Unknown (2011)

Posted on October 4, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

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

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

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

The Negotiator (1998)

Posted on October 3, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

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

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

Outland (1981)

Posted on September 24, 2012 by badblokebob

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

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

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

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

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

The Falcon Takes Over (1942)

Posted on September 8, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #70
Irving Reis | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

Quite outside of the Falcon film series, this third entry is notable for being the first screen adaptation of a Raymond Chandler novel. Ditching Chandler’s then-unknown Philip Marlowe in favour of the Falcon in the lead role, this is a version of the character’s second mystery, Farewell, My Lovely — which would be adapted straight just two years later. And they say things get remade quickly nowadays.

Maybe it’s just because I knew, but The Falcon Takes Over does feel like a Chandler tale. But then of his original work I’ve only read and seen The Big Sleep, so maybe it’s just passingly like that. Still, there’s something in the intricacy of plotting and the kind of settings it inhabits that is either coincidentally like The Big Sleep or is Chandleresque.

Story aside, this is otherwise much the same as the other Falcon films. Sanders is a bit Saint-like while not being quite as good; there are several women for him to fawn over, including a coda where a new one turns up to attract his attention away from this film’s main dame; the police are bumbling comedy extras; as is sidekick Goldie…

As usual, it doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi that makes the Saint films particularly entertaining (yeah, you know I mean wit); and I can well believe it has “none of the atmosphere of Chandler’s book”; and that it lacks the quality of the second film adaptation, an acknowledged film noir classic (which I really should see). But for those faults, it’s still a good yarn reasonably well told.

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

A Date with the Falcon (1942)

Posted on September 8, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #69
Irving Reis | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / USA | PG*

The second Falcon film sees George Sanders’ gentlemen detective investigate the disappearance of a scientist.

Though there’s certainly a detective mystery there — involving gangsters, doubles, diamonds and more — A Date with the Falcon is more of a comedy than a thriller. It’s of a broadly slapstick variety too, rather than the Saint’s more subtle dialogue-based levity. The plot, though not a bad concoction, is fairly secondary to antics with the incompetent police or the Saint’s hounding fiancée — not the same one as last time, incidentally, but now Wendy Barrie, in the same role as last time. This almost sets up an interesting kind of girl-relay, where the engaged Falcon’s eye is distracted by a new girl, only to find him engaged to her in the next film, only to find his eye distracted by a new girl, only to find him engaged to her… etc. I don’t know if that was deliberate — I mention it because the method sort of resurfaces in a couple of films’ time, but other than that and this, it doesn’t seem to come off. Which is a shame, because I like it as an idea.

The best bit is a sequence at a hotel, where the Falcon has tracked a mysterious criminal lady. Here we find Hans Conried’s knowing hotel desk clerk. Conried, who has a larger but less entertaining part in the next Falcon film and was apparently in the first too, would go on to be the voice of Captain Hook in Disney’s Peter Pan. Which is neither here nor there, but still. Anyway, aside from him there’s a ‘suicide’ bid and the crowd below’s reaction to it. Again it’s mostly comedy, but unlike some of the series’ DOA running gags it’s actually funny.

Watching A Date with the Falcon, it feels like the series has found its own tone a bit more. It’s still vaguely Saint-ish, still aiming for an adventure-thriller-with-humour vibe, but the comedy is of a slightly different kind, and the Falcon himself isn’t the smooth operator that the Saint was. Rather than the Woman of the Week fall for him effortlessly, he gets incessant flack from his (always new) fiancée, and he’s not quite as adapt at wriggling his way out of things when it comes to a sticky situation. I prefer the (good) Saint films, but this is fun in places.

* As with many films of this era, apparently, A Date with the Falcon hasn’t been passed by the BBFC since its original release. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Posted on September 6, 2012 by badblokebob

Prequels are far from a new concept (there are examples in ancient Greek literature; the OED dates the first use in print to 1958, though I swear I’ve heard mention of it being used even earlier), but in the past ten years or so they really seem to have come to prevalence in the movies. Perhaps we can trace this phenomenon back to The Phantom Menace, which saw massive hype and became the second highest grossing film of all time (it still resides in the top ten, albeit thanks to re-releases). In the years since we’ve seen any number of franchises go the prequel route, or in many cases what one might call a prequel-reboot (where we’re seeing the characters at an earlier point in their timeline, but it’s a reboot-style new ‘universe’). Since the mid ’00s we’ve had Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Hannibal Rising, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, Star Trek, X-Men: First Class, The Thing, and Prometheus, with The Hobbit trilogy coming soon, not to mention cheapo direct-to-DVD ones for lesser wannabe-franchises.

