Sorry to Bother You

Dir: Boots Riley

2018

*****

Boots Riley’s brilliant Sorry to Bother You is the best example of alternative sci-fi that I have seen for years. It’s a Terry Gilliam-esque fantasy satire, with a bit of Michel Gondry thrown in, sort of, but for all of the influences I think I can see within it it, this is a true original from the mind of Boots Riley. It’s a sci-fi fantasy but its not all about the visuals, but rather the message, the message being one of anti-capitalism and social consciousness. Like all good satires it is a piece of absurdism, indeed, Riley himself describes it as "an absurdist dark comedy with aspects of magical realism and science fiction inspired by the world of telemarketing". The screenplay was inspired by his own time working as a telemarketer and telefundraiser in California, and his need to put on a different voice to find success. Riley finished the screenplay in 2012, and with no means to produce it, recorded an album of the same title with his band The Coup, inspired by the story. Since 2012 the idea has had time to mature and it now offers a radical class analysis of capitalism, although not a specific analysis of America under President Trump. He wrote the initial screenplay during the Obama administration, and the target was never any specific elected official or movement, but "the puppetmasters behind the puppets." While most of the final script remained the same, minimal changes were made to avoid appearing to critique Trump specifically, including removing a line where a character says "Worry Free is making America great again," written before Trump used the line in his 2016 presidential campaign. I can see why it was removed but it just goes to show how accurate and close to the bone Riley was with his script. Never has surreal satire felt so authentic to real life. The film's title has a double meaning, referencing both the phrase's use by telemarketers and its general usage when telling a person something you know they might not like to hear, such as the film's anti-capitalist message. According to Riley, "the other side of it is that often when you're telling someone something that is different from how they view things, different from how they view the world, it feels like an annoyance or a bother. And that's where that comes from." Sorry to Bother You tells the story of Cassius "Cash" Green (Lakeith Stanfield) who lives in his uncle's garage with his artist girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson). Struggling to pay rent, Cash gets a job as a telemarketer for RegalView. Cash has trouble talking to customers until an older co-worker (played by Danny Glover) teaches him to use his "white voice", at which Cash excels. However, RegalView treats its employees badly and seem to offer false promise and soon Cash's coworker Squeeze (Steven Yeun) forms a union and recruits Cash, Detroit, and their friend Sal. When Cash participates in a protest, he expects to be fired but is instead promoted to an elite Power Caller position. In the luxurious Power Caller suite, Cash is told to always use his white voice, and learns that RegalView secretly sells arms and unpaid human labor from the corporation WorryFree. Though Cash is initially uncomfortable with the job, he can now afford a new car and apartment and pays off his uncle's home. Working long hours, he stops participating in the union, and his relationship with Detroit deteriorates. When Cash crosses the union's picket line, one of the picketers hits him with a can of soda. Footage of the incident becomes an internet meme. Cash is invited to a party with WorryFree CEO Steve Lift (Armie Hammer). Lift offers Cash a powdered substance which Cash snorts, believing it is cocaine. Looking for the bathroom, Cash discovers a shackled half-horse, half-human hybrid who begs him for help. Lift explains that WorryFree plans to make their workers stronger and more obedient by transforming them into "equisapiens". The transformation occurs when a human snorts a gene-modifying powder. Cash fears he just snorted the substance, but Lift assures him it was cocaine. Cash then refuses a $100 million offer to become an equisapien and act as a false revolutionary figure to keep the employees in line. Later, Cash discovers he dropped his phone when he encountered the equisapien, who recorded a plea for help and sent it to Detroit's mobile. To spread the video, Cash appears on television shows, including I Got the Shit Kicked Out Of Me, enduring humiliations and beatings to get the video played. The plan backfires. The equisapiens are hailed as a groundbreaking scientific advancement, and WorryFree's stock reaches an all-time high. Cash apologizes to Squeeze, Sal, and Detroit, and joins the union in a final stand against RegalView. Cash uses a security code from the equisapiens video to break into Lift's home. He goes to the picket line, where the police start a riot and knock him out. The equisapiens overpower the police and free Cash. Detroit and Cash reconcile and move back into his uncle's garage, but Cash starts to grow horse nostrils. Fully transformed, he leads a mob of equisapiens to Lift's house and breaks down the door. In a darkly amusing but also tragic conclusion, he has rebelled against the system he was trapped in but has also become the thing they wanted him to become. Half the audience will see the revolutionary leader he has become, while the other half will see the tragedy of his situation. Most will think about the $100 million he lost out on, and that is because capitalism is now deeply ingrained in our psyche. It makes this satire all the more rich. For me it has a winning formula and its absurd surrealism reminded me of Gregg Araki’s Nowhere, while the frustration of trying to enlighten others of a larger danger reminded me of John Carpenter’s They Live, with a hint of the frustrated mania and isolation seen in Martin Scorsese’s After Hours. I also can’t help but think of Kevin Smith’s hugely underrated 2014 film Husk but as far as the ‘what we become’ message goes it is a true original. It’s got everything you could ask for in an intelligent satire and more.

