Stepping Out (1991)

Posted on October 23, 2012 by badblokebob

Lewis Gilbert is the director of You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Alfie, Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine — eclectic is an understatement! Here he works more in line with the latter two, telling the tale of a small amateur dance glass, mostly populated by middle-aged women, trained by a former big-stage wannabe (Liza Minnelli), who are invited to perform at a large local dance revue.

Adapted from his own play by Richard Harris (not that one), it’s easy to imagine how this had theatrical origins: it’s all about performance and the stage, for one thing, and there’s a focus on character and dialogues that feels vaguely stage-derived. Which is in no way to say they’ve failed in translating it to the screen — if you didn’t know its roots, I don’t think you’d be tempted to guess. The action is expanded, with many scenes taking place outside of the group’s rehearsal room (where I believe the entirety of the play took place), and Lewis knows his way behind a camera, so we’re not stuck with stagey blocking.

Obviously the film has an overarching plot, but it’s not really where the focus lies; it’s more an occasionally-vague long-term goal, the preparations for which are spotlighted in a couple of rehearsal scenes. Though Minnelli is ostensibly the star and lead, many of the others are given a not-unfair chunk of screen time too. So with a moderately large cast and the throughline almost a subplot itself, the film occasionally feels like a collection of subplots bolted together. It’s a form that can work, and here it passes well enough.

The standout from the cast is probably Julie Walters, in a relatively early big-screen role. Considering how well-known she is now she seems quite lowly billed and little-featured, but bearing in mind this is a US production from the early ’90s, it’s less surprising. She’s very good (isn’t she always?) as the group’s newest member, a posh English lady who sticks her oar in and is a bit too blunt with her comments. I seem to remember her generating most of the laughs in this comedy-drama, although that’s not to disparage anyone else’s work.

Stepping Out is what some people would call a Woman’s Film, exactly as patronisingly as that sounds. It’s not entirely female — there’s a male member of the group (though one might argue he’s a little camp), and a git of a boyfriend — but, without meaning to come over as patronising myself, you can tell they were aiming for a female audience. Which doesn’t mean men can’t enjoy it, obviously.

For either gender, I think it remains a fairly lightweight but entertaining little tale. It’s not likely to illuminate you in any way, or make you roar with laughter, and it’s not even a shining light in the group-of-underdogs-who-think-they-can’t-prove-they-can sub-genre, but it’s a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours for those who like this kind of thing.

War Horse (2011)

Posted on October 20, 2012 by badblokebob

After decades telling tales from the Second World War, Spielberg moves back a conflict. That said, the BD’s special features make sure to point out this “is not his First World War movie” — it’s just a good tale about a boy and his horse.

Based on the children’s novel by Michael Morpurgo, plus the 2000 stage adaptation that inspired Spielberg to make the film, War Horse follows Joey, a thoroughbred born in 1910s Devon, and his loving owner, Alby. When their farm faces tough times, Alby’s father sells Joey to the army as the Great War starts, initiating a trot across Britain and France that takes in both sides of the conflict over the course of the war.

It might be best to define the film as an epic. It’s a relatively intimate one, focusing in on a handful of characters at a time rather than cutting back and forth between various groups, but the way it does move along several sets of characters, across varied locations, and through a lengthy stretch of time, all command a feeling of a grand story. The special features are right in that it’s not really the story of the war, but what it does show is something of the experience of living through that war, and of the humanity that was still present within it.

I imagine some would level accusations of implausibility, but stranger things have happened in the real world than much of what we witness here. Take a late-occurring scene of British-German co-operation in No Man’s Land, for instance — surely two sides at war would never work together! Well, this is the same war that saw the opposing sides play a football match on Christmas Day, remember? It can’t be denied that there’s factual inaccuracy here (the climax takes place at the Somme in the lead up to Armistice Day in 1918, but that battle was actually fought in 1916), or the occasional heavy dose of sentimentality (it’s directed by Spielberg and co-penned by Richard Curtis — what did you expect?), but I think it carries through these with a scale and heart that is, primarily, entertaining. It is based on a children’s novel and I think aims to be a family film (it should by rights be a PG; my twitter rant on that subject is here), but Morpurgo knows when to treat his audience with respect and at points it certainly doesn’t shy away from the harshnesses of the period.

