February 2014 + something to do with the Oscars

Posted on March 1, 2014 by badblokebob

As one-sixth of the year passes, things are not going as planned…

What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

Well, some things are — those things being WDYMYHS. Though only just, in the dying minutes of the month — just like the good ol’ days of 2013, then.

February’s choice is a film I’ve been meaning to watch for years, and the desire to get it included in this year’s 12 films was one of the guiding principles behind the selection criteria. It is, simply, Up. Which was also an Oscar winner and Best Picture nominee, making it highly appropriate right now.

Elsewhere, however, things were less rosy…

February’s films in full

#8 Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
#9 The Next Three Days (2010)
#10 Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971)
#11 The House of Fear (1945)
#12 Up (2009)

Analysis

With only five films watched, this is the worst February since before Up was released. It’s less than half what I managed last year, and that was down slightly on the three years preceding it too. Not only that, but it’s a full three films off the amount I should watch in any given month; add that to the single film shortfall of January and I’m a full four films behind — which, at this stage, amounts to a quarter of my intended viewing. Oh dear.

On the bright side… um…

Yeah. Must try harder.

With this year’s Oscars tomorrow, I thought I’d see how my WDYMYHS films for 2014 fared at that esteemed event. Turns out, only seven of them were even nominated — so this week’s top 5 is a top… well, 6. You’ll see why.

5 7 6 (kinda) WDYMYHS Films With Oscar Nominations

Braveheart
With five wins from ten nominations, Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is the most successful film here both in terms of “number of wins” and “percentage of nominations to wins”. Perhaps that’s apt, with the forthcoming Scottish referendum frequently dominating the news at the moment; perhaps it just says something about the level of film appreciation the Academy work at.

Up
Pixar were once known for releasing a critically-acclaimed non-sequel every year. Up will be five years old soon, but it’s their last non-sequel to score over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes (and the same but with “over 70%” on Metacritic). It also bagged five Oscar nominations, including a Best Picture consideration, taking home gongs for Animated Feature and Original Song.

Amélie
Although it scored a total of five nominations across the board, with particularly notable categories like Original Screenplay and Cinematography among them, this French film didn’t even manage to win the Best Foreign Feature award. That honour instead went to Bosnian war drama No Man’s Land. No, I don’t remember it either.

Rear Window
Hitchcock infamously never won an Oscar. I don’t know how his films fared generally speaking, but Rear Window certainly didn’t nab any. It did get four nominations though, including a Best Director nod for Hitch. He lost to Elia Kazan, whose On the Waterfront dominated that year (though three different pictures bested Rear Window in its other three categories).

12 Angry Men
There were three nominations for this jury room thriller from director Sidney Lumet — a Best Director consideration among them. He lost that to David Lean for The Bridge on the River Kwai, which similarly triumphed over the Angry Men in the contests for both the Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay trophies.

Blue Velvet and Requiem for a Dream
Just one nom apiece for these two. David Lynch secured his second Best Director nomination for the former, but lost to Oliver Stone for Platoon. Meanwhile, Requiem for a Dream appeared in the Best Leading Actress group with a nod for Ellen Burstyn, but she was defeated by Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich in Erin Brockovich.

None of the others even merited a nomination, apparently… though one did even worse…

The Shining

The Blue Lagoon

Xanadu

And remember that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences consider all of those films to be infinitely better than The Big Lebowski, Modern Times, Oldboy, and The Searchers. I’ve only seen two so I couldn’t possibly comment… but you can, here. (Ooh, that was smoothly mentioned, wasn’t it?)

TV plug

It’s the UK network TV premiere of The Lincoln Lawyer on Channel 4 tonight at 10pm. My four-star review is here, and you can also read about the film when it placed eighth on my list of the 10 best films I saw in 2012.

As you can see, it comes recommended.

Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

By the end of March I should be at the quarter-way point, aka 25 films. Only 13 to go, then — a higher number than I’ve managed so far this year, true… but also the same amount (or less) that I managed in three of the last four Marches and three of the last four Februarys.

There is hope for me yet.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Posted on February 25, 2014 by badblokebob

2013 Academy Awards
5 nominations — 1 win

Winner: Best Sound Editing (tied with Skyfall)
Nominated: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing.

