Unknown's avatar

About badblokebob

Aiming to watch at least 100 films in a year. Hence why I called my blog that. http://100films.co.uk

The Raid (2011)

aka Serbuan maut / The Raid: Redemption

2014 #58
Gareth Huw Evans | 101 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | Indonesia / Indonesian | 18*

The Raid“20 Elite Cops. 30 Floors of Hell.”

So proclaims The Raid’s marketing. Except most of those 20 cops are explicitly stated to be rookies, and the big bad baddie is on the 15th floor. This is indicative of the whole problem with The Raid a couple of years on from its release: it’s become a victim of its own hype.

The plot, such as it is, is well summarised in that tagline. A group of heavily-armed coppers stage a dawn raid on the high-rise HQ of a crime boss. A no-go locale for the past decade, this mission is a Brave and Daring thing. It all goes smoothly at first… until a lookout spots them, warns the (literal) higher-ups, and all hell rains down. Never mind completing their mission, will any of them get out alive? Cue lots of shooting, stabbing, punching, kicking, jumping… and not much else.

In this regard, perhaps the other film that The Raid is most like is Mamma Mia: a perfunctory plot that exists purely to link together the bits we’re really here for — Abba songs. Or “fights”, in The Raid’s case… though, let’s be honest, how much more original and interesting would it be if they were fighting to Abba songs? A lack of story isn’t necessarily a problem, however: much as some people basically wanted an excuse to sing along to a bunch of catchy pop tunes, some people just want to watch well-choreographed punch-ups. The only issue I have with the slight storyline is that the climax leans on it: Bloody henchmeninstead of ending with our hero duelling our villain, a fight with the top henchman is followed by a bit of plot clean-up between the villain and a supporting character. It’s the very definition of anti-climactic.

That aside, the film coasts along on its lengthy action sequences. They’re pretty good on the whole, if a little numbingly repetitive by the end. The style is largely of the punching-and-kicking variety — no parkour-esque leaping about here — but the speed is impressive, even if that means you sometimes can’t quite keep up. Still, at least you can see the people fighting — the direction and editing by Welshman (a whole other story, that) Gareth Evans isn’t based in the Hollywood school of extreme close-ups and super-fast cuts.

A lot has been made (by some) of that US comparison. It’s true that the fighting is leaps and bounds ahead of your standard American actioner, replete with done-for-real stunts, long takes of fast-paced choreography, and no ShakyCam close-ups or single-frame editing designed to create the illusion of someone who can fight for real — these guys can fight for real. But it’s ultimately an unfair comparison, because Asian movies do action differently to Western movies. Put The Raid with its true brethren and, while it doesn’t come up short, it’s not quite as impressive. Leading man Iko Uwais and his fellow duellers are undoubtedly very skilled, but there were no “wow!” moments like I’ve had from the best of Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen, Jet Li, Tony Jaa, or others. The sequences offered here mean The Raid can sit comfortably in their company, but does it outclass them in a way that merits it being a break-out hit? No.

Tis but a scratchAnother way it’s pleasingly unlike its current American counterparts is the lack of focus on gore. There are plenty of stabbings (of a blood-stain-on-shirt variety), and a couple of sliced necks, but none are lingered on. Things like a hammer beating or repeated machete strikes take place either just off screen or just after we cut away. It’s unquestionably a violent film, but it doesn’t revel in the gory aftermath of that violence in the way many US films increasingly seem to.

While we may not have to endure ShakyCam in the fights, an awful lot of it is still shot handheld — the sea-sickness-inducing close-ups we’re so familiar with from a decade-and-a-half of 24-inspired quick-to-shoot photography are certainly present. Indeed, all of the cinematography is ugly. Maybe someone massively over-compressed it for the BD, but I suspect it may be due to low-budget digitally-shot roots. The image is distractingly laced with banding, weird bursts of colour… And even ignoring such technical issues, the palate is unrelentingly brown. Whole frames are just slightly varied shades of dark murky brown, perhaps with a splash of grey, and maybe some blue streaks where one technical element or another has gone awry.