White Elephant (Elefante blanco)

Dir: Pablo Trapero

2012

****

Argentinean director Pablo Trapero’s 2012 drama White Elephant, co-written by Trapero, Alejandro Fadel, Martín Mauregui and Santiago Mitre, is a dark and seemingly hopeless film highlighting the disparity between the rich and the poor and the hypocrisy that comes with it. The story takes place in the slums of Buenos Aires that surround an old hospital building, named the ‘white elephant’ by the locals due to it’s size and colour and because it was built for the people but soon abandoned. It now houses the poverty stricken, gangs and drug users of the favelas, like a cathedral of poverty. We follow its inhabitants through the eyes of two priests. The film opens in the Peruvian jungle where Father Nicolás (Jérémie Renier) witnesses the brutal massacre of his friends and congregation while he alone survives, leaving a profound sense of guilt for not having also died in the catastrophe and not being able to stop it in any way. Father Nicolás's beloved friend and confessor Father Julián (Ricardo Darín) brings Nicolás to the Villa Virgin, a favela like shantytown in the slums of Buenos Aires near an abandoned hospital project known as the White Elephant. Drugs provide the major business in this ghetto and unsurprisingly violence comes with it. Shoot-outs are a regular occurrence and the majority of the residence live in fear. It’s hell on earth. The two priests work tirelessly to help the local people and father Julián uses his political connections to oversee the construction of a new hospital. Nicolás remains deeply troubled from his experience in the jungle, and as his faith weakens he embarks on a sexual relationship with Luciana (Martina Gusman), a young, attractive, atheist social worker. Meanwhile, tension and violence between the slum drug dealing cartels grows, and when work on the hospital is halted by ministerial decree, the faith of the inhabitants of Villa Virgin is tested, and father Nicolás discovers he has been called by father Julián to assume his role of parish priest as Julián is coping with an undiagnosed neurological disease that is terminal. Both men are looked at to help the people and both men are tested, both physically and in faith. The film is a complex look at the test of wills. The performances from the three leading actors, Darin, Renier, and Gusman are superb, I especially believed that Ricardo Darín was a real priest, and the cinematography by Guillermo Nieto is striking and sublime, making even the decrepit of slums look somehow beautiful. The score by Michael Nyman is also brilliant and enhances the film tremendously but the big problem with the film is the melodrama. The action sequences are also a little off at times and perhaps should have been shortened. The real strength is in the idea and the two dominant symbols in the film that represent its major themes - the unfinished hospital that is the white elephant of the title and the murder of priests. The unfinished white building, that was supposed to be a hospital which carried the ambitions of various Argentinian leaders to be the best hospital on the continent, has become the centre of a Buenos Aires slum. On public land outside, building has begun on a project to provide new permanent homes for the slum dwellers, a community centre and a new church at its centre. This building is soon abandoned by the development company after its employees' wages fail to materialise. Who is responsible for paying the wages is not established amidst the bureaucracy. The community's anger when the work ceases boils over into a violent confrontation with the police that ends in fatality. The expression white elephant suggests the evident presence of something ignored or not spoken about. It is a symbol prevalent throughout the film, both in story and in the characters. Other white elephants include the wealth of the Catholic church in contrast with its parishioners. The question of why a priest, as a representative of faith, cannot marry or have sexual relations yet can preach on these matters is also glaring. The criminality of the authorities is also as bad as the crime committed in the slums and perhaps the biggest white elephant of them all is why the elected leaders don’t act on any of it? I think the main theme is a little over complicated by too much happening at once – and the ending is questionable – but at its core the story is effective, emotional and hard-hitting. 