Similarly, the way the horses are handled seems pretty much spot on. They’re not anthropomorphised, but they definitely develop characters and personality as we follow them throughout the film. Naturally most of the focus falls on the human characters, what with them being the ones who can talk and all that, but Joey is the only character we follow throughout the movie and we’re led to relate to him and his story in a believable way. And I say this as someone who’s not a horsey person. Spielberg reportedly found it tough working with real horses, struggling to get performances from them that matched what he’d seen on stage — unsurprisingly, as those were puppets controlled by well trained and rehearsed humans. Nevertheless, however they went about it (and it was with very minimal use of puppets or CGI), the “horse acting” is solid.

Aiding the sense of the epic is Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography, which is regularly stunning and definitely one of the film’s standout achievements. The beauty of some shots is immediately obvious — he lenses the countryside idyll of Dartmoor in a sweeping fashion, bathed in summer sunlight — but there are striking compositions to be found throughout, be they in close-ups, cavalry charges, horse auctions, battlefield hospitals… There’s often a lovely texture to things too, from the likes of drifting snow or chaff, or the way light streaks across a room. The final scene, fully tinted orange, calls to mind the likes of Gone With the Wind, I presume with full consciousness.

Less remarkable is John Williams’ score. It’s not bad per se, and has its moments, but other times it’s either forgettable or forced (some of the early comical bits are horribly overplayed with whimsical plinky-plonking). For all that, a memorable sequence you’ve surely seen in the trailers — when Joey runs over and through the trenches — is perfectly scored, recalling the action/adventure movie grandeur we all primarily remember Williams for.

As I marked my viewing of War Horse on various websites, it struck me how many negative comments there were. I thoroughly disagree. Not everything has to offer gritty realism, even when it’s dealing with horrendous times and events. Morpurgo, Spielberg and co have conjured a sweeping tale of friendship and humanity in the face of adversity; one that isn’t afraid to depict some of the nastier realities of the world, but in a way that makes them relatable for a younger audience. I think that’s important; but this isn’t a Worthy Film for that, it’s just something it does well. I think it also nails sensations of adventure and, yes, sentimentality.

I think it’s a bit of an epic, with all that connotes, and I love a bit of an epic.

War Horse is on Sky Movies Premiere twice daily until Thursday.

It placed 2nd on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Knight and Day (2010)

Posted on October 17, 2012 by badblokebob

2010 #16
James Mangold | 105 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

James Mangold is one of those filmmakers with a thoroughly eclectic CV, taking in crime thriller Cop Land, psych-ward drama Girl, Interrupted, fantasy rom-com Kate & Leopold, killer thriller Identity, Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, Western remake 3:10 to Yuma, and is currently calling the shots on superhero sequel/prequel The Wolverine. Here he does something different again: the comedic action movie; the ever-growing subgenre we seem to have seen a lot of lately, with films like Shoot ‘Em Up, The A-Team and RED.

That’s the kind of film Knight and Day was advertised as — spy-action-movie spoofery — and it should therefore come as no surprise that that’s the kind of film it is. There are no big surprises in the plot or characters, but because it’s a comedy it can push the action sequences in ways that are too silly for a regular Tom Cruise kinda film, and I think that also allows us to forgive the fairly standard plot. Plenty of reviews and online commenters have expressed disappointment with the film, perhaps expecting something else — sometimes it pays to listen to the advertising, eh?

As a quick note, I watched the theatrical version but there’s an extended one too (that’s what comes of taking something from Sky Movies instead of a rental Blu-ray). It offers a couple of extra character scenes for Cameron Diaz and a few more beats in the action scenes. Essential? I shouldn’t think so, but it looks like some fun stuff if you have the choice. The total difference is around seven minutes.

Knight and Day is nothing deep or revelatory or groundbreaking, but if you were expecting it to be then more fool you. If you can’t abide Cruise or Diaz (and I know some people really can’t) then it should certainly be avoided, but those caveats aside I thought it was good fun. No classic, and far from destined to be a standout on Mangold’s multi-Oscar-winning filmography, but an appropriately entertaining couple of hours.