You’re likely aware of the fuss that was kicked up when the trailer for sci-fi comic book actioner Dredd was released a couple of years ago, and a lot of people said it looked like a Raid rip-off. Such comparisons are largely superficial: the similarities are more pronounced in trailers than in how the full films feel. Comparing the finished results, however, I found Dredd to be more entertaining. It can’t boast the realism of The Raid, both in the level of bloody gore and in the way the action was achieved, with highly trained professionals and thorough choreography; but the 2000 AD adaptation still features effective, exciting action sequences delivered on its own terms, and alongside those offers greater doses of story, character and humour, He kneed'ed thatto make for a much more rounded experience. The fights in The Raid may have blown the minds of people who haven’t seen enough Asian action flicks, but I’d argue Dredd is the better film as a whole. And if you still insist on accusing one of plagiarising the other… well, let’s put it this way: Dredd had finished shooting, and its screenplay had leaked online, before The Raid even entered production.

Sadly, by this point, The Raid doesn’t really live up to the hype — probably because it’s been laid on so thick. The fights are impressive, but not the most incredible ever, unless your action diet is purely American. Plus, those looking for a solid story with the odd punch-up need not apply: what plot there is — and it’s a thin one — exists to service some action, which will drag on and on (and on) if that’s not your thing. For genre aficionados, however, it does still merit your time.

4 out of 5

The UK TV premiere of The Raid is tonight at 10:55pm on Film4.

* The international release was cut by 10 seconds for violence, thanks to two short MPAA-mandated excisions to gain an R certificate. The uncut, US-unrated version is available on Blu-ray, and is the one I watched. ^

Journey into Fear (1943)

2014 #51
Norman Foster | 68 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

Journey into FearRemembered largely thanks to the involvement of Orson Welles (he has a supporting role, produced it, co-wrote it, and reportedly directed a fair bit too, though he denied that), Journey into Fear is an adequate if unsuspenseful World War 2 espionage thriller, redeemed by a strikingly-shot climax. The latter — a rain-drenched shoot-out between opponents edging their way around the outside of a hotel’s upper storey — was surely conducted by Welles; so too several striking compositions earlier in the movie.

Sadly there’s little else to commend the film, which takes a leisurely approach to its hero’s escape from Istanbul by a boat aboard which, unbeknownst to him until it’s too late, are assassins. Sounds tense and exciting? It isn’t; or, at least, nothing like as much as it could be. It doesn’t help that it was buggered about with by the studio, leaving subplots alluded to but deleted — the original version reportedly ran 91 minutes, a fair chunk longer than what we’re left with. (There’s also a version with opening and closing voiceovers and a pre-titles sequence, Fearful outfitall added by Welles after the studio had their way, which seems to be the one US viewers know. The version without those seems to be the only one shown on UK TV, however.)

On the bright side, it has a brisk running time, and as 70-minute ’40s thrillers go it’s at the upper end of their quality. And in spite of the mere adequacy of the rest, that climax honestly makes it a recommendable watch.

3 out of 5

* Having rated it U in 1986 and 1998, come 2010 the BBFC decided it needed to be a PG. ^

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

2014 #56
Michael Bay | 154 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Transformers: Dark of the MoonIn an era where sequels seem to improve on their predecessors more often than not — building on established characters and mythology for a deeper experience, rather than rehashing the same plot/jokes/action sequences for a second-go-round money-grab — this Michael Bay-helmed series based on ’80s action figures is a throwback to… well, the ’80s. It’s almost appropriate.

This is the third Bay-guided Transformers flick (I liked the first, was generous to the second), and it starts off well, with a virtuoso eight-minute pre-credits sequence that reconfigures the past 50 years of Earth’s spacefaring in the story’s image. OK, so it contains a seriously ill-advised, incredibly poorly-realised CGI JFK, but we can let some things go. Unfortunately, from here on out the movie does its best to pile on stuff we can’t let go.

It’s difficult to know where to begin on Dark of the Moon’s flaws, because it throws them up so unrelentingly. The storytelling is appalling — it meanders through interminable tonally-suspect ‘comedy’ bits, but then skips over plot points so thoroughly it’s like somebody forgot to shoot some scenes, or possibly reconfigured the entire plot in the edit. Often it feels like watching a not-final cut, full of scenes and moments you’d normally find in the DVD’s deleted scenes section and think, “yes, quite right they cut that”. One of Bay’s (and his fans’) mantras is that these films are just about entertainment, not “winning Oscars or like whatevs”, so maybe he genuinely couldn’t give two hoots about plot? Storytelling is boring and to be brushed past in a race to the next “funny” bit or big fight, maybe?

