Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

2013 #42a
Alfonso Cuarón | 142 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | PG / PG

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of AzkabanPrisoner of Azkaban marks a significant turning point for the Harry Potter film series. Viewed now, it’s easy to see it as just Episode 3 of 8; a saga still getting underway. At the time, coming off the back of two incredibly successful films, it felt like a grand shake-up of an established formula.

It’s the first Potter to move away from a Christmassy end-of-year release slot, for one thing, debuting at the height of summer in May. That also made it the first to break the one-per-year release cycle they seemed to be aiming for, which would’ve emulated each film covering a single year of Harry’s time at school. The release date was only 18 months after Chamber of Secrets, but it had an impact — particularly to little Draco Malfoy, who seems to have undergone the majority of puberty in the short time between the end of Chamber and the start of Azkaban. I still remember my shock when he first appeared in the trailer — I thought they’d recast.

Most striking, however, is the new director. Alfonso Cuarón doesn’t ditch the faithfulness to J.K. Rowling’s novels that defined Chris Columbus’ opening pair, but he does ditch the slavishness, and brings a hefty dose of his own stylish directorial skill in the process. Azkaban is a fan favourite among Rowling’s novels, but Cuarón’s preparedness to change things when necessary made the film more of a hate object for some. The wider world had it right, however, because Azkaban was received as the best Potter yet and, I think, was the start of its rehabilitation from a fans-only series of Children’s Films to something that merited across-the-board full marks when Deathly Hallows Part 2 arrived seven years later.

Harry Potter and the Knight BusCuarón and screenwriter Steve Kloves (who would pen every Potter film bar the fifth) focus in on the novel’s plot, ditching its copious world-building and backstory asides. This has both pros and cons. In the former camp, it leaves room for Cuarón to make something more exciting and filmic than Columbus — you can’t imagine the craziness of the Knight Bus in either of the previous films. It also keeps things moving forward, at quite a pace too, rather than meandering off here and there. Even the Quidditch match serves a purpose.

On the downside, it strips away some explanations that not only deepen the series’ world but, in some cases, help it make sense. We never learn the identity of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs (makers of the ever-so-useful Marauder’s Map), or quite why Harry thought he saw his dad by the lake with the Dementors. The former is only nice detail, I suppose, but the latter event makes much more sense when you know the full explanation from the novel. The story gets by without it, but those unfamiliar with the book who stop to think about things may consider it a plot hole, or at least a leap of logic.

The film introduces two of my favourite characters from the series: Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black and David Thewlis’ Remus Lupin. In slightly different ways they’re both outsiders — underdogs, as it were, if you’ll excuse the pun — but both honourable and powerful… but not as pompous as that poor description makes it sound. Harry Potter and the New CharactersThe film series doesn’t treat either of them particularly well compared to the books, but then supporting characters and subplots are the first things to go (quite rightly).

The other big cast addition is Michael Gambon, replacing Richard Harris as Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Gambon seemed all wrong when he first turned up, replacing the previous near-perfect casting choice. He’s more familiar now, making it harder to judge which actor is superior; but it’s difficult to imagine Harris getting to grips with some of the cheekier and more active things Dumbledore is called on to do later in the series. Was the requirement to recast a blessing in disguise? Perhaps.

Azkaban was a breath of fresh air when it was released in 2004, really kicking the Potter franchise into life creatively. I know I gave the first two four stars each, but having since watched this and Goblet of Fire, the opening episodes pale in comparison.

4 out of 5

Tomorrow, I put my name in the Goblet of Fire

Prometheus (2012)

2012 #83
Ridley Scott | 124 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 15 / R

With all the furore this week over the (supposed) behind-the-scenes problems with attempts to launch Prometheus 2, it’s about time I posted my review of last year’s intended franchise-starter…

PrometheusRidley Scott’s not-an-Alien-prequel-honest Alien prequel is nothing if not divisive, with critics and fans alike declaring it to be a revelatory masterpiece, irredeemable faux-profound slop, and every point on the spectrum in between. I did my best to remain spoiler-free throughout the four months between its theatrical release and disc debut (crikey things reach DVD quickly these days!), though I did read a leaked plot description in advance that was reportedly decried as rubbish. I wish I could remember where I found it because I’d love to know if it matches up. Sadly I can’t remember the details, but obviously something stuck — and therefore it was right — because I was singularly unsurprised by the majority of Prometheus’ story. But that doesn’t necessarily matter if the film is any good, and Prometheus… well…

The first half is quite good, in a slow, meaningful kind of way. Even at that point there’s doubts: some of what occurs is just unnecessary detail; shots and scenes that seem consciously designed to give it a slow pace rather than stuff we actually need to see.