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

Posted on October 12, 2012 by badblokebob

Gnomeo & Juliet is the latest British attempt to crack the lucrative CGI animated kids’ movie market, after the lack of success (or, alternatively, failure) from the likes of Flushed Away and that one about the carrier pigeon whose name escapes me (after a quick IMDBing, it’s Valiant). Finally, this one seems to have been more of a success… perhaps because it was backed by Elton John, released by Disney (under Touchstone), and helmed by the co-director of Shrek 2.

The obvious high-concept — Romeo and Juliet, with gnomes! — is the kind of thing that will tickle you or set you screaming with rage (or possibly just tutting with contempt). If the latter, your mileage will vary on how charming it is to win you over; if the former, “tickled” is about the level the film operates at. It pulls off a couple of nice jokes, mainly around the fact it stars garden gnomes, and it plays with your expectations towards the end, but it’s pretty forgettable — I know there were some bits that made me chuckle, but I can’t actually remember any of them now. It’s also stuffed with recognisable British voices, making it quite fun for anyone who (like me) likes to play Spot The Famous Voice.

My only other note is that it ends with a truly awful cover of Crocodile Rock by Nelly Furtado. A storyboarded “all’s well that ends well” ending (included on the BD, and the DVD for all I know) looks much better.

Gnomeo & Juliet is more amiable than its “oh, you didn’t” title might suggest, but that’s about all. Shakespeare certainly has nothing to worry about.

Unknown (2011)

Posted on October 4, 2012 by badblokebob

Following the surprise success of Taken, Liam Neeson again finds himself in action man mode as an American caught up in a Europe-set thriller. This time he’s some kind of scientist travelling to a conference with his wife, when he’s caught in a car accident. Managing to return to the hotel, he finds his wife doesn’t know him and there’s someone else who says they are him…

As premises go it’s an intriguing one; the kind of thing that gets you on board and you have no idea how they might satisfactorily resolve. That makes a change when most films, especially thriller and action movies, play out a string of interchangeable but familiar beats. In the film’s special features, producer Leonard Goldberg talks about how, having made thrillers his whole life, when he starts reading or watching them he can usually figure it all out early on, but the novel on which Unknown is based managed to surprise him. Thinking if it could surprise him it might surprise others too, he snapped up the rights, and I must say I think he was right. Additional kudos to the distributors for keeping any hint of those twists out of the marketing — a rare feat these days. (Well, if they were there, I didn’t pick up on them.)

That said, it’s all a bit implausible, but I suppose no worse than many other entries in the action-thriller genre. It’s only the fairly realistic setup that throws you off the scent — if you were aware of developments from the post-twist third act, and therefore the tone that pitches, the whole thing would be more acceptable from the outset. I’ve seen other reviews and viewer comments criticise this ending, but personally I thought that was when it got good, kicking into a higher gear and retrospectively making the iffy earlier bits make a lot more sense. Plus it’s where you’ll find some of what the film does best: Frank Langella turning up briefly for one great scene with YouTube’s Hitler (aka Bruno Ganz) and a cool exit; a really good car chase; and a couple of solid punch-ups, including a particularly good one at the climax.

This variability left me torn as to rating — and, more importantly, what that rating is used as a signifier for: an overall impression of the film. I was thinking 3 for most of it — a passable if occasionally plodding identity thriller with a mite too much coincidence and believability-stretching. But the impressively and pleasurably unforeseen twist casts the entire movie in a new light, and for the enjoyment that gave I’m tempted up towards a 4. In the end, maybe the answer lies in your view of how to judge a movie’s quality: is it how you felt towards it as it played out, or is it looking back at the totality of the experience afterwards? Both are valid approaches, and in the majority of films would probably result in the same opinion. But some films have a changes-everything-you’ve-seen twist, and by changing everything you’ve seen it might change your opinion; it would certainly change your experience on any subsequent viewings. Unknown certainly has one of those twists.

The other way, the way that makes all criticism an art rather than a science, is in how you feel. While I was unconvinced for much of the running time, the surprises turned Unknown into a flawed but enjoyable film that has appeal to any fan of a good thriller. That might merit an extra star; stick with it and you might even agree; but thinking back on it a while later, the earlier parts overshadow things. Maybe a second viewing would change my opinion, but for now it feels like 3.