The Naked Truth

Dir: Mario Zampi

1957

*****

The great Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers were often sought after for the same roles and even though they were friends, they were also each other’s main competition in many respects. So when they did star along-side each other it was a treat for viewers, a treat that never gets old, even all these years later. This would be the first of several films the pair would make together and a film that would change their careers forever. If they weren’t enough, the film also features the brilliant Dennis Price, Bond girl Shirley Eaton and Carry On legend Joan Sims. Written by Michael Pertwee (Son of Roland, Brother of Jon and Uncle of Sean) and directed by Mario Zampi, who shot the brilliant Laughter in Paradise and Too Many Crooks, 1957’s The Naked Truth has all the right ingredients for a British comedy classic, and yet, it’s often overlooked. People tend to remember the Ealing Comedies more so and I understand why. The performances and the dialogue are second to none in The Naked Truth, the only problem is that it takes so long for the story to really get going. The story begins with the wonderfully suave Nigel Dennis (Dennis Price), a blackmailer who threatens to publish embarrassing secrets in his magazine The Naked Truth. After attempting to blackmail a famous scientist (who commits suicide), and an MP (who suffers a heart attack in parliament, and probably succumbs), his latest targets are Lord Henry Mayley (Terry-Thomas), television host Sonny MacGregor (Peter Sellers), writer Flora Ransom (Peggy Mount), and model Melissa Right (Shirley Eaton). Several of them decide independently that murder would be a better solution than paying. However, it is Mayley who by sheer bad luck nearly ends up the victim of both MacGregor and Ransom's schemes. The four eventually join forces and try again. That attempt also fails, but Dennis is then arrested for an earlier crime. When Dennis threatens to reveal all at his trial, Mayley comes up with a scheme to break him out of prison and send him to South America, with the help of hundreds of his other victims. They phone in numerous fake calls for help, distracting the London police, while Mayley, MacGregor, and MacGregor's reluctant assistant Porter (Kenneth Griffith), disguised as policemen, whisk Dennis away. Knocking Dennis unconscious periodically, they finally end up in the cabin of a blimp on the way to a rendezvous with an outbound ship. To their dismay, when he comes to, Dennis refuses to go along with their plan, as he in fact never wanted to reveal any of their secrets in court. He was, in fact, optimistic about the trial anyway, and reveals that the evidence was his copies of The Naked Truth which had been destroyed by the plotters earlier. Happy to have outsmarted his opponents again, but unaware of where he is, Dennis then steps out for some air and plummets to the ocean below. When MacGregor celebrates by shooting his pistol, it punctures the blimp, which shoots away into the distance. A comedy caper that ends in hilarious demise is always good in my book, although this is made far better thanks to the absurdity and the fact it features a blimp. It was a timely satire of tabloid journalists and celebrity culture that was becoming infamous around the time, my only real criticism is that the story, or should I say the characters, could have come together a little sooner. I also think the comedy could have been a bit darker, but the conclusion goes a long way in making up for this. The comedy timing is absolutely perfect and I can’t help but think modern comics should watch films such as this before attempting stand up, or any performance comedy for that matter. The film did well but the actors did better. Peter Sellers was on the global radar thanks to The Ladykiller but The Naked Truth was the one that made him and saw him leave for American shores. Terry-Thomas was ever so slightly more established than Sellers but his career took off also and he made, in my opinion, his best films within the next ten years, thanks largely to The Naked Truth. I think Dennis Price is the overlooked actor in the film, he is the straight man but in order to play it as wonderfully as he does, means being unnaturally generous for an actor. This was only three years his failed suicide attempt and at the time many director/producer friends took great sympathy on him and he enjoyed quite a fruitful career from then on.  It’s one of those great classics where the performers don’t compete with one another. They understood that working together for the bigger picture is always far more successful than when actors compete with on another. I can’t bare watching Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron-Cohen films for the fact that they compete with their fellow actors, often to the detriment of the comedy. It makes their single performances feel forced, which they are, and uncomfortably unfunny (I’m looking at you Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby). I’m not sure we’ll ever see the likes of Terry-Thomas or Peter Sellers again, I’m not saying that because I’ve turned into a cantankerous old man either (although I have), but they were such unique characters who were so multi-talented, and no one has, and I doubt anyone will, make me laugh the same way they do. Goodness knows why it was released in the U.S. as Your Past is Showing? Sounds a bit rude if you ask me.

