give it four stars.

All of which hopefully establishes how I found it to be a massive disappointment.

Days before the coronation of China’s first Empress, a high-ranked man is mysteriously burnt alive from the inside out. Then the man charged with investigating the case suffers the same fate. On advice (from who or what I shall mention later), the Empress assigns the case to Detective Dee — who has been in prison for eight years for rebelling against the Empress. Sounds like a good setup, eh? A super detective, at conflict with his employer, looking into supernaturally-tinged murders; and it’s a Hong Kong movie so you know there’s going to be some impressive action sequences.

To take Time’s opinion as a starting point, I have to wonder if they would rank Detective Dee so highly if it had been an American-produced film with actors speaking English. I don’t mean if the film was Americanised, but exactly the same, just an American production. In that instance, I think it would very much be viewed as a summer blockbuster, because that’s definitely what it strikes me as. It’s one with lots of talky bits and an over-complicated story, certainly, but then it’s not unheard of for US blockbusters to confuddle the viewer with an under-written over-developed plot (less so these days, I grant you).

Apparently it makes commentary on the economic and political situation in modern China. It must be done quite subtly, then. That’s a good thing I suppose, but I imagine you’re only going to notice it if you already have a familiarity with what’s going on. I don’t. Best I can tell, the film’s message is, “even if you think your ruler’s a bad person who’s done bad things, they’re your ruler and you should let them get on with it and not rebel”. I could have misread it, of course, but that’s what I got from the ending. Not a position I’d personally agree with.

Naturally there are plenty of action sequences (choreographed by Sammo Hung), several of them tacked on for the sake of it. Personally I wasn’t impressed. They’re all clearly shot on digital video (the whole film was, but the smeary fights really show it up), several are under-lit, there’s too much Hollywood-style choppy editing, it felt like some had bits missing, others are stop-start in a way that adds up to not very much… Many of them left me confused about what was meant to be going on, not in awe of the performer’s abilities or entertained. One of them features the hero fighting a gaggle of cheap CGI deer. Yes, deer. Why?

Detective Dee is a film of moments. There are some pretty shots, occasionally even sequences; the fight in the Phantom Bazaar, an underground river network, is guilty of some of my criticisms but also pulls off a few nice bits. The CGI is what you’d expect from a mid-range US miniseries, but (with exceptions such as the fighting deer) it works well enough, even creating some dramatic vistas, particularly of the 200-foot tall Buddha statue that’s central to the plot. Some of the sets are also incredibly impressive — again, the interior of the Buddha. Occasionally I was frustrated reading the subtitles (which fly by at a rate of knots, it felt to me) because I wanted to look at the detailed, busy production design.

I mention the fast subtitles because the film feels like it’s moving at quite a lick. There’s little room to get to know the characters, or the situation, or their relationships, or their political machinations, before it’s racing on to the next plot point. And yet despite that it feels incredibly slow as a whole — I was clock-watching before the hour mark.

Perhaps one of the things that suffers for this is the film’s relationship with the supernatural. It’s at first supposed that the deaths are some kind of divine intervention, but then this is kicked away — what a silly idea by some foolish characters! But then everyone’s more than happy to accept a talking magic deer (seriously; and they happily take its advice (see second paragraph)), a fighter whose arms fly off and turn into… something else (choppy editing means I’m not sure), facial transfiguration (imagine Mission: Impossible’s masks with face-churning magic instead of masks), and so on and so forth. Some of it ultimately has a rational explanation, but why is “divine intervention” so much less believable than “magic”? And why do you have to explain the talking deer and flying arms when the face-churning-thing is left untouched? I can take people flying unrealistically through the air — that’s the style of the genre, much like regular folk breaking out into perfectly-pitched musically-accompanied song is the style of the musical — but not internal inconsistency in other areas.

I’ve avoided the comparison so far, but Detective Dee is like a Chinese version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, only a less inventive and comprehensible one. And it’s certainly not “a lot more fun”. Dee is a great deducer, a la Holmes, though the film gives him no opportunities to significantly show that off. The plot concerns a series of apparently-supernatural murders that actually have a rational explanation, and are ultimately all about taking control of the country. It stars a period detective who’s been reconfigured as younger and a man of action. But whereas Holmes kept things clear-cut and fast-moving, Dee (as I’ve noted) fudges and obscures motivation and plot and feels tediously long.

There are actually quite a few little things to like about Dee, and maybe there are a few big things too, but I feel like it’s making you work for them — you could enjoy the characters, or the political machinations, but only if you take time to study them slowly and work out what was going on for yourself, because the film’s in too much of a rush to explain it to you. There’s something to be said for entertainment not spelling everything out — it’s often a highly-praised element of anything that achieves it — but Dee doesn’t do that, it rushes headlong past things that could do with more clarity. (One thing I should do is listen to Bey Logan’s commentary — there’s a fair chance he’ll have insights that illuminate me. But in a moment you’ll see why I haven’t done that before posting this.)

Believe it or not, I didn’t hate Detective Dee… but I didn’t exactly enjoy it either. Not fully. I started this review by saying it and I think it’s my key feeling: after getting a little hyped up about something I’d previously ignored the UK release of, I found it to be disappointing. Your mileage may vary.

The UK TV premiere of Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame is on Film4 and Film4 HD tonight, Friday 6th July, at 11:10pm.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Monthly Archives: July 2012