Boring peopleThere are impressive visuals, it’s true, but that’s all they are: dramatic pictures. The characters, their motivations and actions that lead to these visuals often make no sense. And to say they “lead” there at all is generous, because just as often things begin to happen for no apparent reason. I swear no one’s thought any of it through — like the moment when the big honourable hero is offered a truce by the villain and, instead of accepting it, immediately executes him. Stay classy, Optimus Prime.

If this was a direct-to-DVD or Syfy Channel cheapy, everyone would rip it to shreds. But because it’s slickly shot with bank-breaking CGI, rather than on video with computer game rejects, some people still buy into the badly-told plot that doesn’t make a lick of sense, the poorly-constructed action sequences that are impossible to follow, let the weak acting and ludicrous tonal variety slide… One character even has the temerity to utter the line — and I quote accurately — “does it suck or what? I mean it’s like a bad sci-fi film.”

Yes, it does suck, but it’s not “like” a bad sci-fi film — it is a bad… well, sod the “sci-fi” bit: it’s a bad film. For a movie made by experienced filmmakers, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is shockingly inept.

2 out of 5

The fourth film in the series, Transformers: Age of Extinction, is released in UK cinemas tomorrow (yes, on a Saturday).

Transformers: Dark of the Moon featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2014, which can be read in full here. However, when I rewatched it in 2017 I had

June 2014 + 5 Most Acclaimed Silent Movies

We’re halfway through the year, so let’s celebrate — with my biggest June ever!

First things first:


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

Continuing just as it should, I watched one more WDYMYHS film this month. As is often the case, it was the last film of the month… but for once it wasn’t squeezed in right at the end, I just didn’t watch anything else after it.

This movie is both the oldest and shortest on this year’s list. It sees Charlie Chaplin direct Charlie Chaplin from a Charlie Chaplin script. It is… Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times. To put in the context of the two other Chaplins I’ve seen, I liked it more than City Lights, but not as much as The Great Dictator.

So the year is half passed and I’ve watched half my list. Hurrah! Still no Raging Bull from last year’s 12, though.


June’s films in full

The Secret of Kells#45 Ghost Rider (2007)
#46 The Tournament (2009)
#47 The Secret of Kells (2009)
#48 Night of the Big Heat (1967)
Sightseers#49 Elysium (2013)
#50 Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow (2008)
#51 Journey into Fear (1941)
#52 Sightseers (2012)
#53 Patriot Games (1992)
#54 The Conspirator (2010)
#55 Modern Times (1936)


Halfway Analysis

As we reach the year’s halfway point (did I mention that?), 2014 almost looks like a year conceived by committee to be perfectly average. I’m not the furthest I’ve ever been (look to 2007’s 59, 2010’s 64, 2011’s 67, or last year’s 58 for that), nor the lowest (look to 2008’s 45, 2009’s 38, or 2012’s 51 for those). But average those totals out and you get 54.6 films reached by the halfway mark… or to round it up, 55 films — which, in case you hadn’t noticed, is exactly where I am.

That’s in part thanks to this being my largest-ever June (I definitely mentioned that). Eleven films isn’t that huge in the grand scheme of things (it’s not even the highest this year), but it’s an above-average number (the necessary monthly average being 8 (or, to be precise, 8.3)) and that’s always a good thing. If I can keep up my year-to-date pace for the rest of 2014, I’ll reach 110 (tricky maths, working that out), which would be equal to last year and — more importantly — be over target. To really be clever, if I kept up the pace set over my last four months, I’d end up pushing into the 120s… but let’s not get ahead of myself.


5 Most Acclaimed Silent Movies (That I’ve Not Seen)

As this month’s WDYMYHS film is Modern Times, arguably the last silent movie made during the era itself (i.e. ignoring tributes like The Call of Cthulhu and The Artist), I thought now would be a grand time to take a look at the five most revered silent movies that I’ve still not seen. A highly personal list then (predicated as it is on what I’ve already seen rather than a general opinion of all films), but it’s what I wanted to see, so there.

Where did I fetch this list from? Well, it seemed only right to use the same methodology behind this year’s WDYMYHS (as it was one of those films that inspired the list) — but I did tweak it slightly: unsurprisingly, the iCheckMovies Most Checked and All-Time Box Office lists include no silents*, so in their stead I’ve factored in The Top 300 Silent Era Films.

