On Dangerous Ground (1952)

2013 #49
Nicholas Ray | 79 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English

On Dangerous GroundHelmed by acclaimed director Nicholas Ray (Rebel Without a Cause, In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar), On Dangerous Ground is a film noir in which an over-zealous city cop (Robert Ryan) is punished by being sent upstate to investigate a murdered girl. There he encounters a blind woman (Ida Lupino) and, perhaps, finds redemption…

Despite the praise emanating from some quarters (“the material achieves a nearly transcendental beauty in the hands of Ray”, “a touching psychological drama about despair and loneliness”, and so on), I’m afraid this one provoked a lukewarm reaction from me. I didn’t feel the redemptive character arc was particularly clear, though perhaps this was in part the fault of Ray having to change the ending by studio mandate, and maybe having to pull punches in certain areas due to it being the ’50s.

I also didn’t ‘feel’ the juxtaposition of shadowy city in the film’s early sections with bright snowy country later on. Nonetheless, there is a clear contrast on screen, particularly as the city is all shot at night and is very black, while most of the country scenes occur in daylight, emphasising the near-ceaseless white of the snow. Expectation is a factor here: plot summaries all emphasise the “sent upstate” part, whereas a good chunk at the start is spent in the city, which threw me.

In dangerous houseOn the plus side, Bernard Herrmann’s score is unequivocally excellent, particularly the pulsating opening theme and the insistent action climax.

On Dangerous Ground is quite possibly a better film than I’m giving it credit for, but I just didn’t connect with it in the way I hoped. Definitely one to watch again.

3 out of 5

Man on a Ledge (2012)

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.

2013 #43
Asger Leth | 102 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Man on a LedgeA man books into a swish hotel, has a nice meal, then climbs out the window. Onlookers and police gather. Will he jump? Or is he just a distraction?

What follows is pretty generic ‘single location thriller’ material, with a thoroughly daft ending… but when the whole film strains plausibility (it’s not trying to be The Wire), do we buy it?

It is mostly enjoyable, especially as I like this kind of thriller (see: Phone Booth, Inside Man). It isn’t as accomplished as those, but it’s not bad — at worst, it’s average. Genre fans should be entertained while it lasts.

3 out of 5

The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)

2013 #76
David Zucker | 82 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15* / PG-13

The Naked Gun 2Frank Drebin and the crew at Police Squad are back for the usual mix of silly one-liners and farcical slapstick. Fortunately, they’re as entertaining as ever.

If you’ve seen a Zucker-Abrams-Zucker film you’ll know what you’re in for (and if you haven’t, is a sequel really the best place to start?), but the pleasing aspect is that this is as good as any. Well, not as good as any, but it’s a fine example of their style. Which means that, the afore-outlined daftness aside, some topical jokes have already been lost to time and/or culture (I say “already” — it is 22 years old (oh lordy!)). On that note, I’ll mention that there’s once again a longer TV version which wasn’t shown when I watched it on TV.

The plot is, of course, fairly incidental; but, in a moment of accidental depressingness, it could just as easily be set today as almost two decades ago: an environmental expert is set to make a speech to the US President that will influence policy, so of course the energy companies want said speaker silenced. The only bit that doesn’t fly today is that the President might actually listen to an evidence-backed scientist over energy lobbyists. 22 years on and that field is still as bad as it ever was Stateside, if not worse… Bit of a bleak topic for a comedy, but I suppose it wasn’t all as crushingly serious back then. I imagine that side of the film will only get less funny as the years roll on.

Probably better than the third, probably not quite as good as the first, The Naked Gun 2½ probably splits the difference for 3½ stars. But I don’t do things by halves, kiddo.

3 out of 5

* Classified a 12 for cinemas, but consistently (1991, 1992, 2001) a 15 on video. That’s a bit over the top; I really can’t see why it wasn’t lowered in 2001 at least. ^

Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden Fleece (1961)

aka Tintin et le mystère de la Toison d’Or

2013 #46
Jean-Jacques Vierne | 97 mins | TV | 1.66:1 | France & Belgium / English | PG

Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden FleeceSteven Spielberg and Peter Jackson weren’t the first to bring Hergé’s journalist-adventurer to the big screen, oh no… though you have to go quite far back — and much more obscure — to find the previous efforts.