The obvious one I haven’t mentioned, of course, is Rise of the Planet of the Apes, last year’s prequel / prequel-reboot (there are nods to the 1968 original, though someone involved said it establishes a new continuity) of the perennially popular franchise Tim Burton killed last time they tried to restart it (infamously coining the phrase “re-imagining” in the process). That was ten years ago and, if extras on Rise‘s BD are to be believed, this relaunch came about not because of the usual studio-looking-to-exploit-a-recognisable-IP, but because a writer had a good idea. Perish the thought!

The screenwriters in question, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (also producers), are due a lot of thanks for the quality of the final product. The story — about the son of a lab-tested chimpanzee, raised at home by a US scientist, who ultimately turns on humanity — was inspired by news stories of pet chimps attacking their owners, plus research into genetic modification. By taking these themes and issues and running with them, Jaffa and Silver have crafted a blockbuster that is both plausible and intelligent — a rare thing these days.

It’s also very well structured, for those that spot such technical things. It knows its own pace — not slow, but doesn’t rush to get to mass-audience-friendly action scenes either — but also, the layering of elements. There are numerous throwaway points that are picked up later; actions that have small significance but then return for bigger effect. None of this is played as over-emphasised “remember this for later” detail, as is often the case. Credit must also go to director Rupert Wyatt for his handling of these points. To put it succinctly, it’s just plain Good Writing.

Thematically it boils down to a man vs nature parable; about how we mistreat it, but also how we think we’re so far above it. Some of these themes may seem obvious, but they’re not overly spelt out — no one stands around bemoaning experimentation on animals, or lamenting man’s hubris in not taking the ape threat seriously enough.

As with many prequels, the story itself may seem needless: we know where it ends up, and as various balls are put in play we can see their ultimate destination. But the important thing is that you can’t always see their trajectory, and as someone famous once said, sometimes the pleasure’s in the journey not the destination. Here we become invested in the characters, so we care about what will happen to them in the broader sweep of the Apes story, not to mention the intricacies of how things go from the opening status quo to the conclusion. Plus, with a prequel set so far before the original as this one is, one can always ponder the question of just how far they’ll go in this story (it doesn’t connect up to the start of Planet of the Apes, for instance).

The ape, Caesar, the Andy Serkis character you’ll surely have heard a lot of around the last Oscar race, is definitely the star of the film. As ever with all-CG characters based on an on-set performance, it’s nigh impossible to tell how much is Serkis and how much the undoubtedly talented animators at Weta. It’s even more prevalent for a role without dialogue. Great acting isn’t just about line delivery, obviously, but when you’re hidden beneath the post-production work of an entire team of CGI wizards, it would help. The ‘making of’ material in the special features helps enlighten Serkis’ key contribution some, but also reveals that for some bits other performers played Caesar. It’s no worse than a stunt double, I imagine, but it doesn’t necessarily help the cause of those desiring mo-cap actors get awards recognition. At the end of the day, the precise quality of his performance is a tough call. The film does a magnificent job of investing us in Caesar, making us really care about him, understand him, side with him over the human characters… but how much is that Serkis and how much the animators, the writers, the director?

The rest of the cast are adequate but hardly register. James Franco is a solid lead but rarely called on to do much — Caesar is the protagonist, Franco’s human scientist just facilitates that. Frieda Pinto’s role is underwritten. Considering the film barely hits 100 minutes in an era when many blockbusters bloat to 140+, there’s room for her character to get a subplot objecting to the lab treatment of the apes. She’s awfully accepting of Franco’s line of work. As I noted though, perhaps they were trying to avoid being heavy-handed. Overall, John Lithgow is served best, his character slipping in and out of Alzheimer’s as Franco tries to develop a cure. It’s another in a line of recent fine supporting performances from him.

It’s a first Big Movie for Wyatt, having previously directed prison break thriller The Escapist, but he’s certainly up to the task. The dramatic scenes are handled with appropriate understatement, but there’s a flair to grander sequences — a single shot that shows Caesar ageing five years while climbing through trees is very well done, for instance. By contrast, his first three years commit the cardinal sin of screenwriting: a voiceover tells, not shows. But that’s a rare clunky moment. The final-act skirmish ultimately delivers on the customary blockbuster action front, offering a well choreographed and staged battle. This level of effort makes for an extended sequence that is infinitely more engrossing and exciting than any number of quick-cut close-up shakey-cam tussles of recent years.