And so, according to that formula, the silent films I haven’t seen but really should have are…

  1. The GeneralThe General
    I’ve never seen a Buster Keaton movie, but the world reckons this is the one to go for — indeed, the Top 300 Silent Era Films ranks it the #1 silent film full stop. TSPDT and IMDb put it 36th and 132nd, respectively, out of all films ever, which isn’t too shabby. I actually recently got this on DVD (along with an array of his other works), so perhaps it’s time to make the effort…
  2. The Gold RushThe Gold Rush
    This Charlie Chaplin effort is the only film to appear on all four factored lists, albeit outside the top 250 on Empire’s (#342). TSPDT still put it in the top 100 though, placing it 63rd, while on IMDb it’s only just behind The General at #134. In the Top 300 Silents it’s in sixth place, making it the second-best I’ve not seen there too.
  3. The Passion of Joan of ArcThe Passion of Joan of Arc
    Many would rate this among the greatest films ever made… but not users of IMDb or readers of Empire, it would seem. The Top 300 Silents continue to dictate the order here: it’s seventh on their list, making it third for me. It’s only other placing, then, is TSPDT, where it’s right up at 15th. The 2012 Sight & Sound poll went even further, ranking it the 9th greatest film ever.
  4. IntoleranceIntolerance
    TSPDT rank D.W. Griffiths’ epic Birth of a Nation apology as the 88th greatest film ever, and it’s that high opinion that ends the Top 300 Silents’ dictating of this list: they rank it 16th, below six as-yet-unmentioned silents I’ve not seen — including Birth of a Nation, in fact. No room for either at IMDb or Empire, though. (For what it’s worth, TSPDT put Birth at #230.)
  5. Greed
    GreedEmpire readers considered this the 399th best film ever. TSPDT treated it more kindly, slipping into the top 100 at #94; the Top 300 Silents rank it among their top ten, however, at #10. The original (now lost) cut ran eight hours; the version released was merely two. In 1999 a four-hour version was created using stills from the deleted scenes, which seems to be the only one readily available, though I’ve heard the shorter cut is superior.

Just bubbling under were The Kid, Sherlock Jr., Napoleon, Un chien andalou, Der letzte Mann… I could go on — you have to go quite far before you reach a film I’ve not at least heard of.

* For what it’s worth, the IMDb Top 250 only threw up three silents I’d not seen (The General, The Gold Rush, The Kid), and the Empire 500 only included one in its top 250 (Pandora’s Box), though there were four more further down (The Gold Rush, Greed, Napoleon, Un chien andalou). The bulk of this list is therefore dictated by TSPDT (15 silents in their top 250, in addition to whatever I’d already seen), sifted slightly by their Top 300 Silents ranking. ^


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

It’s the summer! Though don’t tell the cinemas — they seem to think it’s been summer for about three months already.

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976/1978)

aka The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (Short Version)

2013 #61
John Cassavetes | 108 mins | Blu-ray | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

The Killing of a Chinese BookieEver since I read the blurb for Masters of Cinema’s DVD of Maurice Pialat’s Police, I’ve been casually enticed by The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Said blurb asserts that “Police is a genre-defying excursion rivaled only by John Cassavetes’ The Killing of a Chinese Bookie in the pantheon of cinema’s most idiosyncratic thrillers”, which is both a nice turn of phrase and an intriguing one. The thriller is very much a Genre — that is to say, it’s a label loaded with rules and expectations, and to be idiosyncratic within such a form is an interesting notion. Both “thriller” and “idiosyncratic” are pretty accurate labels for Chinese Bookie, though, even in its re-cut (by the director) ‘short version’.

The plot sees strip club owner Cosmo Vittelli (Ben Gazzara) lured in to killing the titular bookie as payment for his gambling debts to some gangsters. The title kind of gives away whether he does it or not (though an ever-doubtful Cassavetes reportedly considered having him not go through with it), but nonetheless the film doesn’t lack the genre’s requisite tension and suspense. However, it’s more of a character study. How aware is Cosmo of the mess he’s getting himself in to, and how far is he prepared to go? What drives the man? There are no easy answers, unsurprisingly, but that doesn’t make the questions unworthy of consideration.