I was going to, in the run up to this year’s Oscars, post a series of reviews looking back at last year’s Best Picture nominees. Unfortunately the viewing for that didn’t really come off (February’s been dismal all round, as you’ll find out in a few days in the monthly update) — but I did manage one, and here it is:

The writing and directing team from The Hurt Locker reunite for another perspective on the last decade-and-a-half-(almost)’s ‘War on Terror’. They set out to make a film about the CIA’s decade-long failed search for Osama bin Laden… and then he was found, immediately leading the film to be restructured as the story of the CIA’s decade-long successful search for Osama bin Laden.

The film focuses on Maya (Jessica Chastain), a fresh CIA agent in Pakistan who, in 2003, latches on to a piece of information about a messenger. No one else has much interested in this lead, but she pursues it for the next however-many years, most of the time getting nowhere — until eventually it results in something concrete…

Zero Dark Thirty feels like a dispassionate film, a characteristic that has debatable merits. The goal is clearly to present an objective, fact-driven account of how the CIA eventually found their most-wanted target, but how successfully it does that has been called in to question multiple times: there were those who felt it justified the use of torture, and those who claimed its facts were all wrong. On both these facts, any one viewer’s mileage might vary. I don’t think it defends torture, but nor does it condemn it — just as bad, in some people’s eyes. Do the agents in the film get information from torture? Some — but by no means all, and the quality of what little they did get is queried by other characters. I don’t think the film is pro-torture, but by trying to be objective and not really criticise the torture and torturers either, it doesn’t go in the direction some would wish it did.

As for the veracity of the facts, I have no idea. Nothing seems implausible. And when condensing eight years of a manhunt into around two hours of screen time, of course some details will be lost, or truncated, or slightly modified to support the flow. I think those who allege the film is poppycock are accusing it of more than minor tweaks, but nonetheless, that’s inevitably part of the process. What’s perhaps most interesting is it hasn’t whitewashed the facts to make a film that feels like A Movie — this isn’t a relentless thriller-shaped eight-year chase, but a more methodical, occasionally messy, real-life-like quest for information.

For me, that worked. It takes a little time to get going, to settle down into its rhythm and to let us identify the important characters, but once it does that, it’s suitably gripping. Not in a nail-you-to-your-seat way like, say, a Bourne film, but in an ever-more-engrossing fashion. It can feel a bit like watching a drama-documentary, however, because there’s very little investment in the characters. There are maybe two or three brief scenes in the entire thing where we’re invited to identify with these people, or even consider them as people, with emotions beyond the methodical drive for information. Some people will hate that, but I don’t think Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal really want us to focus on the human toll of this almost-never-ending investigation, they just want us to follow what happened. The focus is on how it was done, not the people who did it.

This carries through to the final half-hour (or so), which is a near-real-time rendition of the Navy SEAL mission to invade bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. The unit assigned to the task turn up and get on with it — like the rest of the characters, they are no more than sketches. I read a review that asserted this is where the film’s focus should have been — on who these men were, what their home lives were like, on their training for the mission, and what effect it had on them after. All of which are valid points for a film, but that’s not what Zero Dark Thirty is trying to be.

When we see the mission executed, it feels like a well-researched and detailed recreation of what happened — who moved where and when, how the building was entered, who got shot, etc — rather than asking us to identify with what these characters are thinking or feeling. Nor does it really seek to elicit too much emotion from the audience — it’s not forcing events into a standard action sequence template, with split-second cutting and a thudding soundtrack; it’s not trying to create tension and excitement, or at least no more than is inherent in the real events. I think Bigelow is borderline documentarian in her aims throughout the film, here as much as anywhere else. Clearly some people find that cold, or at least it leaves them cold, but I think it works. Would it be a better film if it came loaded with a greater exploration of the characters as people, or with a depiction of the events in more regular Thriller terms? I’ll let you know when someone makes that film.