I noted earlier that this doesn’t connect directly to the start of Planet of the Apes, and instead a sequel is well prepared for. There’s a satisfying climax and resolution to the main story, thankfully, but there’s unquestionably still more that could come. There’s the newly intelligent apes, not yet ruling the planet; but also a mid-credit sequence that continues a significant subplot that’s clearly left hanging, closing the movie with a slight Part One-y tang. Still, I believe that if there wasn’t a sequel coming it would function satisfyingly as a standalone film.

But there is a sequel on its way (does that make it a sequel-prequel or a prequel-sequel?), and if this gang of filmmakers can pull off another intelligent sci-fi movie, with a continued broadly-plausible evolution of this story, then it will be one to look forward to.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is on Sky Movies Premiere today, for the last time, at 10am and 8pm.

It placed 7th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Spiral Staircase (2000)

Posted on August 30, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #49
James Head | 88 mins | TV | 1.33:1 | USA / English

A couple of years ago I discovered the ’40s Gothic noir thriller The Spiral Staircase, an exceedingly enjoyable film that I would heartily encourage you to see. It’s been remade twice: first a British effort in the ’70s, then this turn-of-the-millennium US TV movie. I find remakes immensely interesting — they’re almost always reviled, but that doesn’t mean they’re all bad; and even when they are, they can be interesting as an indication of what one era thought was a good idea for updating (or not) something originally made in a different time. The ’00s Spiral Staircase is definitely one of the bad ones, but if you want a snapshot of ’90s (not a typo) US TV movies, it’s bang on.

I believe it was made for a Women’s Network in the States, and it feels like an adaptation of one of those doorstop-sized airport romance paperbacks that I imagine are their stock in trade. (In fairness to doorstop-sized airport romances and the novel from which all versions of The Spiral Staircase stem, I’ve never read either.) Despite the implications of an “X months ago” prologue in which someone is followed by a spooky pair of eyes (presumably a whole person, but we only see the eyes), the first half is more cheap, tacky, romance-of-the-week TV movie than serial killer thriller.

The second half tries harder, seeing a bunch of potential victims locked in an island mansion, cut off by a terrible storm, and then finds reasons to have them wander back and forth around the place until they start being bumped off for no particular reason. This half isn’t necessarily good, but it has more atmosphere and more excitement, if not any more originality, even while contriving ways to divide its characters.

There are about three suspects in the entire tale. One is so clearly being set up from the off that you know it can’t be him; one barely even registers as a suspect; and it’s not the third one. But the film doesn’t pull off a twist because the attempt (by dragging that middle character back into it) comes so out of the blue as to make no sense. They don’t even bother to try to explain it properly! It’s about the only time the film holds back on painful over-exposition, and it’s about the only time it needs it. Either way, it’s not the same as the original film’s, and it’s not as good.

Every character is a cliché: the sweet new girl, the stern housekeeper, the drunk cook, the no-nonsense bed-ridden matriarch, the intelligent brother who stayed behind to look after mother, the playboy brother who only comes home when he needs a loan, his latest gold-digging floozy… The performances don’t help. As the mute heroine, Nicollette Sheridan only has her facial expressions to work with, and they don’t seem to change; she’s also at least a decade too old for the part. As her love interest, former Brat Packer Judd Nelson is awfully wooden. The rest of the cast are various degrees of adequate.

Head’s direction is flat and cheap, which I suppose is exactly what you’d expect from a late-’90s cable TV movie. The sequence where a character stumbles across the titular staircase is quite atmospheric, given added creepiness by it featuring about the only character whose fate doesn’t seem inevitable, but that’s all. Even given a storm in a house with no power, the only atmosphere generated is that which such a situation offers by default.

The original story is clearly suited to a Gothic historical setting (the ’40s film didn’t keep the novel’s time period, but it chose one similar enough), but that doesn’t mean a modern-set rendition isn’t without potential. Or maybe it is — it’s hard to be certain from a movie that certainly doesn’t realise what potential there may be. Yet for all its countless weaknesses, I can’t quite bring myself to entirely despise it. Can I really give this wholly derivative remake 2 stars? It may be some kind of Stockholm Syndrome — after 90 minutes with it, I can’t help but find some point in it all; some thing to like.

But no, it’s woeful; and unless you have a fondness for romance-focused late-’90s US cable TV movies, or for seeing just how remakes have changed things (like me… the second, that is, not the first), then I recommend you stay clear.

The 1945 version of The Spiral Staircase is on BBC Two tomorrow, Friday 31st August, at 12:50pm. You can read my review here.

The Spiral Staircase featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Saint Meets the Tiger (1943)

Posted on August 27, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #67
Paul Stein | 66 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK / English | PG*

Produced in 1941 but not released until 1943, owing to Saint creator Leslie Charteris’ dispute with RKO over their new Falcon series (which is fairly unashamedly a rip-off of the successful Saint films), The Saint Meets the Tiger is a belated adaptation of Charteris’ first Saint tale, but was to be the series’ final film. Fortunately, it’s quite a good one.

Whether it be by conscious effort or serendipity, several of the problems suffered by The Saint’s Vacation are rectified here. Consensus seems to hold this is even worse than Hugh Sinclair’s first Saint film, but I definitely preferred it. The plot is not only engaging but makes sense, flowing onwards rather than going round in circles and not trying to push ‘twists’ that can be seen a mile off. The sense of place is also back: it’s very much The Saint in Cornwall. The downside is that’s a bit less glamorous than New York or trotting around Europe, the tiny Cornish village setting giving a low-key and quaint sensation, despite the story concerning international gold thieves. Secret passages, a smugglers’ cave and a yacht add some Boy’s Own excitement and borderline grandeur nonetheless.

Unfortunately the titular villain is a damp squib. Clifford Evans’ performance is good enough, and the notion of him working with our heroes under an alias is a good one, but ultimately he’s not the kind of crime lord the dramatic title and initial setup serve to imply. His underlings are the focus of the Saint’s investigations at first, and then they overthrow the Tiger with a basic double cross and become the focus for the climax too. Insert some predictable comment about him being a tiger without teeth here.

It still lacks the wit and light touch that make the Sanders films so entertaining, with only vague attempts at humour that generally raise little more than a smile. Sinclair doesn’t seem quite as wooden this time out, but he’s a straight-cut hero-type, not the kind of charmer this series really wants. In fact, one moment when he bursts into laughter, only to suddenly cut it short, is actually quite creepy. Perhaps he was trying to emulate Sanders more — the film does feel lighter than Vacation — but he still comes up short.

Gordon McLeod is Inspector Teal for the third time, but is still no Fernack; and Wylie Watson as Templar’s butler-butler (as opposed to the usual criminal-turned-butler) isn’t the series’ best sidekick either. Still, they’re both light years ahead of the ones offered in Vacation. Jean Gillie is actually one of the better ‘Saint girls’, though.

All in, Meets the Tiger plays as a straight-up thriller in the ’40s filler model. It’s fine for what it is, with some nice moments particularly during the third act, but it’s not quite as entertainingly memorable as the series’ middle entries.

Read more of my thoughts on Sinclair’s time as the Saint here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since 1941 (when it was also 12 minutes longer — that’s not just PAL speed-up!). Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint’s Vacation (1941)

Posted on August 27, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #66
Leslie Fenton | 58 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK & USA / English | PG*

The Saint’s gone on vacation indeed — with the saintly George Sanders nabbed for RKO’s rip-off Falcon series, here we’re treated to fellow Brit Hugh Sinclair’s take on Leslie Charteris’ hero. For “treated” read “subjected”. I’ll come back to him, because sadly he’s not the only thing that makes The Saint’s Vacation the worst film in the entire series.

On paper it should have all gone fairly swimmingly too: not only is this film adapted from a Charteris story, it’s also the first to have the Saint’s creator co-pen the screenplay; plus the character has spiritually come home, as RKO moved filming to the UK to make use of funds frozen by the British government’s Cinematograph Films Act.** But none of that helps; indeed, perhaps it hindered, because the result is a mess.

The adventure is a runaround across Europe. I say “Europe” — it looked broadly Germanic to me, but there’s mention of Paris, and I read online it’s meant it to be Switzerland. Possibly it’s a combination of the above. Considering it’s technically set during the war (not that anyone explicitly mentions that), at least one of those is thoroughly implausible. Having praised the series for its palpable sense of location in earlier entries, that’s all gone here.

The plot itself barely hangs together. The Saint for no apparent reason decides to stick his oar in to someone else’s business, at which point everyone’s racing around the countryside after a mysterious little box that we have no idea why anyone wants. Things are compounded by the regular appearance of local police who will apparently believe whatever they’re told by the first person who tells them something. Apparently the villains are Nazis, though there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that here (again, that’s something I’ve since read online). The Saint knows both the villain and a Mysterious Woman of old, but it’s never explained how or why or what their relationships are. It’s like a set of stock adventure-story elements assembled without any understanding of how or why they should connect, which makes for an unsatisfying and unenthralling experience.

Matters are compounded by this apparently being a TV-friendly version created in retrospect. The title screen has a badly superimposed TV company credit stuck on it anyway, so I presume that’s why a fight scene halfway through has been butchered. It’s that or it was a complete hash job in the first place, with continuity-destroying jumpy editing and choppy music. It doesn’t even look especially violent, as you’d expect from ’40s filler, and it’s certainly no worse than other bits included later… but then of course I don’t know what was cut.

So we return to Hugh Sinclair, who is not a match for Sanders or The Saint in New York’s Louis Hayward. To be blunt, he’s as stiff as a board — pretty much literally, at least to begin with. Sanders oozed charisma just by appearing on screen; Sinclair doesn’t manage any throughout the entire film.

The rest of the cast don’t offer much compensation. Arthur Macrae as the Saint’s cowardly friend Monty is no replacement for the parade of ex-cons he formerly hired as manservants, while Sally Gray of The Saint in London (but here a different character) aims again for pluck but somehow isn’t gifted with the same quality of screenplay and/or direction. Cecil Parker is a solid villain, not that the screenplay treats him that well.

This is easily the worst entry in the series to date — and, having seen the final one before writing this, I’m prepared to say the worst overall. The series spluttered to an end after the next film over an argument between RKO and Charteris about the Falcon series, which was essentially a thinly-veiled Saint rip-off, but one wonders if it wouldn’t have tottered to its own end anyway.

Read more of my thoughts on Sinclair’s time as the Saint here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1941 (when it was also 20 minutes longer — that’s not just PAL speed-up!). Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

** According to IMDb, The Saint’s Vacation “was the first film made using those frozen funds”. I’m no expert on this era, but the act I presume that bit of IMDb trivia means is the 1938 one discussed in the final paragraph of this section on Wikipedia, so presumably it was just the first RKO film to use that money. As I said, no expert — everything I know about this was gleaned from those two pages. Back to the review: ^

Unstoppable (2010)

Posted on August 21, 2012 by badblokebob

In tribute to the late Tony Scott, perhaps one of my favourite filmmakers, and normally a distinctly underrated one, 100 Films’s 600th feature review is of his final film…

2012 #17
Tony Scott | 94 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Tony Scott teams up with Denzel Washington for the fifth time to tell the (kinda) true story of a runaway train with the potential to cause massive destruction.

One of the first questions provoked by any ‘true story’ movie is, “how truthful is it?” And the appropriate answer is, “does it matter?” The main thing here is the same as in most of Scott’s movies: a good ride. As an action-thriller take on real-life, naturally much of what occurs has been fabricated for the movies — generally, the more exciting bits. It’s “inspired by” a real incident from 2001, not a factual re-telling of it. And as it’s a movie not a documentary, that’s fine.

Scott certainly knows how to direct some action. Here he reins in the crazy editing and grading effects of Man on Fire and Domino, but keeps a tense, restless roving camera. The attempts to stop the train are suitably nail-biting and exciting in equal measure. It’s still got that modern, digital intermediate, genre-based colour wash going on though: its a thriller, so of course all the photography is spun from ‘natural’ towards either ‘steely blue’ or ‘metallic green’ depending on location.

For all the excitement, and a brief running time of just over an hour and a half, it could do with being a bit quicker at the start. The time spent establishing character helps our emotional investment later, but even just five minutes trimmed from the fairly sedate first half-hour would help matters. It’s not as if it’s an actors’ film either, though the three leads sell their characters with ease. Chris Pine and Washington seem to have a chemistry that works, even if their roles — the know-it-all young hothead and the experienced about-to-retire old-timer — are as stock as they come. Also look out for Kevin Dunn playing the kind of role (condescending middle-management ‘bad guy’) he always plays.

Nor is it a film with a message, although mention of redundancies coupled with the imagery of an uncontrollable runaway train means there’s something to be read in there about the state of the economy.

Although the Rotten Tomatoes summary describes it as “Tony Scott’s best movie in years”, that might not be saying much coming off the back of critical flops like Domino, Deja Vu and The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It’s not his best work, of that I think we can be certain, but it shows a director still capable of crafting a compelling story that delivers thrills alongside solid if familiar characters, and feels cutting-edge without resorting to tired shakeycam confusion.

Ridley Scott may get all the awards and honours, because, as Tony once described them, he is “classical” while Tony is “rock and roll”; but for my money the younger Scott brother’s influence on movies will be just as sorely missed. I think Ron Howard put it best: “No more Tony Scott movies. Tragic day.”

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: Thriller