The second half is batshit crazy. It abandons the thoughtful Serious Science Fiction trappings for schlocky body/creature horror, and in the process abandons the semblance of making sense. Plot holes glare at you. Characters make unfounded leaps of logic. It feels like whole scenes or sequences are missing. Indeed, quickly scanning through the disc’s description of some of the deleted scenes, it looks like they might explain some of the film’s gaps. I presume there’s a good reason they were cut though… right…?

That bloody head is everywhereAnd then, to top it off, it doesn’t have a real ending! They may as well slap “to be continued” on screen, such is the obvious lack of conclusion. It’s immensely frustrating, only to be topped off with a “in case we don’t get the sequel” bit of connective tissue to the Alien series. Mysteries and unanswered questions aren’t a problem in and of themselves — there are plenty in Prometheus’ franchise forbears, the first in particular — but they’re not the kind that require answers: their stories work as a discrete unit; who the Space Jockey is, or how the aliens came to be, and so on, are set dressing. Conversely, the gaps in Prometheus are in the primary narrative. There would be an argument for it being a thematic point — a Bergman-esque ‘silence from the Gods’ — but the starkness of that ending, as clear a cliffhanger as either of the first two Lord of the Ringses, undermines that. It fairly screams, “there’s more to come! See the next film for the answers!” And that isn’t on, because that isn’t what we were promised — this isn’t Prometheus: The Fellowship of the Prometheus, with Prometheus: The Two Planets already shot and scheduled for next year, and the trilogy-forming conclusion Prometheus: The Return of the Alien for the year after that; it’s just Prometheus, full stop, the sole definitive article. But it isn’t.

The sense that everything’s been cobbled together in the current blockbuster fashion of “keep writing even while shooting” extends right down to things like character development; even to individual scenes. Take Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), for instance. He’s a dick. I’ve no sympathy when it all goes wrong for him because he’s not at all likeable. What’s somewhat ironic is that the deleted scenes note at least one sequence was re-shot to try to make him more sympathetic. And, funnily enough, I remember during that scene in the film thinking it was about the only time he seemed even vaguely appealing (even then, only relatively). Just one of many such apparently-bungled elements in the film.

An inexplicably stupid thingNo character is fully developed. Some barely register, suggesting too big a cast, while others suffer from being plain stupid, or doing inexplicably stupid things, or just piss-poor acting. There’s some thing made about Shaw (Noomi Rapace) being religious or a true believer or something, but it’s not properly explained and doesn’t go anywhere. David (Michael Fassbender) and the way he’s treated by the other characters are both very interesting areas, and clearly of huge thematic resonance, but he acts inconsistently for no obvious reason, and despite the horrendous things he does to Shaw at one point, she just gets on with him again in the next scene, and… well, that’s far from being the film’s only plot hole or inconsistency.

At one point a character escapes a situation only to be killed off in a different one. If that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, that’s because I’m trying to avoid spoiling parts of the climax. It’s not a particularly reasonable thing to do, though; it plays as “here’s a cool death”. I’ve not read multiple versions of the script or read interviews with the writers or listened to their commentary (yet), but one does wonder if Damon Lindelof was brought in to pull back on some of the Science Fiction (with a capital SF) and build up the blockbuster-y elements, because that’s what said cool death feels like: a film constructed from “what would look cool? What haven’t we seen?” rather than “what are we trying to say?” I have no problem with the former in its rightful place (Tomorrow Never Dies has the awesome bike chase because it was the antithesis of GoldenEye’s tank chase, for one ready example), but a film that sets out its stall around Concepts is not the right place.

Is you is or is you ain't a robotThe daft thing is, I think a lot of people would’ve been happy if it had chosen to just go all-out as a schlocky alien horror movie. That’s what Alien is: an exceptionally well-made haunted house movie in space. There’s no shame in that (well, maybe in cinéaste circles, but pish.) But that’s not where Prometheus pitches itself. There’s too much other stuff for it to be just that; stuff that’s apparently aiming to be Profound. So when the horror does turn up, it doesn’t belong.