The one other criticism I do agree with is that we don’t see enough of the SEALs’ preparation. They built a full-scale replica of the compound and trained on it — was that not worth putting on screen? I know this is the story of Maya and her investigation, not the SEALs and their assault, but I think a bit of time could have been spent on that fascinating aspect of the raid. On the bright side, there’s a sequence where our characters collect their still-in-development super-top-secret stealth helicopters from Area 51. Yes, really. I guess that must be true, because without the reality-claim of the previous two hours it would come across as Independence Day-level sci-fi!

I imagine debates about the moral stance and veracity of its facts will continue to dog Zero Dark Thirty, as well as the question of whether its too emotionless. For me it nonetheless made for an effectively modern and realistic take on the spy thriller.

In the UK, coverage of the 86th Annual Academy Awards is on Sky Movies Oscars from 11:30pm on Sunday 2nd March 2014.

HBO Binge Madness and the Art of the Spoiler-Free

Posted on February 23, 2014 by badblokebob

I could virtually have written this myself, so close is it to my thoughts. (Apart from the bit about Game of Thrones season 3, because I’ve not watched it yet. If anyone spoils what the Red Wedding entails, I shall reenact it on you. Once I know what it actually is.)

the ghost of 82

If you’ve seen it, you’ll know what I mean- there’s a point near the end of the ninth episode (its always the ninth episode with this show) of this third season when my jaw near dropped to the floor. “What?!” I cried out loud, stunned at what I was seeing; “What!?” And then the end-credits followed in sudden silence, as if sharing the numbness of every viewer who hadn’t seen the events coming.

Just how good is HBO’s Game Of Thrones?

I won’t discuss what it was that happened for fear of spoiling it; no-one , save someone who has read the books, should ever see this series having been spoiled of its secret delights, its twists and turns. Its something special. Readers of the books may say otherwise, but to me, this show is darn near perfect.

I love stuff like this. When something happens that takes…

View original post 752 more words

Oblivion (2013)

Posted on February 7, 2014 by badblokebob

As Oblivion informs us in a hefty chunk of voiceover exposition at the start, the year is 2077, several decades on from a war with aliens that we won but left the Earth in ruins. Humanity fled to a colony on Titan, but the last party to depart remain in orbit aboard a giant space station. Waiting to join them are Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough, the last humans on Earth, serving the final few weeks of their mission to watch over the drones that guard giant water-collecting machines, sucking up the oceans for the benefit of the new colony.

Any film that begins with a screed that long just to explain what the heck is happening is setting itself up for a fall, and it’s a shame that Oblivion feels the need to. Indeed, the only reason it ‘needs’ to is for the benefit of the instant-fix blockbuster crowd, at which the film is at least partially aimed. The whole shebang is recounted again by Cruise to Olga Kurylenko when she turns up about a third of the way through — the intelligent viewer would, I think, be prepared to go with it until then. Fortunately, it doesn’t destroy the film: unlike the twist-ruining narration from the opening of Dark City’s theatrical cut, this at least is genuinely the initial setup, on which twists will later be performed.

You could probably have generated a whole film about this world as it appears to Cruise and Riseborough, but it’s obvious from the very start that there’s something more going on. The guessing game is part of the fun, and as with almost any film with twists some viewers will get them bang-on and feel it’s all blatant, and some will be genuinely surprised. Also, as with many a tale desperate to surprise its audience thus, there are holes in the story and its logic (for a good summary of some of the major sticking points, check out ghostof82’s review). Your mileage will vary on whether they undermine the entire enterprise or wash; for me, it hangs together well enough… while you’re watching, at least.

There are a lot more science-fiction films around these days than there used to be, thanks to both the lowering costs of special effects and a generation (or two) of new(er) filmmakers who grew up with Star Wars and all that followed. Most of these films are regular old action-adventure movies just with more expensive trappings, but occasionally you get something that tries to engage with sci-fi ideas or concepts. Credit where it’s due to story-creator/director Joseph Kosinski for attempting that here. Some have accused it of stealing those ideas from previous movies, but I think such criticisms are over-emphasised. There are only so many stories and ideas in the world, after all, and only so many concepts and ways to explore them. Oblivion isn’t so derivative that you can clearly pick out one, or even two, things it’s ripped off.