A Day to Remember

Dir: Ralph Thomas

1953

**

It’s a bit silly to state that a film made in 1953 now feels a bit dated but A Day to Remember really does. I love an old comedy, especially an old British comedy, and Ralph Thomas’ comedy boasts an incredible ensemble cast including Stanley Holloway, Donald Sinden, Thora Hird and Bill Owen. Ralph Thomas is probably best remembered for his Doctor comedies starring James Robertson Justice and Leslie Phillips. He directed a couple of the early Carry On films too but none of the popular ones, and later on in his career he dabbled in the bawdy British sex comedies of the 1970s. His films are very much of a time and a place and I’m incredibly fond of them, but not so much this film. On paper it sounds brilliant; a London pub darts team go on a bonding day trip to Boulogne-sur-Mer and get mixed up in various comedy capers, but I’m afraid to say its one long disappointment from start to finish. On the eve of their visit to France the members of the Hand & Flower pub darts team gather for a drink. The day trip is being organised by one of their regulars who is a travel agent who it transpires has never been abroad himself. For most of the team it is their first ever trip abroad, while for others it is the first time they have returned to France since the war. One of the team has developed a plan to buy watches in France and smuggle them back into Britain to sell at a profit. Another, Jim Carver (Donald Sinden), is going through a rocky patch with his fiancée, who he suspects considers him to be boring and plain. The following day the group meet at London Victoria station and catch a train to Dover and ferry across the English Channel to Boulogne-sur-Mer. Once they have landed in France, despite the insistence of their unofficial leader and the pub's landlord that they stick together, Jim Carver departs to visit a farm where he had been involved in heavy fighting during 1944 when British troops had arrived to liberate France. He takes some flowers to the cemetery where his comrade is buried. He then meets a young woman, Martine (Odile Versois), who he first met eight years before, who invites him to have lunch with her family on the farm. They immediately strike up a chemistry, which his relationship with his fiancée in England lacks. However his newfound friend is also engaged to a local lawyer. Back in the town, the rest of the group enjoy lunch in a cafe and then break up into smaller groups to tour round the town. One goes to try to pick up his black market watches, another gets drunk and joins the French Foreign Legion in spite of his friends' efforts to stop him. One of the group becomes violently homesick despite having left England only hours before. After attempting, and failing, to retrieve their friend from service in the foreign legion the group begins to drift towards the docks and the ship that will carry them on their voyage home – and wonder what has happened to Carver who has been missing all day. Carver has fallen in love with Martine, and she has broken up with Henri. However, they argue and he heads for his ship without her. Unbeknownst to him, his fiancée in London has met and struck up a relationship with an American servicemen during a visit to Hampton Court. Carver seems to realise he is far better suited to Martine, and after he boards the ferry she drives hurriedly to the dockside and shouts her true feelings for him. They agree to meet again soon when he returns to France. The problem with the film is that none of what is intended transpires. I hate to be critical about an elderly gentleman of a film but the romantic aspect of the film doesn’t really work, the comedy isn’t funny enough and its too serious in all the wrong places. Carver is considerably older than Martine, he even comments that she was just a child when he last saw her. The age gap in film is still present today, but there was something especially unpleasant about this romance. I thought the scene where he left flowers on the grave of his fallen friend was very touching but it was brushed over far too quickly. I think it would have been a much stronger film if that was what Carver’s story had been about and that maybe he would have gone back to his girlfriend a happier man having dealt with something that had been bothering him. In 1953 many viewers would think of the war over much else when thinking about a trip to France. Bill Owen’s storyline of a man with short-man syndrome, for want of a better description, is far too serious. His character has something of a mental breakdown due to all the teasing he receives for being short, so while in France he decides to join the Foreign Legion and escape his life. This will mean very little to a younger generation but in the olden days, people would either join the Foreign Legion or run away with the circus if they weren’t happy with their current situation. Hilarity could have ensued but it didn’t. Stanley Holloway’s character tried to stop him but didn’t manage, it’s all very serious and a little bit sad to be honest. The travel agent spends the film sitting on a bench, hating every minute and wanting to be back in England – even though the north of France is extremely similar – and one of the younger men buys a load of watches to smuggle back home, even though watches aren’t illegal. None of the men seem to be particularly interested in going to France and none of it has anything to do with darts. In many respects it would have been a better film if the men had stayed in the pub and carried on their conversations seen in the first scene. I do love old films like this but this was hardly a day to remember, more like a day to forget.

