The Saint Takes Over (1940)

Posted on August 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #64
Jack Hively | 67 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The first RKO Saint film to not be based on a story by the Saint’s creator, Leslie Charteris, is actually one of the better mysteries in the franchise. Sort of. The downside would be that the solution is glaringly obvious. For a mystery you might imagine that would be a major problem, but the process of investigating is nicely done. A bit more work might’ve been done to obscure the culprit, a character who we meet at the beginning and then more or less disappears and so will inevitably return somehow, but I had so much fun I don’t really care.

The reason it’s so fun is the setup. Inspector Fernack has been suspended from the force, implicated in taking bribes from gangsters. He hasn’t of course, but the criminals he just failed to put away want to see him discredited. Naturally his BFF Simon Templar swings by to help. What ensues is a 180 from the usual formula of the Saint movies: rather than Fernack constantly suspecting the Saint of being the actual perpetrator of the crimes he claims to be solving, here every murder (each of them a man who was conspiring against the inspector) occurs while the Saint is out of the room, but while Fernack has plenty of opportunity to commit it. Much fun ensues as Templar teases his chum.

One of the highlights of the first Saint movie, Paul Guilfoyle, makes a re-appearance here as a different henchman (having (spoilers!) bit the dust in his first appearance). His role is bigger — he’s in the con-turned-manservant role, essentially — though not as independently memorable. Paired with Sanders and Hale, however, they make an entertaining team. The starring cast is rounded out by a return appearance by Wendy Barrie of The Saint Strikes Back. She plays a new character, this time brunette, but still a bit of a femme fatale. She’s underused, but hey-ho.

The Saint Takes Over is, on balance, not my favourite of the series, but still one of the best it has to offer.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1940. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint’s Double Trouble (1940)

Posted on August 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #63
Jack Hively | 64 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

After two fun adventures, here RKO’s series turns in my least favourite film to star George Sanders as the Saint.

In the first film to not be directly based on a Leslie Charteris book (though he did contribute the story, according to the opening credits), the Saint arrives in Philadelphia to meet an old friend, only to get entangled in a series of murders that he may or may not have perpetrated. And that’s fine, but the way events unfold feels like no one paid a huge amount of attention to the plot. It all just about makes sense, if you care to think about it, and some of it is deliberately confusing — the “double trouble” of the title is a criminal who’s the spitting image of the Saint, meaning there’s occasional confusion about who we’re watching. But I don’t think that excuses everything; instead, I believe it’s structured to sweep you along from one bit of derring do to the next. I’ve noted before that I feel like I’m not adequately following some these films, and again I did worry I was being outsmarted, which feels somehow preposterous. I’ve come to the conclusion that a couple of them just don’t hang together as well as they could, and this one in particular.

It also runs foul of being a bit samey. Inspector Fernack is roped in by coincidence — it’s always entertaining to have Jonathan Hale and his double act with George Sanders along for the ride, but here Fernack happens to be visiting police force friends in Philadelphia when the Saint happens to turn up in town. Ugh. Then there’s yet another pretty young blonde who’s in love with the Saint but will never pin him down — Helene Whitney is fine in this role, but her character’s not a patch on The Saint Strikes Back‘s Val Travers or The Saint in London‘s Penny.

Sanders is as slick as ever, even if it can be hard work differentiating between the Saint and his doppelgänger even when they’re in the same scene. When we’re not meant to be able to tell, that’s fine; when we are, it’s sometimes tricky. I’m pretty sure the difference is entirely held in one wearing a dark-grey-and-black suit and one wearing a black suit, though even now I can’t remember which was which. A bit more effort in establishing who was in which suit wouldn’t have gone amiss. Either way, Sanders isn’t given quite as much wit to work with as normal. There’s some fun to be had when the henchman don’t realise whether they’re talking to their lookalike boss or the man he looks like — their frequent misunderstandings naturally mean Hilarity Ensues — but the rest of the film doesn’t have the same knowing edge as normal.

Almost every film series has its duds, and I imagine churning out two or three a year is only likely to increase that likelihood. Fortunately the remaining two films to star Sanders — both of them again directed by Jack Hively, incidentally — would be better than this.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1940. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint in London (1939)

Posted on August 18, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #62
John Paddy Carstairs | 69 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

The third film in RKO’s Saint series is a bit of a mixed bag, from my point of view.

Let’s start with the bad. I’ve said it before and I will say similar again, but I found the plot to be over-complicated, like I wasn’t following it. I can’t help but feel this is my fault, because that’s not really what you expect from this vintage of adventure film, though perhaps I was just expecting too much clarity. Conversely, it was creator Leslie Charteris’ favourite film — he even dedicated a book to the director because of it.