It does all look bloody gorgeous, from the real landscapes to the CGI. It was shot by Dariusz Wolski, whose previous credits include all four Pirateses and not much else that would suggest a remarkable skill. But sod a pixel-generated tiger, these vistas surely deserved recognition. (But then I’ve not seen the tiger movie, so…) I didn’t see it in 3D, obviously, but it certainly looks like it was shot for the format. Not because there’s stuff poking out at you, thank goodness, but look how light it all is, especially compared to the original Alien. I’m sure the scenery had lovely depth.

A side effect of such format-hopping is a debate on the correct aspect ratio: it was reportedly shown at 1.66:1 on IMAX, 2.00:1 on IMAX Digital, and 2.35:1 otherwise (the Blu-ray remains at 2.4:1 throughout). I have no idea whether the IMAX was opened out or cropped, though I’d imagine the former, which does make you ponder why they didn’t just use that everywhere, especially on home formats. I guess 2.4:1 must be Scott’s preferred ratio… but is that OK? Should we lament the missing top and bottom? I dunno. More interested parties than I have debated this at length, if you fancy scouring the web for it.

The whole world in his hands...Prometheus is a funny old beast, then. There’s lots of good stuff in there, but also lots of baffling decisions and confusing shifts of tone, emphasis, style… Considering it was made by an experienced master-filmmaker, who was presumably granted all the time, freedom and money he wanted to craft the film he desired, it’s baffling how it ended up feeling like such a hodge-podge. Many fans have blamed Lindelof, brought in late on to re-write the screenplay; but considering Scott ruined Robin Hood by ditching an innovative, exciting screenplay for a stock this-is-real-history re-telling of the legend, perhaps the blame lies at his door. He’s reached a point where he can order anyone to change anything and it will be done (writers have no power in Hollywood, after all). Perhaps, at 75 now, he’s lost the ability to spot a good script; or perhaps he just tinkers because he feels he must, because he’s the director and he’s in charge.

Whatever. Here he’s turned in a scrappy, confusing, but not meritless movie; one that will probably endure thanks to its franchise connections, its moments of clarity, and its intense controversy. It’s not a good film, but it’s kind of a fascinating one.

3 out of 5

The Raven (2012)

2013 #30
James McTeigue | 106 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, Hungary & Spain / English | 15 / R

The RavenJohn Cusack stars as literary giant (figuratively) Edgar Allan Poe in this wannabe-Victorian-Se7en from the director of V for Vendetta.

Set in the days leading up to Poe’s death (a period in the author’s life which is apparently shrouded in mystery), the film sees a serial killer recreating horrendous scenes from Poe’s tales, leading the police to rope in the author in the hope he can help solve the case. A game develops between the killer and the writer, as they race against time to stop more deaths and all that palaver.

Dark and gruesome with the killer having a clear line to follow in his murders? Wannabe Se7en, see. Unfortunately, it doesn’t follow up on that notion too well. Screenwriters Hannah Shakespeare (helluva name to live up to) and Ben Livingston don’t seem to know what to do with Poe’s tales, so there’s no rhyme nor reason to the killings — they’re plucked at random, possibly from the killer’s most favouritest stories, possibly just the ones someone thought would be the most cinematic. And whereas Se7en’s gore is shocking because it’s used sparingly, is kind of plausible, and is set very much in the real world, here we get a kind of gothic horror feel, complete with copious CGI blood at points.

That said, I got the feeling that The Raven is sort of an R by default. (Note that it received a 15 over here, which is also the stomping ground of harder-edged PG-13s.) There’s gore and the odd swear word, but none of it is lingered on. Most of the obvious blood ‘n’ guts is constrained to one scene, and I believe I counted the PG-13’s requisite single use of the F-word. Holmes and Watson...That they didn’t tone it all down just a smidge to match, and so go for the box office-friendly PG-13, is a surprise in these days.