According to the notes accompanying the BFI’s Blu-ray release, the ‘short version’ — which Cassavetes created after his original cut was “almost universally panned [and] yanked from the theatres within days” — not only makes the film shorter, but also more focused, clarifying various plot points. The style of much independent ’70s cinema — Good timesnaturalistic to the point of being almost documentarian, with half-caught snatches of dialogue and sequences that seem trimmed to (almost) the relevant moments from much longer filming — still begs that you pay attention, but it seems this cut gives you more of a hand: it gets to the killing quicker (“63 vs 82 minutes”), a meeting with gangsters is “longer, more coherent and explicit”, and so on.

Perhaps the biggest change is early on: the short version implies Cosmo takes his girls out to celebrate (then gets into debt); the original cut implies he’s been invited to the gambling den so he can be set up. That’s quite a shift in emphasis, turning the lead character from a picked-on ‘mark’ in the long version to a sort-of-coincidental brought-about-his-own-downfall type in the re-edit. In his 1980 review (included in the BFI booklet), John Pym asserts that Cosmo is “clearly” a patsy, a fact obscured in the short cut by the removal of that scene where he’s invited to gamble. Is he an easily-lulled patsy, then, as the gangsters think? Or is it more as I interpreted: here’s a man who acts the fool, who pretends to be easily tricked, in order to keep people happy; but who is actually much more competent and aware of what’s going on? Look at his speech near the end about being what others want. This is a man determined to keep others happy and thinking well of him; not in a superficial way, but as some fundamental character trait. Is that how he gets lured into the killing, then — purely because they asked nicely? But then later, when he escapes and gets some kind of revenge or freedom… well, that’s not so friendly. Is he finally doing something for himself? Or was he selfish all along — not much of a leap, especially considering the world he operates in.

WorriesThe Killing of a Chinese Bookie is not a neat little thriller in any respect. As Tom Charity puts it (in the BFI booklet again), “if the scenario sounds generic, the film is something else”. It reminded me of Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets, a film I didn’t particularly like (but which did inspire Cassavetes), but I had more time for this. Perhaps that’s just me ageing (it’s the best part of seven years since I saw Mean Streets) and becoming more attuned to this kind of movie; the kind that uses “hesitations, repetitions, and longueurs as tools of disruption and misdirection”, by a director so “mistrustful of anything that smacked of tidy resolution, he regularly turned his movies around in the editing to more ambiguous and purposefully aggravating effect.”

That’s the kind of movie Chinese Bookie is: ambiguous, purposefully aggravating, without a tidy resolution. It requires the audience to work a bit. Is it worth the effort? You know, I’m never quite sure (see Bicycle Thieves for another example), and whether I appreciate it or not probably depends as much on the mood a particular film catches me in as much as its inherent quality (see also Rage). This one, while as awkward as any, engaged me just enough.

4 out of 5

Wallander: The Troubled Man (2013)

aka Mankell’s Wallander: Den orolige mannen

2014 #41
Agneta Fagerström Olsson | 98 mins | download (HD) | 16:9 | Sweden / Swedish & English | 15

Wallander: The Troubled ManKrister Henriksson returns as the Swedish detective for a third and final series of mysteries, starting with this final theatrically-released episode, based on the final Wallander novel. Yes, there is a sense of finality here — albeit one not reached just yet.

The central mystery revolves around a foreign submarine being discovered in Swedish waters back in the ’80s — inspired by real events that caused a national scandal, something which (if I remember rightly) was also an element in the plot of The Girl Who Played With Fire. Thirty years on, the body of a diver who disappeared during that event is discovered, kicking off a whole political brouhaha. Wallander’s son-in-law’s father was a high-ranking official at the time, and when he disappears, Wallander gets unofficially roped in to investigate.

Alongside this runs a more personal story for our hero: he’s free to go off on this personal inquiry because he’s been suspended from the police after leaving his gun in a cafe while drunk. It’s moderately clear to the viewer, however, that Wallander wasn’t drunk, but that he’s perhaps getting forgetful more generally… A major part of the first couple of British Wallander series was Kurt’s father’s battle with dementia, something which I don’t think has been touched on in this Swedish series, but that knowledge makes it all the more clear where this is headed.