The Negotiator (1998)

Posted on October 3, 2012 by badblokebob

As premises go, “hostage negotiator turns hostage taker” is a doozy. You can immediately imagine all the drama to be had from pitting The Best Negotiator In The World (because it’s a movie — it’s going to be the best one that goes rogue, isn’t it) against The Second Best Negotiator In The World — he’ll know all the techniques! He’ll… well, mainly the techniques one. But also his colleagues will be working against him — will they be on his side? Or against him? It practically writes itself.

Unsurprisingly, then, The Negotiator does largely trade on all of this stuff. And that’s no bad thing. It struggles a little to set up the idea that such a man would put himself in that position, but once over that hurdle (and, as getting over such hurdles go, it does a bang-up job) it rattles along at a solid thriller pace. Obviously there’s a plot about why Samuel L. Jackson’s Best Negotiator In The World has turned hostage taker — naturally, it’s to do with clearing his name — but that mystery is largely there to service the negotiator-on-negotatior action. The plot also delivers the prerequisite villainous-types-who-are-villains and villainous-types-who-are-actually-good and good-types-who-are-actually-villains pretty much on queue, but still does a good job of making the viewer second guess who’s on which side.

There’s also the thing of seeing how long a film can drag out a hostage situation. Surely not all the investigating can be done from within that one room? No, of course it can’t, and I imagine anyone well enough versed in this kind of thriller will know the structure well enough. For me, speaking structurally, Speed comes to mind: the main thing is the stuff on the bus, but before that it sets up the characters and gets them on the bus, and the third act goes off-bus for a climax. Similarly, The Negotiator‘s first act gives us a day-in-the-life case for maverick negotiator Jackson, before putting him in his predicament; it toddles along, extending the hostage situation part with some tense and/or exciting sequences; and then the third act sees our hero set off to find the proof he needs.

If I’m making The Negotiator sound like a set of stock thriller pieces and familiar tropes, I suppose that’s because it is. Most genre films are, aren’t they? Hence the name. It’s how those elements are leveraged in service of the particular high-concept that matters, and that’s all pulled off suitably well, aided by the acting talents of Jackson and, on the other end of the line, Kevin Spacey. I suppose such familiarity might rob the film of any crossover appeal, but for those who like this kind of movie, this is the kind of movie you’ll like.

September 2012

Posted on September 30, 2012 by badblokebob

We’re officially three-quarters of the way through 2012 now (scary, ain’t it?) and this month I pass the three-quarters mark. Indeed, I’ve reached 81, which is exactly where I was this time last year.

Other than that, it’s quite unremarkable. I watched eight films, which is the average needed per month to make 100. After last month’s features being entirely Saint and Falcon vehicles, this month not only had more variety but not a one is a ’40s RKO flick. Back on that train next month, perhaps.

Other than that, the only observable trend is perhaps films of note. And by “note” I mean “success”: a surprise-ish franchise hit from 2011, two of 2012’s biggest films (one of them amongst the very biggest of all time), and an enduring ’80s ‘classic’. Also, Fantastic Four.

September’s films

#74 Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
#75 The Hunger Games (2012)
#76 Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, aka The Other Woman (2009)
#77 Fantastic Four (2005)
#78 Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)
#79 Ip Man 2, aka Yip Man 2 (2010)
#80 RoboCop (1987)
#81 Unauthorized: The Harvey Weinstein Project (2011)

Next time on the all-new 100 Films in a Year monthly update…

The beginning of the home straight, you could say. But watching 100 films in a year is always a marathon not a sprint, and with 19 still to go form tells me it’s going to be another month or two — or three — before the titular goal is reached.

Less optimistic than some of my previous end-of-month “how I might do next time” declarations, but more realistic.

The Other Guys (2010)

Posted on September 30, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #26
Adam McKay | 103 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Other Guys sounded like a great concept; so great I overlooked the fact it’s from the director of the massively over-rated Anchorman (as well as Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, which I’ve avoided because they look at least as bad) and stars the similarly over-rated Will Ferrell and variable-but-often-bad Mark Wahlberg. Turns out I should’ve paid attention to form: The Other Guys is pretty rubbish.