Don’t worry if you do prefer your sci-fi blockbusterised, though, because Oblivion comes with its fair share of action sequences. Even though it doesn’t rush through events (it has the kind of pace where I thought it was nearing the end just 40 minutes in, which seemed to be a problem until I accepted it was telling a different, longer story than I’d thought), there’s an array of appropriately-timed shoot-outs and spaceship chases to keep the mainstream happy. I like a good action sequence, and some of the ones Kosinski presents have their moments, but I also found I could have done without most of them. To a degree they seemed to have been slotted in so it could look like an Action Movie in the trailers, the aim (as ever) being to pull in the punters, thereby justifying the budget needed to create such a slick SF world.

If that’s the case, it was worth it, because the visuals are one of Oblivion’s strongest points. The design department give us a sleek and glossy style, but one that still feels plausible — like an expensive Grand Designs project, rather than the plastic-and-lens-flare of J.J. Abrams’ Trek movies. The vistas of a ruined Earth complement the industrial design well, with only the odd dud CG shot in a movie overloaded with visual effects. The drones seem to be a mix of practical props and must-be-CGI, which gives them a solidity and therefore threat that at times feels palpable. This is emphasised by Kosinski’s well-composed shot selection, supported by Richard Francis-Bruce’s editing and Claudio Miranda’s cinematography, both of which are wonderfully classical (no shaky handheld camerawork or cut-to-shreds action; at least, not that I recall). The scene where a drone invades Cruise’s home particularly sticks in my mind.

With the aforementioned plot issues, not to mention an ending that some will find too twee (I saw the broad strokes of the epilogue coming from quite a way out, so can’t say I was surprised), Oblivion is not quite all it could have been. But it gets considerably closer than I expected — it’s undoubtedly an A for effort — and that, bolstered by faultless technical aspects, makes for an all-round enjoyable experience.

Oblivion comes to Sky Movies from today, debuting at 4:10pm and 8pm on Sky Movies Premiere. It’s also already available on NOW TV.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Posted on February 3, 2014 by badblokebob

2014 #4
Joel Coen | 112 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA & UK / English | 18 / R

I was going to post this review today anyway, but let’s nonetheless take it as a moment to acknowledge Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has a memorable supporting role here. He was an exceptional talent, gone before his time.

I confess, I’ve never really got on with the Coen brothers. I liked Fargo well enough, but I didn’t ‘get’ The Man Who Wasn’t There (in fairness, I was young and need to revisit it), felt Burn After Reading was aimlessly daft, and find No Country for Old Men to be a vastly overrated self-conscious bore, of which even the thought of re-watching to re-assess makes me groan. The Big Lebowski, however, is good fun.

In a plot that clearly and repeatedly references film noir, Jeff Bridges is everyman Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski, who is attacked in his own home when mistaken by Bad Men for Jeffrey Lebowski, rich businessman. The Dude visits his namesake seeking recompense, and ends up suckered into a kidnap and ransom plot that takes in so many wild asides and diversions there’s no point explaining them all here — that is the film.

Known for all its cult — and, to an extent, broader critical — popularity, there now seems to be quite a backlash against The Big Lebowski online, based on the comments boards of various websites. There’s a newfound consensus that it’s overrated, a meandering and unamusing nothing of a film. I don’t wholly agree, though I didn’t unabashedly love the film as some do. It’s perhaps a bit “of its time” now, and getting a little “you had to be there”; coming to it almost two decades later, it exemplifies a ’90s American mainstream/independent-borderline filmmaking sensibility; the kind of bracket the early works of Tarantino might also fall into, for instance.

So while it’s true that it does meander a bit, and has a certain relaxed manner that isn’t going to be for everyone, I think that’s a valid stylistic choice rather than a filmmaking error. It’s perhaps a film to relax with, to laze even, rather than one to expect to grip you and hold your attention tight for two hours. I also think that another common accusation — saying it’s no more than “a stoner movie for stoners” — is unfair. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised how little of that kind of humour or content there was — it’s barely featured, never discussed, and the characters don’t seem defined by it. In fact, if I didn’t know that’s what people accuse it of being, I might even have missed it completely. (That’s not my kind of thing, so I’m not looking for it, but nor do I easily write it off.)