Family timeIt’s here that Henriksson gets to show off his acting chops the most. At a dinner party with his family, Wallander largely sits quietly with a drink rather than interact with others, occasionally staring aimlessly into the distance, or only remotely engaging with what the others are doing. He witters about a painting of a goat. Later, he has a disproportionately angry response when his friend brings news that he’s been suspended. He dotes on his granddaughter, but one day loses her and her buggy when he pops into a shop — but finds her quickly enough that no one will be any the wiser. Little signs like this are scattered around, clueing us in to where Wallander will presumably end up: retired from the force, and possibly retired from his life. Whether Mankell brought the issues to a head in his novel or not, I don’t know, but here I can only imagine it will build throughout the series.

As a fan of the character, it can be a little difficult to watch at times, I suppose similar to the way I imagine it must feel to watch a loved one begin to struggle so (not that I mean to equate the life of a fictional character to real-life suffering, but you know what I mean). That’s really another credit to Henriksson, for making a character we identify with who is now in trouble. He’s never been a maverick or a whizz kid or any of those flashy things that make some characters obviously identifiable as The Hero that we’re supposed to love, but his steadfastness created a character many admire and are attached to, and it’s disquieting to see that begin to slip away.

Who is the troubled man?The one thing that really cuts through Kurt’s newfound confusedness is when he gets a nose for a case. Quietly, by himself, he sets about digging in to what’s going on, unearthing evidence that’s been missed by others, piecing it together to complete a picture of long-kept secrets and new crimes committed in the name of keeping them. It resolves into a complex conspiracy, one that touches the lives of altogether innocent people. Is there justice at the end of it? Of a sort, but how satisfying that justice is… well…

Incidentally, this story is on the slate to be filmed as part of Branagh’s final series of Wallander tales, whenever he gets round to it. He’s said in interviews that he feels it requires two full 90-minute episodes to tell, which is interesting because here it’s completed in just one — and not one that feels rushed. Quite the opposite, if anything: this has all the slow pace of gradually unfurled storytelling that you’d expect from European Drama. Perhaps there’s some personal stuff that’s been bumped to the rest of this series; perhaps subplots were ditched. I’d like to have seen more of the female detective Wallander encounters in Stockholm, Ytterberg, who seemed like a great character given too little to do — perhaps she has a bigger role? We’ll find out, eventually. (Or I could just read the book now, of course.)Goodbye Kurt

The Troubled Man is not the greatest of Wallander tales, in the end, and as the opening act of a final movement it lacks conclusions that will, one can only assume, ultimately come in a few episodes’ time. But, like our titular hero, even when not at his best, he’s still a force to be reckoned with.

4 out of 5

The last-ever episode of Wallander, The Sad Bird, is on BBC Four tonight at 9pm.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

2013 #38
Sergio Leone | 220 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | Italy & USA / English | 18 / R

Once Upon a Time in AmericaPart of Leone’s intended trilogy about the history of violence in the USA, Once Upon a Time in America is the life story of four friends and gangsters in Noo Yoik during a large chunk of the 20th Century. So it’s a gangster film focusing on violence, then? Well, no… not at all, really. Indeed, saying Once Upon a Time in America is a film about gangsters is a bit like saying Die Hard is a documentary on police procedure during a hostage crisis — sure, there’s something of that in there, but if you’re focused on it then you’re missing the point.

I refer to “the point” as if, a) I’m some kind of expert about to expound on it, or b) there is a singular ‘point’ to this three-and-a-three-quarter-hour epic. Neither is true. In fact, I’ve perhaps never felt less qualified to discuss a film in depth. Thing is, it’s a difficult film to digest in one viewing, because there’s so much there. It’s not just the length (Titanic is pretty straightforward through its three-and-a-bit hours; even something superior like Apocalypse Now Redux I ‘got’ first time), though that is a factor: over such a long time, it’s packed with incident, and shaped in a non-traditional — or non-common (uncommon, you might say) — narrative structure. A first viewing is an exercise in following what’s going on, what connects to what else, why things are happening in such an order. It fairly begs, “get a handle on it this time, you can analyse it when you watch it again”.

And analysing it may, I think, be a requirement, because this isn’t a film of straightforwardness or easy answers. For one, it asks much of the viewer in our interpretation of the characters: this is a film where our (supposed?) heroes do truly despicable things, and not in aid of a “they’re actually the villain” twist either. Is Leone exposing us to reality — that not all those who do horrible things are horrible people? Or is he just a misogynist? Or a lover of violence? It’s something grander critics than I have battled with for decades.