It’s again based on a Charteris story, The Million Pound Day (part of The Holy Terror, or The Saint vs. Scotland Yard in the US), and sees the Saint encouraged by a friend to investigate Bruno Lang, who as far as I could tell didn’t appear to have done anything; but then he gets sidetracked looking into something to do with the printing of foreign currency, and… well, it goes from there.

Still, the followability of the plot is only one element. Humour is the film’s strongest point, I’d say. It’s not a comedy, but it goes about its business with wit and verve. If it were a Bond film (and we’ll return to that in a second), it would be a late Connery or one of the better Moores, where the threat still feels real enough but our hero is having a bit of fun, even if he would really rather be cracking a joke than cracking heads.

I bring up Bond again because this is perhaps the most proto-Bond of all the Saint films. Within the first few minutes we have a tuxedoed Saint introduce himself as “Templar, Simon Templar”, enter a fancy restaurant where he drinks a martini, and expertly orders a swish meal and the appropriate wine to go with it. Later, villain Bruno Lang (because yes, he is relevant in the end) is a somewhat Bondian villain, a powerful man with a grand plan who thinks he’s smarter than our hero. Which he isn’t, of course. Perhaps there was an abundance of these kind of heroes in the middle decades of the twentieth century, but as Bond is the only one that’s endured while retaining the same iconography, these similarities are striking.

Sanders is again an enjoyable persona to spend time with. Here he’s partnered with David Burns as pickpocket-turned-manservant Dugan, the kind of role the series repeats with new characters across its run, though Burns is as fun as anyone. As Scotland Yard’s Inspector Teal, Gordon McLeod is adequate but a bit of a poor stand-in for Fernack. Considering the latter is rather shoehorned into some of the US-set films, it’s sensibly plausible that they didn’t force him into this one too.

Best of all is Sally Gray as Penny Parker, a charming girl Templar bumps into — as he’s wont to do — who forcibly strings along for the ride. Every film in the series contains a pretty young thing who falls for the Saint, and who he seems to fall for back before casually disregarding at the end — at least Bond faded to black, leaving the inevitable parting off-screen, whereas Templar is almost callous-with-a-smile. Of all the girls the series offers, though, plucky Penny is the one you’d wish had stuck around. Even with that silly hat.

I started off thinking The Saint in London was one of the lesser films in the series — the absence of Fernack is somewhat felt and I still don’t quite understand how the villains’ scheme worked. But the triple act of Sanders, Gray and Burns works so nicely that, on reflection, I enjoy it all the more.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

The Saint Strikes Back (1939)

Posted on August 18, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #60
John Farrow | 62 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The first film to star the Roger Moore-ish George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka the titular Saint, is also one of the RKO series’ better entries.

For starters, John Farrow’s direction is admirably slick for ’30s B-movie filler. One of the first shots of the film is a grand single take through a nightclub; not the longest shot ever, of course, but very effective, including a neat balloon-popping reveal of the movie’s villainess — a most striking introduction. There are a couple of directorial flourishes along these lines throughout the movie, including a bizarre hallucination sequence and a final tracking shot that loses the Saint in the fog.

If there’s one thing the Saint series is surprisingly good at it’s evoking a place. Each film seems to occupy a different setting (though there are a couple of trips to New York throughout the series) and, though I suppose fundamentally arbitrary, they do a solid job of reminding the viewer where they are. It’s no coincidence that almost half follow a The Saint in… title format. Here it’s The Saint in San Francisco, evoked with very atmospheric opening shots of the Golden Gate bridge — presumably stock footage, but its fogginess is carried on to the studio sets/backlot the film transfers to.

To be frank, I found the plot to be equally foggy in places. It’s adapted from one of Saint creator Leslie Charteris’ novels (She Was a Lady, aka Angels of Doom or The Saint Meets His Match) and perhaps it’s the legacy of squishing a book down into an hour of screentime. It’s not ludicrously unfollowable, just… foggy. The ending in particular seemed fudged, rushed, or just not as clear as it should be.

Nonetheless, it’s mostly a fun romp. Sanders’ portrayal of Templar is witty and enjoyably knowing, even more so than Louis Hayward in the previous film. He’s at once more laid-back and less self-certain; by which I mean you can sometimes see him working out his devilishly clever plans as he goes along, rather than floating through with invulnerability. This Saint is the kind of man who’ll bluff that a criminal’s house is surrounded by police so that he can escape, but then can’t resist phoning back to have a little gloat about how his bluff worked. Lighter, jokier — if Hayward was Sean Connery, Sanders is (as noted) Roger Moore. Though I’ve never seen the ’60s TV series, here I can see clearly how Moore was suited to the role.

Returning as Inspector Fernack, Jonathan Hale has a great double act with Sanders. Their relationship clearly grows as the series goes on, but it clicks from the off. He’s a great sidekick and foil, here treated to a neatly constructed subplot about his diet. It’s better than that sounds. Also topping the bill is Wendy Barrie, making the first of three appearances as three different characters. This is her best turn in the series, however, the part being the most interesting of her three roles as well as getting the most to do.

Initially I would have said I preferred in New York to Strikes Back, by a smidgen; but having completed Sanders’ run in the series before writing this review, I’ve further warmed to his portrayal. As I said at the start, this is certainly one of the high points of the run.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1939. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint in New York (1938)

Posted on July 26, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)

Posted on July 24, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Batman Series

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

And with that said…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four observations I personally hadn’t made before:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The star rating, of course, stays the same.

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

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

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

Posted on May 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #6
Brett Ratner | 84 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | Germany & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Belated sequels are often the worst kind, an actor/director/studio returning to past glories in the hope of creating new success. Even when they work, they’re not a patch on the original. (I’m sure there must be exceptions, but nothing comes to mind.) The third entry in the Rush Hour series was moderately belated (it was released six years after Rush Hour 2), but, perhaps more significantly for this review, it’s the best part of a decade since I watched the other two. I enjoyed them back then, but after a significant period of growing up, I have no idea if I’d be so fond now. The other point of that is, I don’t think I can accurately say if Rush Hour 3 matches, surpasses or falls short of the quality of the other two.

Judged in its own right, then, it’s a film of variable quality. The plot jumps around tenuously, an excuse to string together acrobatic action sequences and stale comedy routines — one involves two Chinese characters named Yu and Me. Imagine the hilarity. It does manage a few good gags, now and then, but it’s not one to watch for consistent laughs.

It’s ostensibly a thriller (albeit a comedy-action-thriller) and so there are plot twists, but they’re wholly predictable. It also lacks clarity in its villain, I felt — who it is, what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and so on. It weakens the film, especially the ending: there’s the usual big action climax, followed by a little bit of business that dilutes the impact of the ending. It’s just badly structured.

Ratner’s direction lacks total competency. Never mind allowing unfunny routines to run too long — or meritless ideas to even be included — his framing is off at times, making his 2.35:1 frame sometimes look cropped from something taller, sometimes something even wider. It’s kind of impressive, in a bad way. Jackie Chan’s fights are mostly well shot though, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the man himself had a hand in that.

Those fights aren’t amongst Chan’s best action sequences, but they’re still quite entertaining. I love sword fights and I love Chan’s acrobatic choreography, so a climax combining the two — plus some sparing atop the Eiffel Tower (or, I presume, a surprisingly good set thereof) — is occasionally spectacular and single-handedly almost justifies the entire film’s existence. A car chase/fight through the streets of Paris is the other best bit, buoyed by both unusual choreography and Yvan Attal’s French taxi driver George, who’s probably the film’s best character.

Rush Hour 3 isn’t a good film — it’s too inconsistent, too indulgent, too unfocussed in its storytelling — but it has some fun bits, mainly thanks to Jackie Chan. If only for some of his bits, I’m glad I bothered with it.

Rush Hour 3 is on Channel 4 tonight at 9:45. Which is a coincidence because I was going to post this review anyway.

Super (2010)

Posted on March 16, 2012 by badblokebob

If Kick-Ass was the fantasy version of “ordinary man becomes superhero” then Super is the hard-hitting, suitably-silly, ‘real’ version. And it’s not often you get to describe a film in which God rips the roof off a house, reaches down with anime-inspired tentacles, slices open a man’s head and plants an idea in his mind — literally — as “hard-hitting” and “real”.

It stars The Office’s Rainn Wilson as odd diner cook Frank, whose wife (Liv Tyler) leaves him for a local drug dealer (Kevin Bacon). Inspired by a cheap TV show starring Christian superhero the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion) — and the aforementioned finger of God — Frank sets out to fight crime as costumed hero the Crimson Bolt. Researching power-less heroes at the local comic shop, Frank meets Libby (Ellen Page), whose equal weirdness leads to her helping him and becoming his sidekick.

Super seems ready-made for cult status. Not in the self-conscious way of something like Snakes on a Plane, but in the genuine way of a film that’s quirky and different. It’s a comedy, but one with brutally realistic violence and visions of demons and faces in vomit. Unlike Kick-Ass (the blatantly obvious point of comparison, not least because they were made and released around the same time), which moves fairly swiftly into the fantasy of being a successful superhero, Super stays quite grounded. The ending allows itself to be a little more triumphantly heroic, but not far beyond the bounds of realism (unlike Kick-Ass).

It emphasises the likely real-life difficulties of being a ‘superhero’. Frank has to get out books on sewing to make his awkward patchwork costume; he goes out on patrol, only to find no crime whatsoever; when he finds out where the drug dealers are, he gets beaten up; other crime he fights include “butting in line” (or, as we’d call it on this side of the Atlantic, queue jumping) or car-keying; and half the people recognise Frank despite his mask. No mob-level gangsters played by Mark Strong here.

Realism is the overriding principle throughout, from characters to dialogue to acting to fighting to direction. Obviously Frank’s visions (the tentacles, the demons, the vomit-face) are extremely not-real, but as representations of his mental delusions thy get a pass. Gunn’s direction has a rough, ultra-low-budget feel, yet can be quite stylishly put together when it needs to be, suggesting he’s made a choice rather than isn’t capable of something slicker. It’s even more effective at making the film seem real-world than the usual Hollywood handheld-and-grainy schtick that passes for realism.

Gunn says that his film is “about the deconstruction of the superhero myth. Who is Spider-Man or Batman? We assume that they are heroic characters but, really, they are deciding something is right and something else is wrong”. The psychology of superheroes has been a factor to one degree or another for decades now, not least the Batman films making the parallel between the hero and his villains, but the difference in Super is it’s not a parallel — it’s primarily the heroes who are messed up. The villains are criminals and quite nasty at times, but they’re mostly quite normal. They may deserve their comeuppance, but wisely — and interestingly — they’re not over-written or over-played to heighten them to the level of the psycho-hero. The Crimson Bolt is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, even more so than Batman in Begins or (of course) Kick-Ass. Those two are at least going up against the top of big organised crime; Crimson Bolt just faces a local drug dealer.

The heroes are disturbed even outside their chosen vocation: Frank has weird visions, odd catchphrases, extreme reactions to relatively trivial things; Libby is secretly ultra-violent, gets off on their costumes, etc. Gunn says the film asks if it’s “psychotic for someone to put on a mask and a cape and go out and battle what they perceive as being ‘evil’?”, but I don’t think it sets out to specifically psychoanalyse these people. Still, it makes clear how barmy you’d have to be to give the superhero thing a go yourself. That said, Gunn argues that “I don’t think [Frank] necessarily is crazy. Super is about a troubled human being and his relationship with faith, morality and what he perceives as his calling… I think that is part of why we gave him Ellen Page as a sidekick — because her character, Boltie, actually is insane. The Crimson Bolt is not doing what he does because he enjoys hurting people but Boltie is and that is the difference between the two of them. It starts to become a concern when you enjoy the violence.”

A great cast brings these factors out with ease. Wilson does deranged hero well, not overplaying the comedy side of it. Page is suitably hyper as Libby, capturing a particular facet of The Youth of Today perfectly (again). Bacon is a fantastic villain, not so much menacing or psychopathic as just… I don’t know. That’s almost why it’s so good: it’s hard to say where he’s gone with it. Also worth singling out is Michael Rooker, playing Bacon’s top henchman, Abe. It could have been quite a basic henchman part, but he makes it more with expressions and line delivery (certainly more that than the lines themselves). He’s the only one on the villain’s side who realises the Crimson Bolt might actually be a threat. You kind of want him to cone through in the end, to turn good and live; but he does his job, which is probably truer.

For all its grounded reality, Super lets loose in the final fifteen minutes, creating a punch-packing sequence that’s the rival of any comic book movie. It’s emotionally-charged action, all the more powerful for its semi-amateur-ness and realistic brutality. It climaxes in a face-to-face between our hero and the villain which is as good as any you’ll find in such a film. Is it revelling in the extremity of its violence? You might argue it is, but I don’t think it’s celebrating its gore so much as the triumph of its hero. And that’s followed by a neat epilogue, which I won’t reveal details of but is a kind of ending I’ve been wanting to see for a while.

Between the comedy, the ultra-violence, the rough edges, the slick climax, the characters’ silly catchphrases, the well-worded climactic face-off, you could argue Super has an uneven tone. I would disagree, as would Gunn: “I agree that the structure and tone of this film is very atypical… I enjoy films that surprise me and which are not formulaic and take twists and turns that I do not see coming. My life doesn’t roll along to just one ‘tone’ — one day it might be a comedy and the next a tragedy”. I’ve said in the past and I’m sure I’ll say it again: I wish more po-faced dramas would realise this.

All the technical elements come together to support the film’s main thrust. There’s a great soundtrack, mixing some choice bits of score by Tyler Bates, finding the appropriate quirky tone generally but adjusting to an action vibe for the climax, with an obscure selection of songs that seem well-chosen but not too heavy-handed. As an example, it includes a decade-old track by Sweden’s 2007 Eurovision entry (they came 18th of 24. Don’t laugh — we were joint 22nd). And, despite the low budget, there’s great special effects. The tentacles are the rival of any big-budget movie; the blood and guts are all gruesomely realistic, not filmicly censored or reduced or cheaply fake; handdrawn-style Batman “kapow”s (etc) are very effective. The title sequence, in a similar style as the latter, but with a dance routine, is also a ton of fun.

So, to the big question: is Super better than Kick-Ass? I’m not sure. Personally, I loved them both. Some people will hate both, perhaps for different reasons. Gunn acknowledges there’s a definite connection: “I understand why people keep mentioning Kick-Ass… but let me clear this up. I wrote the script to Super in 2003 and worked on it for a long time… I think that the similarities are apparent, but I still wanted to get this story out there. I think what works in our favour is that people think it looks like Kick-Ass on the outside but when they see it they realise that we are less cartoonish and maybe a little more unpredictable.”

I certainly agree that it’s to Super’s advantage that it’s quite different to a regular film; more uniquely styled than Kick-Ass’s mainstream aims. Indeed, as Gunn also says, “I think that so many movies today try to be everything to all people and I’m a little sick of it. Super is not for everyone. It is for some people.” And for the people it’s for, I think it’s exceptional. If you were to compile a list of the greatest superhero movies, I believe Super’s unique style and perspective — plus its excellent climax — would earn itself a place right near the top.

Super is on Sky Movies Premiere from tonight at 12:15am, continuing all week.

Super placed 5th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2011, which can be read in full here.

All quotes taken from an article by Calum Waddell in Judge Dredd Megazine #313.

* I first watched Super on the UK Blu-ray, where it runs 92 minutes thanks to PAL speed-up. The US BD (my second viewing) runs the correct 96. Image quality was better too, I thought, though if you’re considering a purchase do note it’s Region A locked. ^

Gambit (1966)

Posted on December 29, 2011 by badblokebob

I decided to watch Gambit, which I’d never heard of, after it was recommended on twitter by a film journalist and he was greeted with a seemingly-never-ending chorus of “thank you” tweets — my curiosity was suitably piqued. And I’m glad, because Gambit is a ton of fun.

Gambit is, as you may have guessed, distinctly underrated. The huge advantage of this is that you’re not very likely to have had all the twists spoiled, which is wonderful news! Indeed, because the biggest twist is near the start, it’s pretty hard to review without giving it away — as the Psycho-referencing poster promises. But I’ll do my best. Honestly though, avoid other reviews, just in case. I don’t want to oversell it because it’s probably not of quite the same magnitude as, say, The Sixth Sense, or indeed Psycho (pick either of the big twists there), but it is a good’un.

So, it stars Michael Caine as a con artist, and he ropes Shirley MacLaine into his latest scheme for a very specific reason. Once underway, it’s a very funny film, with great turns from MacLaine and Caine. The latter is more subtle, but he’s underplaying beautifully and it really pays off. The humour lures you into a kind of false sense of security, because some bits are very tense (at least, I thought so). You become suitably attached to these characters, giving a nail-biting boost to scenes of them pulling off their con. This is true of the climax in particular, where naturally it’s all on the knife-edge of falling apart.

Twists in con movies are par for the course, of course, but here it’s not just the opening that has one: there’s also a salvo in the closing minutes, just to keep you on your toes. You may guess one or two as they rush up on you, but perhaps not all of them. Though as I’ve just warned you they’re coming you stand a better chance than me.

Gambit is imperfect — a romantic angle springs up out of nowhere in the closing minutes that could have done with a bit (well, a lot) more development earlier in the film — but flaws like that barely matter in the face of all the fun it has. I know I haven’t said much, but trust me, that’s for the best. If an amusing heist/con movie from the ’60s starring Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine sounds like your kind of thing, read no more, just watch it. I did, and I loved it.

Gambit placed 10th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2011, which can be read in full here.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: Crime

The Saint Takes Over (1940)

The Saint’s Double Trouble (1940)

The Saint in London (1939)

The Saint Strikes Back (1939)

The Saint in New York (1938)

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)

The Batman Series

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

Super (2010)

Gambit (1966)