Return of the One-Armed Swordsman

Dir: Chang Cheh

1969

*****

Chang Cheh’s original One-Armed Swordsman paved the way for a new-wave of wuxia films and was a big hit for the Shaw Brothers, so a sequel was ordered fairly quickly. Director Cheh returned as did Jimmy Wang in the title role and Lisa Chiao Chiao as his wife. The story takes place some time after the events of the first film and the One-Armed Swordsman is now a farmer who lives peacefully with his wife working his land. While working his field one day he is approached by two men, a white and a black sword master. They invite him to a challenge on behalf of their masters, the Eight Sword Kings who are challenging the masters of all rival schools in an effort to take over the martial arts community. Any that refuse are murdered by the Eight Kings' twin enforcers, the Black and White Knights. Our one-armed hero tells them he’s never heard of them and tells them to leave. A local martial art school then visit Fang Kang and warn him that the Eight Sword Kings will not take no for an answer, they too don’t want to fight but decide it better to join forces and fight, rather than suffer the consequences. Fang still refuses. However, after capturing all the rival masters, the Eight Kings deliver an ultimatum; all the rival schools' students must cut off their sword arms and surrender the severed limbs to the Eight Kings, or the students' beloved teachers will all die.The students return to the legendary One-Armed Swordsman and ask his help, but he remains reluctant. When one student kidnaps his wife to force him to help he becomes enraged and goes after them but encounters the Eight King’s men. He finds his wife’s kidnapper dead and another pupil gives his life to save her but is is only convinced into helping them when a student actually does sacrificially chop his own arm off in despair right in front of him. With his wife’s blessing, the One-Armed Swordsman then prepares himself to contend with the unique styles and weapons of the Eight Kings. The first king is the Winged Blade (or Flying Dragon in another translation dub) who uses his speed and leaping prowess to attack from the air. One-Arm bests him and his students with a variety of ground-based traps. The second is Hooking Blade who wields a chained sickle. One-Arm defeats him by hanging him by his own weapon from a tree, allowing him to eviscerate him. Then he encounters Buried Blade who hides in pits before leaping out to ambush his opponents. One-Arm bests him by chopping down bamboo to pin down his students and then standing atop the trunks, keeping him out of reach of Buried Blade's attacks to stab him with a bamboo spear. Next is the Whirling Blade who wields a pair of bladed bucklers which can also be thrown as projectiles. He waits at the entrance of the King’s school. One-Arm catches the blades on his sword and flings them back at their owner, slicing through him like butter. Mighty Blade uses his immense strength and giant two handed sword to overpower his opponents. After luring him outside the Kings' fort, the students drop a net over him to restrain him as they mutilate him. Thunder Blade wields smokebombs and a sword whose blade conceals a smoke sprayer and a shotgun. After using water to douse the smoke, One-Arm uses a cloth shield to block the pellets before cutting him down. Thousand Blade (or One Thousand Fingers) the only female King uses her sexuality to lull her targets into lowering their guard before killing them with the many knives concealed in the sleeves of her robe. After failing to seduce One-Arm, she is fatally stabbed by one of the students she seduced and wounded. The Unseen Blade (the Unseen) the leader of the Eight Kings uses deception and distraction to confuse his opponents along with a collapsible sword whose blade can extend during battle and also has a hidden hook. One-Arm uses his skill in close range combat and left handed sword fighting to get inside Unseen's range and slice off his sword arm. In the end the One-Armed Swordsman defeats the Eight Kings and their armies, but by that time all of the sword fighting students who were helping him are dead. He leaves the last King, Unseen, to be killed by their vengeful masters as he and his wife return home. Return of the One-Armed Swordsman is an example of a sequel preceding the original. The title character had already been developed at this point, so really Cheh could just get on with telling a new story, which is what he does without wasting any time. The various different characters are brilliant – most wuxia films have one or two great villains, this film has ten, each one as colourful as the last. The fighting sequences are amazing with loads of wire work and trampoline stunts, keeping the action flowing constantly. It is as epic as a small-set studio film could ever be, with action taking place in various different locations. Its not just the best One-Armed Swordsman film but it’s one of the best wuxia films of all time. Fang is a complex hero – almost an antihero and the villains are serious enemies and not cartoonish. There is no feeble attempts at humour and all the supporting characters have depth to them. The direction is perfect, in fact, everything is perfect, even the script – which is something that is often pretty weak in martial arts movies. The original One-Armed Swordsman was hugely influential but its follow up really paved the way in terms of fighting scenes, character development and just plain awesomeness. If you don’t like Return of the One-Armed Swordsman then the genre just isn’t for you.