The Mystery of the Golden Fleece was the first of two live-action Tintin movies made by the French in the ’60s. It seems quite a low-budget affair, but that might just be applying modern tastes to an era of more simple means. For all the flat direction and pound-store costumes, there’s still a globetrotting plot involving sunken ships, numerous chases, helicopters, and that kind of thing. Some bits drag a smidgen for a modern viewer, but mostly it moves at a decent enough lick, as Tintin and co trot around Greece, Turkey and the like in pursuit of / being pursued by a gang of criminals who are interested in the boat Captain Haddock has just inherited, the titular la Toison d’Or. This isn’t quite a Bondian adventure, though its child-audience aims lend a certain charm and innocence that will certainly appeal to the right audience.

Indeed, this is exactly the kind of film I can see gaining a cult following, if it doesn’t have one already. Even for the occasional points of clunkiness, it offers some genuine humour and some old-fashioned derring-do that’s never less than good fun. Plus there’s the bizarre sight of seeing characters costumed and made-up to faithfully recreate their comic-book counterparts plonked in the middle of the very-real world. If you’ve ever been to a Disney theme park, imagine some of the characters they have scattered around wandering out onto the streets. There’s a double bonus for English-language viewers, thanks to a stereotypically iffy English dub that only adds to the fun.Tintin via Disneyland (I don’t know if the BFI DVD includes the original French, Turkish and Greek soundtrack, but on TV it was entirely dubbed into English. There’s a French Blu-ray, but it doesn’t look to be English friendly.)

And then there’s Snowy. Regular readers will know I can go a bit soppy for a great dog in a film, and Golden Fleece offers a Snowy who should be up there with the likes of Uggie in the annals of movie-dog history. He steals most scenes he’s in, and of course he’s in it a fair bit.

I wouldn’t say Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden Fleece is a bad movie by any means, but it’s not going to work for everyone. Some would find it dated and twee and, if forced to watch it, would despise every moment of the experience. I really enjoyed it, however; in a slightly ironic way, I suppose, looking back on simpler times of cut-price production design and funny dubbing; but also as a well-intentioned adventure movie, in the old-fashioned meaning of that genre that doesn’t involve a millions-of-dollars action sequence every seven minutes.

If it isn’t a cult favourite yet, I may just have to start that cult. And I think we’d probably give it an extra star, but in the interests of broad consumer advice:

3 out of 5

Safe House (2012)

2013 #20
Daniel Espinosa | 110 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA & South Africa / English | 15 / R

Safe HouseDenzel Washington is a fugitive, Ryan Reynolds is the CIA rookie who ends up looking after him — and later, chasing him — after Something Goes Wrong at the titular abode in this workmanlike thriller.

Washington can deliver a quality anti-hero in his sleep now, and the same can be said of the actors lined up as villains and questionable-types in the supporting cast: Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, Robert Patrick, Liam Cunningham. Reynolds makes for a likeable if bland leading man, while the storyline and action sequences offer sub-Bourne thrills.

Nothing new, then, but those after a straightforward action-thriller could do worse.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but 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.

Dr. Strangelove (1964)

aka Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

2013 #21
Stanley Kubrick | 95 mins | Blu-ray | 1.66:1 | UK & USA / English | PG / PG

Dr. StrangeloveThere are few things as weird (or, at least, weird in quite the same way) as watching an acclaimed and beloved classic film and… just not getting it. Here’s a paragon of moviemaking; a film that is not only exalted but, crucially, has remained in people’s affections against the forces of age; a thing that has truly stood the test of time… and yet… meh.

As you might have guessed, Dr. Strangelove was such a film for me. It’s not that I thought it was bad, it just didn’t click. I was expecting a comedy, but it took a good 20 to 30 minutes to get going humour-wise. Not sure there are any laughs in that period. Maybe one. After that it was funny in parts, but intermittently and unpredictably. Most of the best bits are quite subtle, though occasionally it explodes into a style that’s quite broad, especially the titular doctor and his final speech. I’m sure this is sacrilege, but I felt like it needed 15 to 20 minutes (or more) cutting out just to get on with things.

At times I wondered if the film might just want to be a straight thriller, but that Kubrick couldn’t escape what he saw as the inherent ludicrousness of the situation. Even if you wanted to try reading the film from that angle, the silly bits are too silly to take the rest seriously. I can’t help but feel this plot was better executed when it was called Fail-Safe. (Though, confession: I’ve not seen that. But I have seen this, and I preferred it.)