If one did want to look into Lebowski more deeply, the most interesting facet is that noir one. It’s quite lightly of that genre — very much an updating and re-appropriation of certain tropes, rather than a straight-up example of where the modern version(s) of the genre is (are… or were). It feels like the Coens were consciously putting a present-day(-then) character through the paces of a traditional noir plot. Whether that was the deliberate structural conceit or just a side effect of making a noir pastiche, I couldn’t say.

It would seem the cult of Lebowski is fading with time, increasingly limited to those who saw it at the right time or worship anything by the brothers Coen. But to write it off entirely is also a shame, because there is much to enjoy even for those who don’t partake in certain recreational substances.

The Big Lebowski was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 2014 project, which you can read more about here.

January 2014 + 5 Tom Cruise SF/F Films

Posted on February 1, 2014 by badblokebob

Pinch, punch, first of the month, and no returns.

Except to January — let’s return to January…

January’s films

#1 G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)
#2 The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
#3 Fast Five (2011), aka Fast & Furious 5
#4 The Big Lebowski (1998)
#5 Premium Rush (2012)
#6 Tower Block (2012)
#7 Oblivion (2013)

Analysis

Oh dear.

Simple maths tells us that to watch 100 films in a year you need to watch about eight per month. Seven is less than eight. It’s also my lowest January total in five years, which makes it disappointing in multiple ways.

On the bright side, as we have seen many a time, no individual month provides an accurate approximation of where my year will end up, and certainly not January. If I apply myself in February and March I can catch up easily; and as I usually do apply myself in February and March, I shall expect to.

What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

One thing did go right in January, however, and that was the start of WDYMYHS 2014. Those of you with a surprisingly good memory may have spotted that The Big Lebowski is this month’s viewing from that list.

I nearly watched one or two more, but I’m trying to pace myself. Considering January’s total, maybe I shouldn’t be.

Milestone

Also this month, I reached the 800th film to be covered on 100 Films in a Year. That’s not #800, mind: thanks to alternate cuts and random reviewing of films I’ve seen before, I’ve covered 800 films but not counted 800 films. And because I’m behind on reviews, I haven’t even posted that 800th review yet… but I’ll be sure to mention it when I do.

(Incidentally, the official #800 will be this year’s #48.)

5 Tom Cruise SF/F Films

Tom Cruise is the kinda guy who does sci-fi movies, right? I mean, we can all name at least a few he’s been in, including one that was out last summer and one that will be out this summer — that’s one per year! Right?

Wrong. So wrong, in fact, I couldn’t even fill a top five with Tom Cruise sci-fi films. So here are five — the five — sci-fi and fantasy films that (have already been released and) star Mr Mapother IV.

Oblivion
This one was pretty obvious — it inspired the list, after all. Set in 2077, it sees Cruise working on a desolated Earth to repair drones that guard the planet from aliens. I won’t say too much more lest I spoil it, but you could also count… no, I’ll leave it here. Just watch it, it’s pretty good.

War of the Worlds
“Cruise. Spielberg.” So read the poster and/or trailer for this ’00s-set reimagining of H.G. Wells’ classic novel of alien invasion and domination. Despite the updating, and the sickeningly twee ending, it’s actually a damn good film. Post-9/11, US films were more positive than ever about how all Americans would band together in a crisis. Not so here.

Minority Report
Cruise is a copper who arrests people before they commit crimes, but what happens when it’s predicted he’ll commit one next? In the 12 years since Minority Report’s release I think it may’ve turned into a classic. Well, some people think so. I expect I’d be one of them if I’d watched it this decade. Which I haven’t. But I really should.

Interview with the Vampire
Ooh, another good one I’ve not watched for ages (maybe I should’ve picked something where I’d watched the films more recently…) Here, Cruise is a centuries-spanning vampire; so some would say that’s Horror, but it’s not really about the scares, it’s about the psychology. And Cruise and Brad Pitt looking Pretty.

Legend
Unlike the other films on this list (which I’ve seen, just not recently), I have never seen Legend. But it’s definitely a fantasy movie.

And then there’s…

Vanilla Sky

Vanilla Sky

Have I managed to miss any Cruise films that are actually SF or F? Should we be including the Mission: Impossibles thanks to some of their more OTT leanings? Lemme know below.

Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

I should watch nine films to make up for January’s shortfall. It’s good to have goals, right?

Premium Rush (2012)

Posted on January 28, 2014 by badblokebob

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a Manhattan bicycle courier in this near-real-time action-thriller from co-writer/director David Koepp. Charged with getting a letter from one end of Manhattan to the other through rush hour traffic ASAP, Gordon-Levitt finds himself coming up against a loony cop (Michael Shannon) who for some reason is desperate to get his hands on said envelope…

The emphasis is firmly on “action” during the film’s brisk hour-and-a-half running time, the plot primarily an excuse for bike-related chases and stunts. And that’s fine by me. You don’t need to be a cycling nut to enjoy what’s on display here, much as you don’t need to be a petrolhead or NRA member to enjoy regular action movie theatrics. There aren’t many (or any?) action flicks based around pushbikes, so the whole thing comes across as pretty original. Mix that with invigorated direction, especially in the editing and graphics (think Sherlock), but which doesn’t sink to en vogue handheld action choppiness, and you have a movie that feels both classical (many reviews note a sense of early-’00s-ness) and almost innovative, a winning combination that feels fresh.

Although the bike chases and tricks are the star of the film, the story is uncommonly structured through an array of flashbacks, gradually unveiling everyone’s motivations in a series of overlapping perspectives that reveal why the little envelope is so important. It still feels like someone came up with the bike-action concept and then worked out a plot that would facilitate it, but piecing together the mystery adds another level of entertainment. There’s also some romance guff that could’ve been cut without hurting anything, but Koepp wisely keeps it to a couple of fast scenes and lines so it never intrudes too heavily.

Gordon-Levitt makes for as appealing a lead as ever, not that his charm is called on much, while Shannon is a memorably crazed villain. He’s a better fit here than he was as Man of Steel’s General Zod, but he’s a delectable nemesis in any context. It’s true that his barminess serves to stretch the concept’s real-world plausibility, but so does a thin bit halfway through that struggles to drive the scenario on to feature length, not to mention a boatload of Chinese gangster stuff. But hey, this is an action-thriller — if you want real-world plausibility, you’re in the wrong genre.

Basing an action movie around bicycles is a pleasant twist on the familiar, making Premium Rush a serviceably entertaining hour-and-a-half for those who like straightforward thrills and well-made chase sequences.

Macbeth (1948)

Posted on January 23, 2014 by badblokebob

2013 #79
Orson Welles | 103 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

Twelve years on from his innovative, acclaimed, career-bolstering ‘Voodoo Macbeth’, and with the infamous War of the Worlds radio broadcast and films like Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons and The Lady from Shanghai now under his belt, Orson Welles tried to interest Hollywood in something they’d only attempted a handful of times since the advent of talkies: a Shakespeare adaptation.

“Tried to interest” and “attempted” are not inapt phrases here. After failing to elicit interest in an adaptation of Othello, Welles switched to pitching the ever-popular Macbeth as “a perfect cross between Wuthering Heights and Bride of Frankenstein,” interesting Republic Pictures because of their desire to move from producing low-budget Westerns to being a prestige studio. The end result was Welles had to shoot his film in just 23 days for only $700,000. The end result was a movie that struggled against Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet, released the same year, and for which poor critical reception led to nearly 20 minutes of cuts and the remainder being dubbed to change the actors’ accents.

Restored in 1980, the original version is a compromised but interesting adaptation. Welles has chopped and changed the play, cutting scenes, transposing others, assigning speeches to different characters, even creating new ones. This array of modifications scandalised critics at the time, though nowadays it’s much more common for film (and stage) versions of Shakespeare to mess around with the text as needed, usually to make the works a manageable length. Macbeth is one of the more sensibly-sized plays, however, though I suppose this is the legacy of Welles’ 23-day schedule.

The low budget and quick schedule affect the film across the board, for good and ill. There’s much dramatic staging, with grand sets and doom-laden lighting. The shadow-drenched cinematography may well be a result of the cheap production, but the resulting effect is marvellous. Indeed, all the camerawork is great. There are some striking long takes, including the majority of the night of the murder occurring in one long unbroken shot. The costumes, on the other hand, look like a ragtag bunch of Past Clothing from the studio’s store… which is because they essentially were.