One-Armed Swordsman

Dir: Chang Cheh

1967

****

1967’s One-Armed Swordsman is the big wuxia film produced by the Shaw Brothers Studio that is considered the one that popularized the genre. It is, arguably, Hong Kong's first real martial arts film and the first of a new style of wuxia films emphasizing male anti-heroes, violent swordplay and heavy bloodletting. It’s funny, while the western world is still struggling to make films that feature a more diverse cross-section of society, martial arts films were featuring disabled heroes decades ago. Directed by Chang Cheh, it was the first Hong Kong film to make HK$1 million at the local box office, propelling its star Jimmy Wang to super stardom. This film became the first in the One-Armed Swordsman trilogy. A sequel was released in 1969 called Return of the One-Armed Swordsman, followed by The New One-Armed Swordsman in 1971, all directed by Cheh. The One-Armed Swordsman also met the legendary Zatoichi in 1971 in Kimiyoshi Yasuda’s Zatoichi and the One-Armed Swordsman, starring the great Shintaro Katsu. The film begins as the Golden Sword school is attacked by bandits. The servant Fang Cheng sacrifices his life to protect his master Qi Ru Feng. In gratitude, Qi accepts the dying Fang Cheng's son, Fang Kang, as his student. Years later, Fang Kang is scorned by his snobbish fellow students because of his poor background. Deciding that he will only cause trouble for his master Fang Kang leaves the school only to run into his classmates and his master's spoiled daughter, Pei Er. In the ensuing fight Fang's right arm is cut off by Pei Er, who is angry at his indifference towards her. Stumbling away, Fang falls off a bridge into the passing boat of a peasant girl Xiao Man. Xiao Man nurses him back to health and the two fall in love. Fang Kang is nevertheless depressed as he is unable to practice his swordsmanship. Reluctantly, Xiao Man gives him a half-burnt kung-fu manual which she had inherited from her now dead parents. With its help, Fang Kang is able to master a new one-armed style of swordplay, making him stronger than before. Meanwhile, master Qi Ru Feng is preparing for his 55th birthday and has invited all of his students to the celebration to choose a successor from among them so that he can retire from the martial arts world. However, his old enemies the Long-armed Devil and the Smiling Tiger Cheng are taking the opportunity to destroy Qi Ru Feng. Using a specially designed "sword-lock", they ambush and kill Qi's students travelling to the celebration. Fang Kang inadvertently learns of the plot and, breaking his promise to Xiao Man not to involve himself in the martial arts world, rushes to save his master. He is delayed en route by the Long Armed Devil's accomplices and when he arrives the Long Armed Devil has already killed most of the students and wounded Qi Ru Feng. In a vicious battle, Fang Kang manages to kill the Long Armed Devil, but chooses to return to Xiao Man and become a farmer, instead of taking his master's place at the school. There is much to appreciate about Chang Cheh classic picture. For starters, I loved how the film removed all traces of humour, concentrating only on serious drama. Far too many of the Shaw Brothers films are, in my opinion, ruined by feeble attempts at comedy. I also liked the character development and the way our anti-hero goes about his unintentional revenge. For sure he kills a lot of people but his real revenge does not involve death. For instance, he actually saves Pei Er’s life out of respect for her father, his greatest revenge on her is to admit his indifference towards her. Other bandits who continuously bully him regarding his disability are also not attacked and killed, instead, our One-Armed Swordsman defends himself, cutting off their hands and making them just as disabled as he is, giving them the chance to better themselves as he did. The only frustrating element of the film is the supporting fighters. The students, we are told, have been learning their martial arts since early childhood. They learn what to anticipate and how to react accordingly. So when the Long-armed Devil and the Smiling Tiger Cheng turn up with their new weapon, you would think they’d quickly learn how it worked and how dangerous it was, especially after witnessing around thirty or so people (their brothers and loved ones) being killed by it. Of all the good things I learned from the film, the one negative was that most martial artists are impulsive and stupid – two things I always thought martial artist were very much not. Still, the film is intense and picturesque. Hugely influential, the One-Armed Swordsman is rightly regarded as one of the best and most important marital art film ever made.