On the bright side, it’s beautifully shot, especially anything in the War Room or Ripper’s office, so it looks great on Blu-ray. There’s also sets by Ken Adam, which aren’t as outlandish as his famous Bond work but can be equally as striking, especially (again) the famous War Room.

I find it strange that anyone loves this filmIn the end, I felt like I just didn’t get it. Not that I was watching something bad and I couldn’t fathom why so many people loved it, but that I just didn’t understand what it was I was meant to be seeing. Which is perhaps the same thing. I mean, I can see Kubrick was making an anti-war point at least as much as he was trying to make people laugh, but what do turgid sequences of people reading out numbers and flicking switches contribute to either of those aims? Perhaps the joke is meant to be in how long it goes on for? Like Family Guy. Has anyone ever said Dr. Strangelove and Family Guy are alike before, I wonder? Except I laugh more regularly during Family Guy.

Please don’t judge me.

3 out of 5

Dr. Strangelove was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 12 for 2013 project, which you can read more about here.

The Dinosaur Project (2012)

2013 #41
Sid Bennett | 83 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | UK & South Africa / English | 12 / PG-13

The Dinosaur ProjectFound footage movies, eh? You either love them or hate them. Well, plenty of people hate them. I don’t mind them — it’s fast becoming an unoriginal idea (“existing genre + found footage = exciting new idea” is a sum that stopped working a couple of years ago), but if it’s done well, of course it still works.

The Dinosaur Project is a low-budget entry in a genre which you’d think would be awash with low-budget entries, and perhaps it is, but I’ve not encountered many of them. That said, it was shot in South Africa and has some impressive CGI, so it actually looks the part of a pricier endeavour. OK, you’re not going to confuse it with a Cloverfield-level experience, but nor does it look like something a few YouTubers knocked up down the park on a Sunday afternoon.

The story concerns a group of present-day explorers heading into the jungle to find dinosaurs. Lead explorer-man’s son tags along for various contrived reasons, and because he is Young and Hip he brings a bunch of cameras that he’s constantly recording from, hence the found footage thing. And the footage is “found” rather than “returned” because, of course, Things Go Wrong. What things I won’t say, but it will surprise no one that they do indeed uncover some dinosaurs.

AwwwwEssentially, then, it’s a cut-price Jurassic Park, offering the same kind of “run away from the monsters!” thrills in a Modern way. And I don’t think it does it badly at all. If you hate the found footage phenomenon then this is going to do nothing to convert you, but if you don’t mind it, I think there’s a solid piece of entertainment in here. And if you actively like it then perhaps this is one of the better entries. It certainly has plenty of incident, which is more than can be said for some of them.

Plus, if you want to marvel at technical wizardy, the CGI and how it interacts with the real world is actually quite well done, especially bearing in mind the budget. I suppose we don’t notice such things in big-budget movies any more, because we know they can do it, but it does stand out in these low budget efforts. Which it shouldn’t. And doesn’t, unless you’re looking. Anyway.

The Dinosaur Project isn’t going to blow anyone’s mind, but as an adventure/horror-with-dinosaurs movie it’s a solid little thriller. It only runs for a brisk 83 minutes, too.

3 out of 5

Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 (2012)

2013 #75a
Louis D’Esposito | 11 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12

Item 47Included on the Blu-ray releases of both The Avengers and (unlike Joss Whedon’s commentary or the tip of Loki’s spear) Avengers Assemble, Item 47 is the only of Marvel’s One-Shot shorts to date that’s actually connected to the film it’s released with.* It was greeted with great interest from fans due to its length — after the insanely short first two films, this was of such a length that it mattered; it felt like it was practically its own feature. Perhaps the memory cheats, though, because in reality it’s all of a whopping 11 minutes.

The other, more pertinent, reaction was to its quality: some fans seemed to hate it; nay, despise it. Only in geek/comic book communities could a short bonus feature inspire such vitriol. Personally, I thought it was quite good. I don’t really know what some fans expect from these short films — they’re not very long, so you can’t dig into a complex story, and they don’t have an enormous budget for big-screen spectacle (recently, director/producer Louis D’Esposito answered a question about if they could do a short starring Loki or someone by saying they could do one set in Asgard or with a super-powered character, but it would be about 30 seconds long before the budget was used up).