Setting aside comparisons to Fincher’s masterpiece, I’ve read that one critic described The Raven as “Saw meets Sherlock Holmes”. Obviously I maintain that my allusion is better, but I can see where they’re coming from. However, apart from one murder inspired by The Pit and the Pendulum and someone being (temporarily) buried alive, it’s not that Saw-like; and it lacks the humour or action of Ritchie’s Holmes, or the deductive reasoning of any version. But, y’know, aside from that… Additionally, the climax is somewhat reminiscent of A Study in Pink. Might be coincidence, but on the other hand that episode did go out nearly two years before this was released…

I don’t know how historically accurate this tale is, but I imagine not very — I expect we’d know if Poe had been involved in a headline-making murder investigation that led to his death. But that’s fine — it’s the embodiment of the notion that a fiction film is an entertainment, not a history lesson. As for the author’s characterisation, I don’t know much about Poe, but can’t imagine Cusack is an accurate interpretation. He’s solid as this interpretation, though: a charming, roguish figure, living hand-to-mouth through his fondness for alcohol and dramatic wooing of a woman whose father hates him.

A right pair of BritsThe rest of the cast are from Hollywood’s usual go-to for period tales: Brits; if not entirely then mostly so. (The film was shot in Hungary and Serbia, so I suppose our thesps have the additional advantage of being geographically favourable to Americans.) You know you’re getting a level of quality there, then, though for me Kevin R. McNally lets the side down (again). He’s only a supporting character and is fine most of the time, but there’s one bit when he’s talking to the lead detective and just rattles off his line… It’s not the world’s greatest speech, but you can hear there was meant to be more nuance and quiet in there.

That could be the fault of the director, of course. A first assistant director for the Wachowskis in the days of The Matrix trilogy, James McTeigue graduated to feature directing with the adaptation of V for Vendetta, which I think is a very good film. He followed it with Ninja Assassin, which by all accounts is dreadful (I have, by one way or another, wound up with the BD, so someday I’ll find out). I think The Raven suggests his first film may have been fluke, or was at least aided by his mentors (who were also writers and producers on V). The actual direction-y directing here is mostly fine, although on the whole the film is too dark; sometimes literally too dark to see what’s going on, and that’s not aided by occasionally clunky editing.

I’ve not even mentioned the inappropriately modern title sequence (doubly bad as it comes after a rather sombre ending), or that the neat use of a raven in the film’s logo on the poster remains the entire project’s strongest aspect.

Bad review?Se7en is probably my favourite film ever made, but criticisms that it’s quite a standard detective mystery are not invalid. It’s enlivened by Andrew Kevin Walker’s writing (great dialogue, engrossing structure, etc), some top-drawer performances (Freeman, Pitt, a loopy-calm Spacey), and, probably most of all, David Fincher’s inestimable touch. In making such a comparison it’s easy to see that The Raven lacks any of these, which renders it a solid period mystery, but no more.

3 out of 5

The Raven is on Sky Movies Premiere at various times this week.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

2012 #57
Eric Radomski & Bruce W. Timm | 76 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

Batman: Mask of the PhantasmBatman movies have a habit of provoking strong reactions. The Dark Knight is popularly regarded as one of the greatest films of all time (settled at #7 on IMDb’s Top 25); Batman & Robin is widely reviled as one of if not the worst of all time; the Adam West movie and Batman Returns have long been wildly divisive, and it looks like The Dark Knight Rises has now joined their ranks.

And then there’s Mask of the Phantasm. Relatively little seen (it made under $6 million at the US box office on release and has never been particularly well served on DVD, though I understand it’s sold well), it’s acclaimed by those that have caught it — including critics — as perhaps the greatest Batman film of them all. Some even say it was the best animated film of 1993, and that’s the year of The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas — a bold claim indeed.

Oh yes, that’s right — it’s animated. And right there we have an explanation for its lack of wide-spread appreciation.

Spun off from fan-favourite TV series Batman: The Animated Series, this feature-length version sees Batman remembering events from early in his career while tracking down a murderous vigilante, the titular Phantasm.

Batman no more?One of the main reasons the film succeeds is that look back at Bruce Wayne’s early days as a crime fighter. Batman’s origin is oft told — too oft, truth be told — but they thankfully don’t rehash it here. Instead, early in Batman’s career Bruce falls in love and finds happiness, causing him to question whether to continue down the path he’s already dedicated his life to. The scene where he talks to his parents’ grave, expressing his guilt at potentially finding happiness after so much mourning, is one of the most powerful, emotional moments in all of Batman’s many iterations.