Green Book

Dir: Peter Farrelly

2018

****

I’m embarrassed to admit it, but I was put off Green Book by the fact it was heavily criticized for advancing a white savior narrative that so often perpetuates stereotypes in typically Oscar-nominated dramas. I love Driving Miss Daisy but I just couldn’t be bothered in getting into the discussion for the hundredth time. On the face of it I thought it probably was a white savior film and I avoided it. Shame on me. Shame on me for my lack of research but shame on me for avoiding what is an important discussion. As it happens I feel that it has been unfairly accused, and even if it wasn’t, what is wrong about the story of a bigot's redemption? Green Book is a tale of friendship, a friendship that was true, during a transitional time in modern history. At any rate, Peter Farrelly was open that he was aware of the white savior trope before filming and sought to avoid it. He said he had long discussions with the actors and producers on the point, and believes that it was not advanced by the film, saying it is "about two guys who were complete opposites and found a common ground, and it's not one guy saving the other. It's both saving each other and pulling each other into some place where they could bond and form a lifetime friendship.” I believe him and I don’t think that is studio speak to appease anyone. I have to admit I also misjudged the film based on Peter Farrelly’s involvement. I liked Kingpin and There’s Something About Mary when they came out but I wasn’t so keen about seeing a film made by one half of a pair responsible for such travesties as Me, Myself & Irene, Shallow Hal, Movie 43 and Dumb and Dumber. Yes, I said Dumb and Dumber, it is not the classic comedy people say it is, I respect people’s opinions but not when it comes to this film, it is horrible and you’re wrong if you disagree. Peter Farrelly might be only the fourth director to have not been nominated for the best director Oscar when the film itself had been nominated for best picture, but he did good. The highlight of the film however, is in the performances and relationship between Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen. Set in 1962, the film is inspired by the true story of a tour of the Deep South by African American classical and jazz pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and Italian American bouncer Frank "Tony Lip" Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen) who served as Shirley's driver and bodyguard. All of the events featured actually happened but not necessarily in the order or the period they are shown. The film was written by Vallelonga's son, Nick Vallelonga, based on interviews with his father and Shirley, as well as letters his father wrote to his mother. The title of the film is named after The Negro Motorist Green Book, a mid-20th century guidebook for African-American travelers written by Victor Hugo Green that informed readers of which hotels and restaurants accepted Black visitors. It is explained in the film that Shirley chose to play in Southern states where a Black man wouldn’t be welcome to change opinion and because everyone told him he shouldn’t, hence the need for the Green Book. A dramatization is a dramatization, not a documentary. The facts should always be respected but certain liberties can be taken as long as they don’t represent a person in a totally different light then what was true. You have to take a pinch of salt with these films but unlike many a historical epic, this is essentially a true, true story. That said, Shirley's relatives condemned the film, stating that they were not contacted by studio representatives until after development, and that it misrepresented Shirley's relationship with his family. Don's brother Maurice Shirley said, "My brother never considered Tony to be his 'friend'; he was an employee, his chauffeur (who resented wearing a uniform and cap). This is why context and nuance are so important. The fact that a successful, well-to-do black artist would employ domestics that did NOT look like him, should not be lost in translation." However, in interview recordings of Don Shirley and Tony Vallelonga, the former stated "I trusted him implicitly. You see, Tony got to be, not only was he my driver. We never had an employer/employee relationship.". The interviews also support many other events depicted by the film. Peter Farrelly said that he was under the impression that there weren't a lot of family members still alive, that they did not take major liberties with the story, and that relatives of whom he was aware had been invited to a private screening for friends and family. Nick Vallelonga, the film's co-writer and Tony Vallelonga's son, acknowledged that members of the Shirley family were hurt that he did not speak to them and that he was sorry they were offended. He said that "Don Shirley himself told me not to speak to anyone" and that Shirley "approved what I put in and didn't put in." To me it sounds as if the family quite rightly wanted involvement but the story is still true. With all that to one side, I thought the film was strong. Visually it was nice but nothing special but there is something unformulaic about it that makes me think it was a good thing that Peter Farrelly was involved and not your usual Oscar-baiting director. That said, it really is all about the performances and the music, both of which are superb.