With that considered, the story is quite solid: after the Battle of New York, an alien gun falls into the hands of young couple Benny (Jesse Bradford, TV’s Guys with Kids) and Claire (Lizzy Caplan, TV’s Masters of Sex). When they use it for nefarious purposes, it attracts the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D., who send in Agent Sitwell (Maximiliano Hernández, TV’s The Americans… and also Thor, Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant, Avengers Assemble, and next year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Lizzy Caplan grips the big weaponThis is exactly the kind of tale I presume the imminent TV series Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be telling. Considering fans seem ultra-hyped for that, I’m not sure why they dislike Item 47 so much; or, alternatively, what they think MAoS will contain that this doesn’t. Well, character development and Agent Coulson, of course — but then your average episode of MAoS will run about five times longer than this short, so (again) what do you expect?!

Item 47 is precisely what I think you should expect from these short films: a fun little bonus tale set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s an entertaining few minutes that aren’t going to change anyone’s world, but are worth a fan’s time.

3 out of 5

* Previously: The Consultant, released on Thor, connects Iron Man to The Incredible Hulk; the lengthily-titled second short, released on Captain America, connects Iron Man 2 to Thor; and the new one, Agent Carter, released on Iron Man 3, is connected to Captain America. Got that? ^

Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult (1994)

2013 #60
Peter Segal | 79 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Naked Gun 33Normally I’m a stickler for watching film series in order, even when it doesn’t matter, so skipping 31 sequels really isn’t my style… but this was on telly one night in July and I was in just the right mood, so the second will have to wait for its turn another day. (I watched and reviewed the first earlier this year, of course.) (And there aren’t really 33 Naked Gun films, obviously.)

Placed in direct comparison with its forbear, I’d have to say The Final Insult isn’t quite as good. These days film series seem to get bigger and bigger with each sequel, but The Naked Gun hails from the era when they just as often seemed to get smaller over time — it feels lower-key in pretty much every way, from scale to length to quality of gags. Nonetheless, it’s far from a write-off. There are copious funny moments and film spoofs, and that brief running time ensures it doesn’t outstay its welcome.

As with the first film, there’s a US TV version out there with numerous added scenes, but again I have no idea of its general availability. Also worth a laugh is that the MPAA rated the film PG-13 — for “off-color humour”. Ah, America. (Though the BBFC often cite “mild peril”, which sounds equally dappy to me, so maybe I shouldn’t point & laugh quite so much.)

As you might guess from the title, this was the last of the Naked Gun films. Though it remains an entertaining diversion and only marginally off-pace from early instalments — an impressive feat for the second sequel in a comedy franchise, no question — it’s probably best they never got round to the mooted fourth film.

3 out of 5

The Tempest (2010)

2013 #73
Julie Taymor | 110 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | PG / PG-13

The TempestFilm and theatre director Julie Taymor (infamous now for Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark) here brings us a radical-seeming interpretation of Shakespeare’s final play. The main character’s changed gender! There’s CGI being tossed about everywhere! It’s got Russell Brand in it! If that sounds superficial, it is. Taymor’s film is still set in the Elizabethan period, in Elizabethan dress (broadly speaking), with a cast of mostly classical actors, enacted on an island that is admittedly a stunning setting but is nonetheless where the original play is set. If it’s a “modern retelling of William Shakespeare” (per the blurb), it perhaps missed what Baz Luhrmann brought to the table 14 years earlier.

Or perhaps not. Just because a temporal re-staging worked for one adaptation doesn’t mean they all have to do it, and Taymor’s adaptation is still packed with modernist flourishes. But that’s the thing: they’re flourishes. Luhrmann reconstructed Shakespeare in a way that worked for modern audiences, leaving the text untouched but adorning it with visual and stylistic touches that made it fresh and relatable for a new audience. Taymor may throw in some cool stuff, like a three-storey high Ariel setting a ship afire in a storm, or Russell Brand speaking how Russell Brand speaks, but there’s nothing in the surrounding work to appeal to the kind of audience who might think a ship on fire in a storm or Russell Brand being Russell Brand would fit nicely into the next Pirates of the Caribbean film that they’re really excited for.

I studied The Tempest at university and rather enjoyed it. It’s not too long, it has some striking ideas, and, as I remember it, it’s not too deep or complex, really. On screen, that doesn’t come across. Women, ehIt goes on in the middle, a mess of scenes of characters traipsing about the island for no apparent reason. (This reminded me of A Field in England a little, actually: a group of people who don’t know what’s going on wandering through a weird supernatural landscape having tangential conversations.) When describing the plot the Shakespearean dialogue is clear enough to follow, but the story seems to be set in motion at the start and then put aside to be resolved at the end, with meandering asides in between. Either that’s Shakespeare’s fault or Taymor bungled it in her execution. Or I missed something.