I don’t really know that there’s much point criticising it, because if you like this kind of film I have no idea if this one is good or not (as noted, Anchorman is apparently the pinnacle of modern US film comedy and I didn’t enjoy it), and if you don’t then — as I said — this one doesn’t transcend that.

The only point I have to make is what a shame that is, because the concept’s a fun one. The Rock and Samuel L. Jackson play a pair of cops who are, essentially, action heroes: they have dramatic explosive car chases along the streets of NYC, catch all the bad guys, and so on and so forth. But this is about The Other Guys — the regular cops who have to go about their regular business around them. And when the action heroes are killed, a pair of those Other Guys have to step up to solve their last case.

Except that’s not quite how the film pans out. It doesn’t trade on the idea of the Amazing Cops vs the Regular Guys enough, and that’s where the humour lies for me. Everyone loves The Rock and Jackson; no one likes Ferrell and Wahlberg; and they’re not assigned the case, they stumble upon it. Wouldn’t it have been more fun if everyone actually hated The Big Damn Heroes who make it hard for the regular guys to do their job? If a pair of normal detectives were assigned The Big Case and had to prove themselves worthy? Maybe even put the Super Pair in the shade, rather than killing them off in the first act?

What we actually get is not entirely without merit. There are funny moments and occasions when it plays decently with the premise. It’s quite a chore to get through though, so it almost amazes me that there’s also a longer unrated version. More? Oh dear. It’s overlong as it is. One reason to stick with it is that the best bit is the end credits, which are loaded with fun-ly-presented facts about the financial crisis. On the one hand it’s all depressing and/or angering, on the other it’s good to inform people, and one suspects the regular audience for this kind of comedy are not the kind of people who stay abreast of financial news.

A disappointing waste of a concept, then, but I’m sure some people loved it.

Outland (1981)

Posted on September 24, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #3
Peter Hyams | 105 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK / English | 15 / R

I first encountered Outland in a similar context to a lot of people, I think, based on reviews and whatnot I’ve read; that is, as “High Noon in space”. For me it was in a module on Westerns during my Media Studies A-level, in the sense of “what defines a Western?” I subscribe to the notion that a Western has to take place in a certain time and place — because it’s in the name, isn’t it? — so something set in the future on a space station isn’t in the Western genre.

But, having said that, what if it then employs all of the genre’s tropes? With its desert-y settings, horses, stylised dialogue, and more, it’s hard to avoid the Western aspects of Firefly/Serenity; Outland, on the other hand, isn’t so overt. If you’d never seen High Noon, or if no one pointed out the thematic or storytelling similarities, there’s nothing here that would let you in on it (arguably) being a Western. So it’s interesting that it seems to dominate conversation about the film.

Otherwise, it has a lot of science-fiction-y things going for it too. Two years on from Alien, director Peter Hyams has adopted the same grungey, real-world, lived-in aesthetic for the mining outpost setting. It’s a style that doesn’t date (at least, not yet — witness Doctor Who using it multiple times in the past few years, for instance), which means that it doesn’t feel 30 years old. The plot, lifted from High Noon or not, is even more timeless: lone hero stands up to bad guys that no one else is brave enough to confront. It works as well in space as it does anywhere else.

Thing is, though it’s well-made and suitably engrossing, the primary unique thing about Outland is that it’s set in space but has so many plot-tropes of the Western. That’s why that dominates the conversation: in many respects, it’s the most interesting thing about the film. A shame though, because I think it could stand without it.

James Bond @ 100 Films

Posted on September 22, 2012 by badblokebob

With the Bond 50 Blu-ray box set out on Monday (and many people no doubt already receiving their copies — I’m still vainly hoping mine will turn up today), I thought now was as good a time as any to bring 100 Films’ previous Bond reviews over to the new blog. (The other “good time” would be in a couple of weeks when Skyfall reaches cinemas, but why wait? Besides, Bond 50 actually includes the films I’m reviewing below; I think it’s safe to say Skyfall doesn’t.)

I’m thinking about mounting a great big chronological Bond re-watch now that they’re all on BD. Though I’ve seen them all before and so none qualify for this blog, I may do some kind of retrospective anyway — I love Bond, and what’s a blog for if not sharing your passions?

Until then, here’s the five increasingly-lengthy Bond pieces I’ve written to date: