Category Archives: Historical

Black Death (2010)

Posted on by
4
2013 #13
Christopher Smith | 97 mins | TV (HD) | 2.35:1 | UK & Germany / English | 15 / R

Black DeathSean Bean and his ragtag band of knights investigate an unaffected village during Ye plague-adled Olden Days in this folk horror from the director of Creep, Severance and Triangle.

Though not entirely devoid of gore or jumps, this is more a creeping horror; a tale of the supernatural where an uncanny mood is more important than visceral thrills. I don’t think it’s too lofty to suggest comparison to The Wicker Man rather than an historical Saw.

Still not for the faint-hearted, Black Death is the kind of eerie experience that can weave a spell over viewers who aren’t genre aficionados.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

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

Les Misérables (2012)

Posted on by
3
2013 #50
Tom Hooper | 158 mins | Blu-ray | 1.85:1 | UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Les Misérables27 years after its West End debut, the long-running smash-hit musical finally makes the leap to the big screen. Such a beloved work paired with a recently Oscar-winning director and an all-star cast was pretty much a dead cert for big-name awards nominations, and so it was to be; but critical reaction was more mixed: I’ve seen people who love the film unreservedly, and others who despise it with a passion.

Let’s begin with the obvious: Les Mis* is a two-hour-forty-minute musical — some people are never going to be on board with that. “Why are they siiingiiiiing?!”, etc. Such complaints must be ignored. After that, more valid complaints do arise: the quality of said singing; the necessity of such length; whether said Oscar winning director is overrated and should he have won the Oscar in the first place; and so forth.

Les Mis is an epic tale: it spans decades, albeit in three distinct chunks. It begins when Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), freed from years of hard labour as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread, breaks his parole and disappears. Years later, we find him a wealthy man, manager of his own company and the mayor or something to boot. But his former prison guard, Javert (Russell Crowe), finds him too — oh no! Indebted to a young woman he wronged (Anne Hathaway), Valjean takes her child for a better life in Paris, where, more years later, they end up embroiled in one of the capital’s failed revolutions.

Hugh Jackman sings AND emotesDespite its running time, Les Mis is quite brisk for much of that plot (which, sorry if you’ve never seen it, I have described a fair old chunk of). There’s no interval in the film, but on stage it doesn’t come until well into the Paris section of the tale. Such a break must help the pacing, because while I remember enjoying it all on stage (where, I might add, it’s even longer), on screen I felt the middle portion began to drag. So yes, an epic running time for an epic, but it actually moves quickly through the parts that make it an epic before slowing for a bit of a forced romance and that kind of palaver.

I noted that it’s longer on stage, which is because here some songs have been trimmed. That’s partly for time, partly for re-staging (is it “hot as hell” in a spray-drenched dock pulling in wrecked galleons? No, apparently not), and partly to squeeze in a new song so it could get an Oscar nod. That’s Suddenly, which did get its awards nom but of course lost to Skyfall. It doesn’t fit too badly into the film, as it turns out, but in and of itself is a bit insipid. How much other trims bother you will depend on whether you’re a fan or not, of course. Some of the very best numbers are left to play in full, while tonally-awkward reprises (a comedy song after the climactic massacre) are cut back to literally a couple of lines.

JavertMuch talk around Les Mis focused on the performances, with three in particular attracting discussion. As honourable wronged-man Valjean, Jackman is the star of the show, and brings his musical theatre background to bear on a clearly-sung but emotive performance. He was unlucky to be in the same awards year as Daniel Day-Lewis’ all-conquering turn in Lincoln, because otherwise those gongs might well have been his. Opposite him in the film’s central rivalry is driven letter-of-the-law lawman Javert, divisively sung by Crowe. I think the best criticism I read was that his vocal style seems at odds with the rest of the cast — whereas they’re musical theatre, he’s got a gruffer, perhaps rockier, tone. I didn’t think he was all that bad, a few moments aside, which I suppose is the advantage of hearing so much negativity in advance.

And then there’s Anne Hathaway, as much of a sure thing during awards season as Day-Lewis. To be honest, I think Jackman comes out of the film better. I can never quite escape Hathaway’s earnestness; a sense of, “look, I’m singing! And isn’t this role important and meaningful!” Her delivery of I Dreamed a Dream, so over-used in the film’s trailers, is pretty flawless, realised (if I remember rightly, which I might not) in a single shot, a soul-crushing close-up on her face. Otherwise, while she’s good really, I felt she’d stolen some of the attention that should be on Jackman.

SupportThe rest of the cast is an assortment from the can-sing (Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried) to the comedic-so-it-doesn’t-matter (Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter). The best voice of the lot belongs to Samantha Barks as Eponine. No surprise, really, as she was poached from the West End… where she’d found herself via one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s BBC talent shows, so I imagine he feels thoroughly vindicated now (as if he didn’t before).

Famously, they’re all singing live. As a viewer, this is more appreciable as a technical accomplishment than something that makes any difference to what we see on screen. It brings some extra emotion (read: odd breathing points and half-achieved notes) at times, and a knowledge of authenticity always has a way of adding authenticity, but otherwise…

There was much surprise when Tom Hooper wasn’t rewarded with a Best Director nomination at the Oscars — much of it originating from within the Les Mis camp, I felt, whereas no one else was particularly fussed. Hooper has improved a bit as a director (finally, close-ups are framed properly!) but, to be honest, I don’t particularly rate him on the whole. For every good decision (going for a grimy real-world style rather than something typically musical-y) there’s an awkward one (the decision to represent Paris almost entirely with one slightly-stagey set). For every well-staged song (realising Lovely Ladies as a montage to show Fantine’s fall over time) there’s one that’s lacking (we don’t see any empty chairs at empty tables until the song’s half over). Bring her homeHooper does an above-average job on the whole, but the lack of awards nods shouldn’t be so surprising.

After so long on the stage, a film adaptation can feel redundant or insufferably inferior. Despite the negative reaction from some quarters, I think it’s fair to say the team behind Les Mis have managed to render something that is neither of those, even if I had a nagging feeling it could’ve been even better still.

4 out of 5

* Why Americans insist on using a ‘zee’ there I don’t know — do they think it says “miss”? How do they say the word “miss”? “Misssss”? Anyway: ^

Anonymous (2011)

Posted on by
Reply
2013 #24
Roland Emmerich | 125 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK, USA & Germany / English | 12 / PG-13

Was Shakespeare a fraud? No.The director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and other films which don’t imply a specific timeframe in their title, helms a film about Shakespeare? Oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea…

And it is indeed dreadful.

In fact, it’s one of those films that’s hard to criticise because I just thought it was so consistently weak. There’s a lot of middling to couched-positive reviews of it floating about, but I practically despised it. For a start, there’s the faintly ludicrous premise that Shakespeare didn’t write the works of Shakespeare. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s been around for decades, at least, and some people do believe it… but not anyone who’s serious about Shakespeare. I think the film takes it seriously, though, and that sets me against it from the off. I know there are plenty of films that tell silly stories in a silly way, but no one’s trying to convince you Avengers Assemble or 2012 actually happened.

Then there’s the confusing storytelling, which occasionally jumps around in time; the attempts at a court intrigue storyline (because the “it’s not by Shakespeare!” thing doesn’t sustain a whole plot), the kind of thing which has been done better even in something as simplistic as The Tudors; the too-dark cinematography (with occasional eye-catching images); the attempts at spicing up a period thriller with action scenes and other histrionics, This film by any other name would smell just as shitwhich is what you should expect from the director of all those films I listed above but quite blatantly doesn’t sit right. And it’s over two hours long too, so it keeps going… and going…

Unlike Emmerich’s other films, which are hardly the height of art but are largely entertaining on some base level, Anonymous is just bad. With a quality cast and the occasional scene-redeeming moment, it’s not an unmitigated disaster. Still, this film by any other name would smell just as shit.

2 out of 5

(If you think that one-liner was bad, try watching the film.)

(But, seriously, don’t.)

Anonymous featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Moonfleet (1955)

Posted on by
5
2012 #91
Fritz Lang | 86 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English

MoonfleetMoonfleet is probably what you’d call a curio. It’s a colour CinemaScope Hollywood adventure movie from a director best known for epic German silents or dark film noirs; it’s not been passed by the BBFC since its original release in the ’50s, meaning it’s never been released here on DVD or (presumably) even VHS; I believe it’s also unavailable in the US; yet despite this dearth of attention in both the country that made it and the country in which it’s set, a poll in France’s Cahiers du cinéma ranked it the 32nd “most essential film”, besting the likes of Battleship Potemkin, The Godfather, Seven Samurai and The Passion of Joan of Arc. That probably explains why it has been released on DVD in France.

It was brought to my attention by a passionately positive article in MovieMail’s catalogue (because they currently sell imported copies of the French DVD), and then I caught it in the middle of the night on Channel 4, complete with sign language accompaniment. It’s based on a children’s adventure novel by J. Meade Falkner, though going by comments from the novel’s fans it makes some considerable changes that they find none too impressive.

Rendered on screen, it starts out feeling like a Dickens adaptation — part Oliver Twist, with orphaned blonde poppet John Mohune arriving by foot in the titular village, and part Great Expectations, with an unwilling guardian in a run-down, closed-off mansion and an attempt to forcibly send the boy to a distant boarding school. Gradually it becomes more overtly exciting, with smugglers, hidden treasure, adventures down wells and crypts, Moon fightfights and chases of various kinds, a dramatic shoot-out on a beach, midnight escapes, and so on.

These moments provide some of the excitement one hopes for from a swashbuckling adventure, but they take a little while to trot along and feel hard-won. It’s difficult to see what so inspired the voters in Cahiers du cinéma’s poll, but then the French have always had their own ideas about cinema. On the bright side, between the film and the comments online, I do quite fancy reading the original novel.

At the very least, Moonfleet deserves more recognition as a curious aside in the accepted narrative of Fritz Lang’s career. Plus, for fans of mid-century Hollywood adventure movies (of which I’m sure there are more than a few), I imagine it’d be right up their street.

3 out of 5

Another aside from Lang’s Hollywood career, war film An American Guerrilla in the Philippines, is on Channel 4 today at 12:35pm.

The Return of the Musketeers (1989)

Posted on by
Reply
2012 #42
Richard Lester | 98 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK, France & Spain / English | PG / PG

The Return of the Musketeers16 years after they first swashed their buckles for director Richard Lester, Michael York, Oliver Reed, Frank Finlay and Richard Chamberlain return as the titular swordsmen in an adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ Vingt ans après, aka Twenty Years After. As feats of sequalisation go, there’s something inherently pleasing about reassembling a cast and crew the best part of two decades later to adapt a tale set at a similar distance.

Unfortunately, it didn’t go down so well: although it did receive a theatrical release in Europe, in the US it wound up as a cable TV premiere a couple of years later. This may in part be due to the fact that it looks like it was shot close to the early-’70s originals, not in the late ’80s. It’s also tonally similar, a scrappy style that perhaps didn’t sit so well in the multiplexes of a decade-and-a-half later, despite a pulpy structure and emphasis on fun japes rather than serious-minded storytelling.

Despite being sourced from an Old Novel, The Return of the Musketeers is — just like its two forebears — far from being a Literary Adaptation. It may not scale the same heights of fun and frivolity as the first Lester-directed Musketeers movie, but it’s more or less on a par with the second, with moments (such as a clever opening) that shine through. Rough around the edges certainly, but likeable heroes, hissable villains, and widespread irreverence keep it the right side of entertaining for those who enjoyed this cast’s previous adventures.

3 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Tombstone (1993)

Posted on by
8
2012 #5
George P. Cosmatos | 119 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 15 / R

TombstoneThe story of the OK Corral is one I know by name only; I haven’t even seen the Doctor Who serial about it. I shan’t be doing a comparison of this to the numerous other cinematic retellings then, though such ground was already superbly covered a couple of years back at Riding the High Country (for a belated entry and full set of links, look here; the piece on Tombstone is here).

Not knowing more than the name, and a few key players, I fully expected the gunfight at said corral to be the story’s climax. Maybe it is in other versions, but here it comes about halfway through. It’s the pivot around which the story turns, however, with the first half building to it and the second handling its consequences. It may not be the climax, but it’s still the key incident.

Much of the film is driven by its characters, I felt, more so than the fights or plots that they embroil themselves in; though it’s still suitably enlivened by action, both dramatic and violent. It’s populated by a helluva cast — lots of recognisable faces, even if some weren’t yet names at the time. Val Kilmer is undoubtedly the stand-out. He starts off by giving a deliciously camp performance, but unveils layers as Doc Holliday’s story unfolds. Other notable performances come from lead Kurt Russell and villain Michael Biehn, though the latter is slightly shortchanged by having to share villain duties with an unremarkable Powers Boothe.

Every good quality photo is of the four of them walkingThat may be down to historical accuracy. There’s a distinct feeling of veracity to proceedings, and as I understand it a concerted effort was made in that regard. The Movies perhaps shouldn’t worry about sticking too closely to fact (if you want an accurate lesson, read a textbook), but when they can manage to be both factually accurate and entertaining, it’s all the better. Cosmatos & co appear to balance this well.

Tombstone was released after the revisionist Unforgiven, but it doesn’t feel like it. Somehow it’s more traditional, almost like it was made in the ’70s or ’80s — not to the extent of portraying a simplistic “white hats good, black hats bad” mentality of earlier eras, but with less of the ’90s gloss or awareness that might be perceived, through contrast, in Eastwood’s Oscar-winner. Not that there’s anything wrong with that — I liked it very much.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

War Horse (2011)

Posted on by
1
2012 #85
Steven Spielberg | 147 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA & India / English | 12 / PG-13

War HorseAfter 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? War horsesIt 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.

Pet horsesAiding 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; Horse and his boyone 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.

5 out of 5

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.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Posted on by
Reply
2012 #24
Peter Weir | 133 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Master and CommanderThere are a few Oscar nominees from the ’00s that inspire little desire in me to bother seeing them (I’m certain that’s completely true of every era, but I’ve seen most of the ’00s nominees so I tend to focus on them more often), meaning it’s taking me a very long time to get round to them (maybe I never will). Master and Commander isn’t really one of those — it’s no Seabiscuit or In the Bedroom — but I can’t say a naval inaction film with Russell Crowe held massive appeal. Turns out I was completely wrong.

For starters, it’s definitely not an “inaction” movie. It’s not an action movie in the regularly understood sense of non-stop fights on varying scales, but there are a few stunningly realised naval battles, and other exciting sequences as the hero ship either tries to keep track of or elude their enemy. That’s essentially the film’s plot — one ship after another — and the long chase (they rarely have each other in direct sight) gives it an epic feel, as they chase an almost phantom ship, rather than engaging in regular heated battles.

There’s lots of good detail about what it would be like to live that life, woven in and around the plot. I’m sure this thoroughly thrilled maritime enthusiasts (assuming it’s all accurate), but for those of us whose interests lie elsewhere it still provides a vivid picture. It’s not so much a character picture, although the nature of Russell Crowe’s Captain is surely revealed in the way he goes about his tactics and the nature of his various relationships with various crewmen. Paul Bettany, as the ship’s doctor, is more our point of view: Character creationhe’s not a naval man and doesn’t always understand their traditions. He’s not a crass audience-cipher in the way such parts often can be, but it does make him identifiable.

This is also the first movie ever to film on the Galapagos Islands, featuring it in an extended sequence in which Bettany — who also happens to be a keen amateur whatever-ist — ventures onto the island to collect specimens of the strange and unusual creatures they see as they sail past. Bettany would later play Darwin in 2009’s Creation, which lends this stuff some kind of odd intertextual significance in retrospect. While it’s an interesting aside from the story — an unusual kind of diversion — it is nonetheless an aside, and perhaps kills some of the momentum. On the other hand, along with some earlier sequences of trading with natives, it lends the film a feel of exploration, of an era when parts of the world — and the people and creatures that inhabited them — were still being discovered, even just by common sailors.

It looks like too many people felt as I did and didn’t turn out to see Master and Commander in big enough numbers: it opened at #2 in the US, grossing just $93.9m on a budget of $150m. It managed $212m total worldwide, but when you consider marketing costs… It was clearly considered quite a pricey proposition, considering it was, unusually, produced and/or released by 20th Century Fox, Universal and MiramaxAction man commander (that makes for a strangely bizarre array of company logos at the start). Despite the fact it’s based on a series of 20 (completed) books, and various people involved have mentioned the possibility down the years, a sequel is so unlikely it seems silly calling it just “unlikely”. And that’s a shame, because this is an entertaining action-drama with likeable characters and an engrossing atmosphere. A little to my surprise, I loved it.

5 out of 5

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World placed 3rd on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

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

Posted on by
Reply
aka Di Renjie: Tong tian di guo

2012 #52
Tsui Hark | 123 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | China & Hong Kong / Mandarin | 12 / PG-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 out of 5

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

Ip Man (2008)

Posted on by
Reply
aka Yip Man

2011 #62
Wilson Yip | 106 mins | TV (HD) | 2.35:1 | Hong Kong & China / Cantonese, Mandarin & Japanese | 15 / R

Ip ManI liked Ip Man, but as we know from experience there are times when I find myself with little to say about a film, or I fail to make any notes, and this was an example of both. So I’ve decided to try something a little different.

I’ve read several different reviews of the film, found by various means, and have compiled a selection of quotes from them below. These are all segments of those reviews that I agree with or found to be an interesting point — I’m not trying to accurately represent each reviewer’s opinion, but instead using their words to enlighten my own. Each quote is, of course, credited and linked, so if you want to know their full opinion you can click through.

They’re arranged in an order that I think makes sense, too — by which I mean, rather than just bundle a selection of quotes in any old order, I’ve sorted them so that if you read them through as presented they should form a structured (more or less) piece.

And so:

Biographical martial arts drama starring Donnie Yen. China in the 1930s: Ip Man’s reputation as a martial arts master has brought fame and fortune to the city of Foshan. But hard times are ahead, as the Japanese invasion brings the once prosperous city to its knees.

Donnie Yen plays the eponymous Wing Chun master, who stove off hunger, poverty and half the Japanese army during China’s WW2 occupation – by kicking ass!

– Matt Giasby, Total Film

Donnie YenThough that’s an amusing thought, the film’s not quite that simplistic:

As he rallies his people to stand up for themselves, Ip Man becomes about how war pushes a peaceful man into action, but also how he tries to maintain his faith in what it means to be civilized.

– Noel Murray, AV Club

Ip’s transformation from diffident bourgeois to symbolic man of the people is rendered as compelling period melodrama

– Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

There’s a pleasing playfulness about the opening scenes, which contrast… with the downbeat mood that follows during the occupation.

– Jamie Healy, Radio Times

Not everyone was so impressed:

In transforming a humble real-life martial artist into the type of the reluctant hero (and nationalist icon), screenwriter Edmond Wong has turned his subject not only into something that he was not, but also into an overfamiliar kung fu movie cliche. This is an impression not helped by the film’s desaturated period look (yet another cliche), and a drift in the second, war-set half towards melodrama

– Film4

a shameless hagiography that only bears a passing resemblance to history.

– Dan Jolin, Empire

To elucidate:

The presence of young Zhun [Ip Man’s son] suggests an eyewitness veracity to the events as portrayed on-screen — after all, Zhun himself, now a much older man and a wing chun master in his own right, served as a consultant on Ip Man. The film, however, does not hesitate to sacrifice the truth to the demands of dramatic entertainment.

– Film4

Everybody was kung fu fighting

almost none of what you see in Ip Man actually happened, and in some sense that’s too bad, because the real Ip sounds like a fascinating figure. He was a pre-revolutionary police officer, a reported opium addict, and a refugee who fled the Communist takeover in 1949 for a new life in British Hong Kong. But all those factors make him undesirable as the hero of a work of rousing nationalist agitprop. So instead we get Yen’s remarkable performance as a man of prodigious Buddhist-Confucian composure and tranquility, who goes from wealth to poverty to near-slave status, and finally must fight a public gladiatorial match against a sinister Japanese general

– Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

disappointingly simplistic. Yip, Wong, and Yen never develop any real tension between Ip’s true story and the exaggerated myth-making of a martial-arts movie. But as an exaggerated, myth-making martial-arts movie, Ip Man is often thrilling.

– Noel Murray, AV Club

True-to-life or not, action star Donnie Yen largely shines in the lead role:

Donnie Yen delivers a charismatic portrayal of Ip Man, the martial arts master of the title.

– Derek Adams, Time Out

Man is the role Yen was made to play: a stoic tough guy that everybody in the community knows is the best

– Simon Abrams, New York Press

Yen’s performance is also a bit one-dimensional as the modest wing chun expert, but at least he gives a good account of himself in the finely composed and inventive close-combat scenes — an impressive highlight being when he wipes the floor with ten soldiers with methodical precision.

– Jamie Healy, Radio Times

Eleven on oneIndeed, fighting is still what the film does best:

As a showcase for the distinctive moves of Wing Chun, or more generally for some formalised (if largely wire-free) chopsocky, Ip Man is exemplary, thanks to the action choreography of cult Hong Kong star Sammo Hung.

– Film4

Hung’s fight choreography is clever and exciting, with sequences that have Ip felling a sword-wielding rival with a feather-duster, or holding off two men with a 10-foot pole.

– Noel Murray, AV Club

That final conflict between evil General Sanpo and Man — who of course still has to fight the biggest bad guy since the locals are too incompetent to even fight a group of disorganized bandits — is also curiously ruthless. Sanpo is likened to Man’s coat rack-like training apparatus, making the flurry of blows Man rains down on Sanpo’s head a vicious attack on a dehumanized piece of furniture. It’s a fittingly abstract and totally brutal finale.

– Simon Abrams, New York Press

There are definitely better kung-fu flicks in terms of pure action spectacle, but Ip Man delivers as tremendous entertainment even if you don’t much care about martial arts.

– Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

It’s not all rosy:

The film was a box office hit in China… That may have had less to do with the excellent fight sequences, directed by Sammo Hung with the help of one of Mr. Ip’s sons, than with the appeals to nationalism and, particularly, the heavy-handed depiction of the occupying Japanese as giggling sadists or implacable killing machines.

– Mike Hale, New York Times

The Japanese themselves couldn’t be more stereotyped in their presentation, with the honourable-but-brutal general and his cackling, sadistic henchman

– Jamie Healy, Radio Times

a sinister Japanese generalOn the other hand, as that “sinister Japanese general”:

Hiroyuki Ikeuchi… imbues what could have been a cardboard villain role with dignity and grace

– Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

To revisit Film4’s point about the “desaturated period look (yet another cliche)”:

Yip’s aesthetics are more muted and traditional than those of well-known florid imports Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Yet such modesty is in tune with his soft-spoken protagonist, and also provides clean, sharp views of Yen’s awe-inspiring skills

– Nick Schager, The Village Voice

But in conclusion:

a throwback to those chopsocky Hong Kong films of the 1970s – a period piece filmed on obvious but eye-pleasing studio sets with wall-to-wall kung fu and a simplistic, philosophical message.

– G. Allen Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle

I’m not qualified to judge whether [Ip Man] belongs among the top martial-arts films ever made, an opinion that’s been gaining credence as the movie bounced around the world… But there can be no doubt that director Wilson Yip has crafted a gripping, rousing, beautifully structured yarn, built around a calm but charismatic star performance by Donnie Yen and magnificent action sequences choreographed by the legendary Sammo Hung.

– Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

4 out of 5

Consulted sources (including some unquoted)