It may be easy to jump on criticisms of the film — as many have, judged by its low scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb — but there is quality here. The cast is filled with recognisable names and faces, which naturally pays off in many instances. In the lead, Helen Mirren turns Prospero into Prospera, a transition so faultless you’d well believe it’s how it was written. She’s obviously a strong actress and delivers a powerful nuanced performance, justifying a gender change that would otherwise be labelled needless. Supporting roles are bolstered by names like Ben Whishaw (Olivier-nominated at just 24 for his Hamlet, lest we forget), Tom Conti, David Straitharn, Chris Cooper, Alan Cumming, Alfred Molina, and the latest constant-up-and-comer, Felicity Jones. If anything some of them are underused. By “some” I really mean Straitharn, who doesn’t have a great deal to tackle as King Alonso. Conti, Cooper and Cumming fare best, with Whishaw hampered by all the effects he’s buried in.

Caliban colonisedAnother key role sees Djimon Hounsou as the slave Caliban, immediately suggesting a colonialist reading that isn’t exactly a huge reach anyway. And Russell Brand makes Shakespeare sound like Russell Brand talking, which at some points I’m not convinced he isn’t (I’ve no idea if Taymor allowed him to stray from the text or not). Love interest is provided by Reeve Carney. I’ve never heard of him, but he’s young and quite pretty and has a music video on the Blu-ray, so I guess he’s from that kind of arena. He speaks with an English accent, but so does everyone else (bar Caliban and the boatswain), so he may still be sourced from the other side of the pond’s teenybopper scene.

Talking of music, Elliot Goldenthal’s score also aligns itself with the film’s modern CGI-bolstered take on the material: it squeals with electric guitars and thunders with drums, evoking so many other computer-accented history-set films of recent years. It took me a while to recall what in particular it most reminded me of, but eventually realised it was 300. I checked that they didn’t share a composer, though that did lead me to notice that Goldenthal is listed on IMDb as providing uncredited stock music for 300. So there you go.

The most striking thing about the film is the visuals. Stuart Dryburgh’s cinematography sometimes offers up breathtaking imagery, aided by beautiful shooting locations in Hawaii, largely sparse and barren places with dramatic coastal settings. And then there’s the lashings of CGI, which render Small breasts not picturedAriel as a truly spiritual spirit, half invisible and jetting off into the sky on a regular basis. I found his realisation a mixed bag: it’s nice to take advantage of the medium to render the spirit in a way that’s impossible on stage, but sometimes it goes a bit far and looks a bit cheap. They’ve also tried to make him androgynous, but done it a bit weirdly: he’s always naked, occasionally making it clear he has no penis, sometimes has small breasts, but always has a moderately deep, clearly manly voice. Show it to a class of teenagers studying the play and you may illicit some confused feelings… That aside, the make-up effects are brilliant. Caliban’s patchwork skin is the best piece of work, but Ariel’s rendering as a giant crow is a fearsome sight as well. For all I know the latter may count as costume design, which is what earnt the film an Oscar nomination. But, hey, the clothes are nice too.

Taymor’s rendering of The Tempest is the kind of film you might dub a fascinating failure. It’s a bizarre mash-up of classical interpretation and modern filmmaking, and I don’t think it’s unfair to call the latter superficial flourishes rather than fundamental revelations. The story wanders, the humour isn’t funny, the visuals swing between a bit cheap and memorably staggering, there are strong performances but others that, while not out of their depth, do sit awkwardly. Some people will despise it, but I don’t know if anyone will love it. I’d have liked to, and early on I thought I might, but then it lost its way.

Woah-oh-oh her gender's on fi-ireIt would be nice to say the magic and fantasy could convert new fans to Shakespeare, much as Leo DiCaprio and swishy editing did for teens nearly two decades ago, but there’s nothing beyond that trailer-friendly neat-looking stuff to convince them it was worth their time. Meanwhile, Shakespeare traditionalists may find it all a bit much. If that leaves it stranded on an ill-located isle of terrible beauty, then at least it’s an apt fate.

3 out of 5

The UK TV premiere of The Tempest is on BBC Two and BBC Two HD tonight at 11:05pm. Note it’s not available on Blu-ray in the UK, so if you want to see it in HD, now’s your chance.