Boyz...Leaving aside the less savoury aspects (as, it seems, many have to), a lot of the discussion when it comes to a Leone film is always of his fantastic visual and storytelling style. That’s not unmerited, and while it’s not as overt here as in his Westerns, it is present. But he was a filmmaker with an awful lot of substance too — perhaps a daunting amount. What he created here is an Epic in the truest sense of the word, but in addition to that, it’s a peculiarly intimate one. It has an epic’s length and a decades-long sweep, at times exposing and commenting on facets of entire eras that it traverses; but it’s really ‘just’ the story of a small group of friends, their successes and their failures, their triumphs and their tragedies — probably with the emphasis on the latter — over a more extended period of their lives than most movies are prepared to tackle. That probably doesn’t make it unique (someone else must have attempted such a feat, surely), but it does make it rare; and when something rare is created with such undoubtable skill and achievement, it certainly merits deeper consideration — over an equally long period of time, I suspect, as the ghost of 82 notes in his summation.

My relationship with Leone’s oeuvre is, on reflection, a vexed one. While I liked A Fistful of Dollars and was instantly beguiled by For a Few Dollars More (both fairly straightforward action Westerns, or at least digestible in that way), it took me two or three viewings to appreciate Once Upon a Time in the West (now it would contend for a place among my favourite films), and I wasn’t congruent with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly — to a point where, about a decade on, I still haven’t found time to revisit it and try to see what all the fuss is about....2 Men Once Upon a Time in America falls somewhere between these two stools. It’s a film that is, I think, easy to instantly admire — if not wholly, then for its majority; but also one I found difficult to process a full personal reaction to. With the recently-extended version set to arrive on DVD/Blu-ray/download later this year (in the US, at any rate), an ultra-convenient chance for a second evaluation looms.

4 out of 5

Once Upon a Time in America was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 12 for 2013 project, which you can read more about here.

Elysium (2013)

2014 #49
Neill Blomkamp | 105 mins | streaming (HD) | 2.35:1 | USA / English, Spanish, French & Afrikaans | 15 / R

ElysiumThe year is 2154 (the same year as Avatar, apparently. No idea if that’s meant to signify anything). The wealthy have left Earth to live in a giant space station of luxury called Elysium, rendering Earth (or, at least, Los Angeles) one gigantic ethnic slum. It’s in the latter we meet Max (Matt Damon), an ex-con who winds up in a factory accident that leaves him with just five days to live — unless he can get to Elysium, where their Magical Medical Machines could heal him in minutes. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the cash to buy transport from his criminal connections; and even if he did, the station’s over-zealous security chief (Jodie Foster) has a habit of blowing up approaching illegal immigrants. Fortunately, there may be a more revolutionary option…

That said, this isn’t a film about a principled revolution, something it seems a few viewers have unfairly judged it for because that’s what they expected or wanted. It is an issue-driven film (to an extent), but rather than present a mass revolt motivated by the desire to Change Things, it follows the effects brought about when people — even one man — are pushed to extremes just to survive. Whether the world this occurs in is a wholly plausible SF future is debatable, but I’m not sure that’s the point. Elysium is a parable; one related to current hot-button topics (in the US especially) like immigration and access to healthcare for the poor. I’m sure some would therefore characterise it as Left Wing, for good or ill, but I think its underlying message is more fundamental than that: it’s just humanitarian.

Cool future tech #1Unfortunately, it seems writer-director Neill Blomkamp (of the acclaimed District 9) got distracted by his Point and slipped up in other areas. There are various bits and pieces of the plot that don’t quite hang together — so many quibbles, in fact, that I’m not even going to attempt to go into them. Some are hand-wavable under the “it’s a parable” excuse, others just seem sloppy; how much they impact your enjoyment will vary.

Characters get short shrift too. Every one is more sketched than drawn, which is problematic for the leads: Damon is left with little to do other than fight things and try to inject pathos in to what scraps of personality are there. It’s the same for sort-of love interest Alice Braga, who alternates between looking concerned and looking caring. An early tease of a romantic subplot all but evaporates: Damon persuades her to meet him for coffee at eight, but then he doesn’t seem to turn up and neither of them mention it again. You what?