But it’s not all navel-gazing. There’s more than enough action to satiate the young and young-minded, including a spectacular explosive finale set in a rundown theme park. It’s just another of the film’s many triumphs; another reason it deserves to be better known and better respected.

Many sensible, genuinely grown-up people will happily espouse that animation is not solely a kids’ medium, as Western attitudes have wound up painting it. It’s a battle far from won: despite the attention now afforded anime, companies that handle its Western distribution still struggle, and I think it’s seen by many as the preserve of ‘alternative’ teenagers and manchilds. Mask of the Phantasm is far from being an adults-only experience, instead treading that line often taken by US animation nowadays (particularly Pixar) of having plenty for the kids alongside more thematically and emotionally mature sensibilities. The titular maskBut instead of falling in some nasty halfway-house, Phantasm turns up trumps on all fronts.

I think we have to accept that it’s never going to gain the mass appreciation of Nolan’s Bat-films, or even Tim Burton’s; but for those in the know, Mask of the Phantasm is a gem in the history of Batman on screen. Indeed, it may even be the best Batman film of all.

5 out of 5

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm placed 4th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

2012 #13
Tomas Alfredson | 127 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK, France & Germany / English | 15 / R

Tinker Tailor Soldier SpyShortly after I watched Tinker Tailor, it was announced that they (“they” in this instance being Working Title, I think) are planning a new film adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s perennially popular novel Rebecca. This news was greeted (at least on the websites where I read it) with cries in the comments along the lines of, “you can’t remake Hitchcock!” Such is the power of an adaptation to overshadow its original work, at least in some quarters — here in the UK, I’d say the novel is at least as well known as the film, and has already been re-filmed at least twice for TV.

I mention this because Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy elicited a broadly similar reaction, thanks to the beloved 1979 BBC miniseries starring Sir Alec Guinness as quiet but fiercely clever spy George Smiley. How dare anyone re-make that? Well, perhaps because it’s 30 years old (enough time to afford a new perspective, potentially) and was originally a novel — and those are ‘re-made’ all the time. Just ask Pride and Prejudice, or Oliver Twist, or dozens of others.

Personally, I watched the Guinness version just a month or two before I saw the new film, and it unavoidably colours my reaction to it. In that situation, one can only enjoy the new adaptation to an extent, while memories of the previous one crowd in. Distance is required for anything more objective. So changes between TV and film leered out at me, such as a radically different opening mission, and a radically re-arranged structure in places, and a few performances that weren’t up to the same level, and a marginally less effective denouement.

Oldman confess to being a CumberbitchYet, for all that, the film is excellent. It may not match the TV series in places, in my subjective opinion, but in its own right it shines. Gary Oldman does the impossible and offers a Smiley that is neither an imitation of Guinness’ nor a deliberate counterpoint, but stands apart as an equally proficient rendering of the character. The rest of the cast are equally up to task, with the exception of Kathy Burke, who stands out like a sore thumb in my opinion.

The TV series took about seven hours to tell the same story that this achieves in just over two. Interestingly, without cutting anything major, the film version still feels leisurely paced. It’s also equally as complicated — it’s an intricate plot, and both adaptations assume the viewer will keep up with it. This seems to have caused some viewers problems, particularly in America (anecdotally, at least). It does demand one’s attention, but it is possible to follow. Equally, I had a leg-up from watching and understanding the TV version.

All that said, the four-way mystery about who the villain is never seems much of a mystery. On the one hand, I know the answer; but on the other, I guessed it on TV too. I won’t give anything more away, though the shortened running time means one of the four suspects gets even less screen time than their already-minimal role in the series, and consequently downgraded casting in both instances. It’s an unfortunate side effect of a big-name cast that it helps your audience second-guess plot developments, but it’s equally unavoidable.

Suspect the unsuspectedAnother noteworthy advantage of the film is that it’s gorgeously shot. The TV series actually has its own appeal in this area, with a realism that is quite pleasing. The film occasionally goes grander (look at the depiction of meeting rooms in The Circus for a major example — while the TV series goes for any old room in Whitehall, the film offers stonking soundproof ‘pods’), but it works in its own way.

I must confess, much like my recent drabble reviews, this TV-version-centric review of Tinker Tailor was not what I had in mind, because the film has many praises to sing in its own right. But, in fairness to the blog’s stated mission of seeing a film for the first time and then reviewing it, the Guinness iteration did factor large in my reaction to the film. Now distanced from the series, I look forward to watching Tinker Tailor again with a fairer eye. Yet for all my talk of negative comparisons, I was still mightily impressed — enough to rank it in my top five films I saw in 2012, and enough to give it full marks.

5 out of 5

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy placed 5th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Falcon in Danger (1943)

2012 #73
William Clemens | 67 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The Falcon in DangerWe’ve had the Saint in New York, in London, and in Palm Springs; soon we’ll have the Falcon in Mexico, in Hollywood, and in San Francisco; but here, he’s just in danger. He’s also in perhaps the best film either series has offered to date.

Ironically, the film begins with one of the worst plane crashes ever committed to celluloid. I’m not berating it for the special effects (they’re not incredible, but this is a ’40s B-movie — we’re not expecting much), but the way it’s shot and acted. The extras are appalling. Fortunately the film almost instantly picks up, offering a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes: said plane, noted as having several passengers when it left its previous location, is now completely empty of both passengers and crew. What the blazes?!

Fortunately, Tom Conway’s Falcon Mk.II is on hand to sort things out. It leads to a moderately intricate case of deception (of course — they didn’t really disappear), kidnap, ransom, theft, business intrigue, a suspicious antique dealership, a murderous guard dog, and a rollerskating rink (no, really). The humour is in shorter supply than in other entries — we’re mostly spared the bumbling cops, so it doesn’t suffer too badly for it. That said, the main ‘comedy’ comes from the Falcon’s latest fiancée, Amelita Ward as a Texan lass who’s distinctly annoying. Reviews abound that assert she completely ruins the film, but it’s not that bad. Three birdsThough the Falcon clearly agrees with everyone else’s assessment and shrugs her off as often as he can, to our benefit.

For I think the first time, the “distressed girl distracts the Falcon” coda actually leads into the next film (or seems to). Ironically, though that cast includes both of …in Danger’s female leads in new roles, the Hysterical Girl who leads the Falcon to it isn’t in it. Ah, ’40s cinema.

While some may lament the slightly more serious tone, then, The Falcon in Danger surely stands out as one of the more engrossing mysteries the series has to offer. I can’t say I’d complain if the remaining seven films followed such a line.

4 out of 5

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

The Falcon Strikes Back (1943)

2012 #72
Edward Dmytryk | 63 mins | download | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The Falcon Strikes BackDirected by Edward Dmytryk (who, a couple of years later, would helm Farewell My Lovely/Murder, My Sweet, which was previously filmed as The Falcon Takes Over — connections, connections), the first film to feature solely Tom Conway as the Falcon is probably the series’ weakest effort to date.

The story trundles along for much of the film, at best a typical runaround, at worst an unengaging tale of stolen war bonds and memory loss. (I say “memory loss” — the Falcon was supposedly unconscious, meaning he didn’t have the memories in the first place to lose. But that’s beside the point.) I was getting a bit fed up with it, but the final act manages to introduce some atmosphere and incident, in the process explaining some of the earlier, apparently aimless, story choices.

With the Falcon series, the makers seem to be making a concerted effort with plots — whereas the Saint films were largely quite straightforward, often only having one possible character to reveal as the villain, the Falcon films are largely genuine whodunits. Strikes Back has a particularly knotty denouement. It doesn’t necessarily make them better — indeed, on the whole, the Saint films are more entertaining — but it gives them something.

Conway makes a solid replacement for George Sanders, because he’s effectively more of the same. Aside from an opening that implies the new New Yorker is uncomfortable with the city’s constant noise, there’s no reference to him being new in town last time round — indeed, the plot fairly hinges on the fact he previously put someone away in the area. The Falcon and... some other peopleHis eye for the ladies remains the same, although Conway feels a bit slicker and less whipped. Neither carry the same charisma as Sanders’ Saint.

Jane Randolph is back as Marcia Brooks, but the women largely play a toned down part this time round, perhaps because there’s at least four of them. Goldie’s back, this time played by Cliff Edwards, who is certainly no Allen Jenkins. Whereas Jenkins made for an amiable sidekick, Edwards is actually quite irritating. (Though this is his last appearance for now, the character returns later in the series, played by Edward S. Brophy and Vince Barnett.) The policemen perform their usual shtick, which gets a little more desperate and less funny with each film. At least there’s only one round of the “because I’m the boss” gag this time. The Falcon’s ethnically-variable butler Jerry is still Asian, albeit recast with Richard Loo, and gets a more substantial supporting role, once again in one of the film’s better segments.

Strikes Back recovers towards the end for a decent final act, but it’s a relative slog to get to that point. All in, while not outright bad, I’d say it’s the least entertaining of the Falcon films thus far.

2 out of 5

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

The Falcon’s Brother (1942)

2012 #71
Stanley Logan | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The Falcon's BrotherThe Falcon may’ve done it in the third entry in RKO’s Saint-a-like film series, but now it was time for Tom Conway to take over — as the series’ star, that is.

Leaving my contrived and slightly embarrassing introductions aside, Conway gets a pretty good introduction to what will soon be his franchise. Though we begin with George Sanders still the lead, learning that his brother has been murdered on a ship arriving in New York — only to find out the body isn’t his brother after all — there’s a speedy and smooth transition to Conway being in charge.

Quite why they felt the need to execute such a neat transition, when previously films of this calibre had been happy to just re-cast (see: the Saint), I don’t know, but it works in its favour. Behind the scenes, Sanders had grown tired of B-movie leads, but presumably the series was successful enough at this point that RKO didn’t want to abandon it — especially as they were in the process of losing the Saint. In a piece of too-perfect casting, Conway is his real-life brother. On-screen and in-story, the passing of the baton is so smoothly done you barely even notice it happening, and it gives Conway an unencumbered chance to establish himself… though he’s basically the same character. Whether he’ll have the same gurning lack of success with the dames remains to be seen, however.

Brotherly loveAside from housekeeping, the film offers one of the series’ better plots, a proper detective mystery that doesn’t lead where you’d expect it to for once. That said, I didn’t like the ending so much, especially the way it abruptly dispatches our former hero followed by the gang carrying on with barely a care. The Mysterious Threatening Voice On The Phone is interesting though — will we be seeing a recurring enemy; a Moriarty or Blofeld for the new Falcon? Time shall tell…

Apart from the dual leads, Don Barclay’s Lefty is basically a re-cast Goldy — he even has the same police-bating catchphrase. Why Allen Jenkins left/was got rid of, I don’t know, but that’s the kind of thing that happens in movies of this scale I suppose. A quick flick through IMDb reveals the Goldy will return later, but Jenkins won’t, which is a minor shame. Broadly similarly, making Jane Randolph’s female lead, Marcia Brooks, a journalist also smacks of why-isn’t-it-just-the-one-from-the-last-film-ness. She’ll be back in the next film and then gone again, perhaps continuing the almost-tradition the films are establishing for a girl relay? (I should really stop theorising mid-flow; but then, we are wont to see connections where there are none.)

The bumbling cops are also present and correct, not that I care for them. Their “because I’m the boss” shtick is one of the elements that makes the Falcon films feel more formulaic than the Saint ones, The Shadow?in spite of all the other factors (changing sources of adaptation; changing leads) that should make them feel wildly varied. And the Falcon’s butler, Jerry, is Asian again, after being caucasian in the last two films. Played this time by Keye Luke, rather than being some nasty stereotype he has a nice bit using stereotypes to the characters’ advantage. It’s one of the series’ better comic inventions.

Re-casting your lead can be a major stumbling block for a series, or lead it to even greater success. Normally it’s done abruptly, but the Falcon takes a more transitionary route… and, perhaps surprisingly, it pays off with a mostly fun adventure. And with Conway now in charge, perhaps the series can shake off the lingering Saint on its shoulder.

3 out of 5

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

Birth (2004)

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2012 #87
Jonathan Glazer | 93 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA & Germany / English | 15 / R

BirthControversial supernatural mystery drama. Nicole Kidman’s rationalist husband dies suddenly; years later, as she gets engaged to another man, a boy arrives claiming to be her husband reincarnated. More realistic art house drama about grief and insecurity than thrill-giving occult mystery, it nonetheless keeps you guessing as Kidman is slowly convinced by the boy’s tale, while family relationships collapse around her. Full of quiet understated performances, Kidman is particularly captivating and, as the boy, Cameron Bright is mesmerisingly unreadable. Poorly received, with some notable exceptions, Birth is a fascinating film that won’t appeal to everyone, but deserves the right audience.

4 out of 5

Scre4m (2011)

aka Scream 4

2012 #45
Wes Craven | 111 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Scre4mI had heard Scre4m (Scream 4, if you prefer) was dreadful; a misguided, belated attempt to revive a once-popular franchise. Personally, I thought it was fun.

Set ten years after the trilogy-closing Scream 3, the new movie wisely kicks off in years-later-sequel mode, re-introducing us to the (surviving) old characters and setting up a selection of new ones ready to be sliced ‘n’ diced. Unlike some subsequent horror franchises, Scream was never about inventive deaths, so the focus on character and storyline (relatively, at least) makes for a welcome change of pace from gore-riddled modern US horror movies.

One of the hallmarks of the original films, as I’m sure you’ll recall, is that they featured characters who were very aware of the rules of the horror movie. It played on these mercilessly, said characters employing knowledge of decades’ worth of horror films and horror sequels in order to (try to) survive. That’s not gone in Scre4m, which sets its sights on the US horror predilections that have followed since; mainly remakes and reboots. Sadly, there’s probably more on-the-nose dialogue-y exposition-y stuff about the poor quality and predictability of remakes than actually integrating such criticism into the film itself; but then again the parallels to the original Scream are there for those who care to look.

Arquette CoxIt also leads to quite a good extended bit where some characters reel off a list of recent remakes, which rather highlights just how far it’s gone now. There’s lots of examples of this fun ‘meta’ stuff for film fans; for real-world-stuff too, including references to Courtney Cox and David Arquette’s marriage, Emma Roberts being in the shadow of Julia Roberts, and so on.

In a nod to the rise of ‘torture porn’ films, Scre4m frequently reminds us that the rules have changed. I think what it really proves is there are no rules any more. Which on the one hand is fine — filmmakers have spent decades trying to subvert our expectations and surprise us in the horror genre — but on the other means the intelligent viewer can never be surprised, because every possibility is racing through our mind. Which, again, is fine — that’s the point: like every kind of murder mystery from Agatha Christie on, half the game is guessing the killer. And if you want to get suckered in to the jump scares, or think it through so thoroughly you remain ahead of them, that’s fine too. I think that’s one of the reasons horror movies have always appealed so much to teens: they’re still naive enough, unfamiliar with the rules of film enough, to get caught out by those things; whereas an older, seasoned viewer can see them coming.

New generationBut, ultimately, all the discussion of horror movies and their rules is just window dressing: if there aren’t rules any more (which there don’t seem to be), it’s impossible for the characters to use them to survive, or for it to lend much self-reflexive weight to how the killer behaves. The only moment when it might be of use is when they predict the climax will occur at a party, and it turns out they’re having a party that very night! But then they go ahead with anyway. So much for that then.

Like so much of the film, Marco Beltrami’s score is amusingly overblown. He makes it sound like something terrifying is happening when someone sits in broad daylight typing “I don’t know what to write” on their computer. I had similar thoughts on bits of the acting, the murders, and so on — there’s an element of a wink and a nudge, of deliberately hamming it up. I think that some would see this as a lack of skill in the acting/writing/directing departments, but I think it’s a choice. Or I choose to think it’s a choice, take your pick. Arguably the resultant mix works as well as a comedy as it does a horror movie. This, I think, is part of why the Scary Movie movies are so reviled — they simply take the piss out of something that is, to one degree or another, already taking the piss.

In many respects, Scre4m is kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade. Old skoolThough as the main development has been torture porn, and it criticises that explicitly from the very first scene, perhaps that’s still OK. In fact, they’re one step ahead again, with a nod to the most most-recent development (the Paranormal Activity-led “found footage” boom), which actually plays a more central role than the torture porn stuff.

It’s fair to say that a chunk of nostalgia for the originals colours my liking of Scre4m. Perhaps it plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.

3 out of 5