Welles chose to have the cast speak with Scottish accents, which unfortunately end up a bit squiffy. I suppose it’s an attempt at authenticity at least, and if you don’t allow them to bother you then they won’t bother you. I certainly wound up not noticing them after only a few minutes. In spite of that, many of the performances are quite strong. Of their era — they can be a little stagey and histrionic, lacking the subtlety we might expect today — but good. The dialogue was pre-recorded for the sake of the schedule, with the actors miming their lines on set. Seems like a ridiculous idea, and no doubt had an effect on performances, but I only noticed it once in the entire production.

Much of the score (by Jacques Ibert, after Welles failed to secure Bernard Herrmann for contractual reasons) is appropriately atmospheric, but at one point it goes all Comedy. Macbeth himself is hardly in possession of all his faculties at that point, acting like a drunkard; but rather than make the sequence appropriately sinister (it’s in this state that he orders the execution of Banquo and Fleance, for example), it plays up the silliness, which is a shame.

For a variety of reasons, stemming from both the production situation and Welles’ creative choices, this is a flawed film. That said, its successes outweigh its problems to create a memorable adaptation that is justly regarded as one of the more significant films in Welles’ oeuvre.

Tom Conway as the Falcon, Part II

Posted on January 20, 2014 by badblokebob

Back in September 2012 (my word, was it really so long ago?!), I started posting reviews of RKO’s series of films starring the Falcon, a sort of gentlemen detective character that the studio had licensed as a cheaper replacement for The Saint.

The first three instalments were headlined by the then star of the Saint films, “Russian-born English film and television actor, singer-songwriter, music composer, and author” (and, later, voice of Shere Khan in Disney’s Jungle Book), George Sanders. You can read my thoughts on his Falcon films here.

When Sanders decided he wanted to step down from the series, RKO decided to replace the Falcon character with his brother, who fortunately adopted the same avian moniker. Who better to play Sanders’ screen brother than his real-life sibling, Tom Conway? After the brothers shared the screen for Conway’s debut appearance, the latter went on to lead nine further Falcon films. My opinion of his first few can be read here.

This is the first of two review compendiums that will complete my coverage of the series.

The Falcon in Hollywood (1944)

Posted on January 20, 2014 by badblokebob

After leaving his New York base to investigate some co-eds, travel out west, and visit Mexico, the Falcon takes a well-earned vacation to the moviemaking capital of the world, Hollywood. But naturally trouble finds him there too, in the shape of a villain he once put away, his girl, a mistaken handbag, a cocky cab driver, a troubled film production, and — of course — murder.

By this point you should know what you’re in for with a Falcon film: a solid murder mystery plot with some light fun and mischief on the way to its solution. In this one, the plot is actually quite simple to follow for quite a while, making a change from recent Falcons. It’s still an engrossing enough mystery, but clearly told. But then someone throws a bunch of extra suspects and machinations into the mix and you’re left to fend for yourself, as ever.

Highlights here include a sassy sidekick taxi-driver played by Veda Ann Borg, who makes for playful comic relief alongside star Tom Conway. Though an array of the girls here are repeat performers (and as we’ll see most of them again, I’ll get into that then), Borg isn’t one of them, which is a distinct shame. Another memorable guest star is John Abbott as the movie’s producer, who quotes Shakespeare at the slightest provocation — even when he’s alone.

Stand-out sequences include a bit where the police detectives move through a crowd of suspects, all relaxing near the pool on a location shoot, while outlining each one’s possible motivations, essentially to their face. It’s a simple sequence, not exactly high on drama or humour, but there’s a pleasant structural touch to it. Or the finale: the Falcon is, as ever, drawn into the case by a mysterious woman… but by the end he has four of them grouped around him!

With the series’ usual mix of mystery and humour firing on all cylinders, coupled with what I suppose you’d call an insider’s take on the movie business adding some additional charm, in Hollywood is certainly amongst the Falcon’s better outings.

* As with the vast majority of the Falcon series, The Falcon in Hollywood hasn’t been passed by the BBFC since its original release. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: “100 Films”