Supporting characters are commonly less detailed anyhow, so at least the remaining cast are not so poorly served. Sharlto Copley is in a deliciously scowling-panto-villain mode as the primary physical antagonist, almost seeming to be from a different movie because he’s having such fun. Diego Luna and, in particular, Wagner Moura offer able support on the side of our hero, even if it is sometimes a bit “white person with person-of-colour sidekicks”. Goodness only knows what Jodie Foster is doing, though. White person with person-of-colour sidekicksIt sounds and looks like she’s struggling with a bizarre accent, while always being American. A similar problem seems to afflict William Fichtner to a lesser extent, so perhaps it’s some incomprehensible deliberate decision to differentiate the wealthy from the normal folk? I’ve read one report that Foster’s entire performance had to be dubbed, which might be a better explanation.

Ultimately, there’s little that can undermine its social point (even if the solution here is perhaps not as splendiferous as it first appears), but if you’ve decided to not be cognisant of that in favour of The Plot, they might grate more. Conversely, if you want to watch people in cool future spaceships wearing cool future armour shoot at each other with cool future guns, not much is going to trouble you. There’s a fair degree of that, because Blomkamp has (wisely?) slipped in his moral points under the aegis of an action movie. In that regard it’s fine — there’s nothing exceptionally memorable, and there’s some borderline-distracting hoop-jumping to keep threats both coming and suitably dangerous, but it’s efficient enough.

Scowling panto villainThere’s also something viscerally pleasurable about seeing a decently-budgeted R-rated effects movie these days. You’d think that classification would keep the budget down, but it reportedly cost over $100 million — and it looks it, with epic must-be-CGI situations that are faultlessly rendered. I suppose when the biggest PG-13 blockbusters are seeing their costs spiral towards triple that, a budget that only nudges into nine figures doesn’t look so bad. Hopefully that’s good news for those of us who would like to see more grown-up (whether that be intellectually or violently) effects-requiring movies.

In fact, the film’s strongest element all-round is almost certainly its production design. Some of it is of the “nothing new” variety (the robot police, the ‘ship designs, the see-through future computers — all good work, but broadly familiar), but then you have pieces like the mission control-style command room of Elysium’s security services: large, multi-level, glossily black, but with vine-like plants crawling up the surfaces. It’s a bit different; it works. Everything is crafted or augmented with that flawless CG work, providing a drip-feed of enjoyable or intriguing sights.

Cool future tech #2Blomkamp is a writer-director clearly committed to doing bold work in a film genre that is increasingly about spectacle over story, action over allegory, popcorn-selling over point. Elysium may not be the fully-realised vision he was likely hoping for, and more work on the screenplay would clearly have been a benefit, but top marks to the man for trying to do something worthwhile. Surely he remains one to watch.

4 out of 5

Elysium is new to Sky Movies this week, starting today on Premiere at 4pm and 8pm. It’s also on Now TV, of course.

Ghost Rider (2007)

2014 #45
Mark Steven Johnson | 101 mins | TV | 1.78:1 | USA & Australia / English | 12* / PG-13

Ghost RiderNicolas Cage fulfils his long-held wish of playing a comic book hero in this peculiar effort from the writer-director of Daredevil.

The MacGuffin storyline feels ripped from Constantine, but here executed via a screenplay written in Dairylea on a block of Stilton, shot on Camembert film with Cheddar cameras. Add a villain who looks like a Twilight reject, cheap CGI, DOA humour, and the bizarre centralising of disposable subplot-level romantic antics, and you get a result that’s not repugnant, but just a bit odd. A few surprisingly inspired moments, plus the farcicality of its blatant cheesiness, rescue it from vapidity.

2 out of 5

Ghost Rider featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2014, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

* The UK theatrical release was passed at 12A with cuts to “Johnny’s face disintegrating into the Ghost Rider during his initial transformation”. The DVD is uncut but a 15. No idea which version gets shown on TV. ^

The Punisher (2004)

2014 #32
Jonathan Hensleigh | 118 mins | DVD | 2.35:1 | USA & Germany / English | 18 / R

The PunisherAdapted from a Marvel comic, though you can’t really call this a superhero movie: undercover cop Frank Castle’s family are murdered, so he goes after the crime organisation responsible. This is action-thriller territory, not guys in tights fighting.

Smushing R-rated violence against silly housemate humour, writer-director Hensleigh’s film is either a refreshing change of pace or tonally awkward. I’d argue it’s mainly the latter with a smattering of the former. If you can accept that, it’s solidly entertaining.

This is the second of three live-action Punishers, all unconnected. Now the rights are back with Marvel, how long before another reboot?

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.