Beautiful Boy

Dir: Felix van Groeningen

2018

*****

Felix Van Groeningen’s 2018 film Beautiful Boy is remarkable on several levels. It’s a touching and brutally honest depiction of drug addiction and the effect it has on relationships but shown from two different angles. The screenplay is based on the memoirs Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction by David Sheff and Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines by his son Nic Sheff and its surprisingly low on schmaltz. Luke Davies’ screenplay successfully avoids showing the two different angles as contrasting films or differing points of view and concentrates mostly on the events both memoirs cross over on. While David Sheff clearly researched drug addiction, the film doesn’t attempt to belittle addicts and suggest why anyone would become one, but rather deals with the Sheff family itself. Paramount Pictures and Plan B Entertainment acquired the film rights to both memoirs back in 2008 but seemingly didn’t know how to approach it. It was announced in 2011 that writer and director Cameron Crowe had written a script based on the books and that he was looking to direct the film after he had wrapped his romantic film Aloha, with New Regency getting involved in this project after Paramount dropped out. In December 2013, it was reported that Mark Wahlberg was circling the project to play the role of the father. However, in 2015 it was announced that Belgian director Felix Van Groeningen had taken over as director with a new script written by Australian writer Luke Davies. I think this was a vital move. Cameron Crowe has his own unique style of American cinema but I don’t think Beautiful Boy would have suited it. There are many other American directors I can think of who could come close to what the film should have looked like but I can’t think of any who would have been better than Van Groeningen. His 2012 film The Broken Circle Breakdown is one of the greatest non-American American films of modern times and the mood and his observational style are perfectly suited to such a story. It is also important that Luke Davies was attached as screenwriter, Davies being a former heroin addict himself. Both men gave the film the authenticity it deserved. Steve Carell played the father like no other actor could – the father anybody would want and the father everyone could see themselves as. Will Poulter was initially attached to play the son but I’m glad that the role eventually went to Timothée Chalamet. I’m not hating on Poulter, he’s proved his worth time and time again when no one thought he was right for the role but I genuinely don’t think he would have been right here, where Chalamet was in his element. Chalamet is fast becoming an actor to watch, indeed, if he’s in it, I’m interested. His style of acting, which I suppose you could could call method in the classical sense, is lending itself well to the young actor. His passion is met by his ability and it’s quite a relief to see such an important subject and a real-life character being respected and played with such enthusiasm. Watching Chalamet and Carell together felt authentic and I believed they were father and son. Maybe it’s because I’d recently become a father to a beautiful boy myself just before watching, but I found their relationship to be tender, heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. Again, I found this all to be suitably authentic. I was surprised to learn that the editing of the film took seven months in total, meaning that the movie was completely re-cut, multiple times. Initially Nico Leunen, Van Groeningen's long-time collaborator, was not involved in the project but when Van Groeningen became dissatisfied with the editing process he brought Leunen to Los Angeles to reconstruct the film. That’s a lot of time in the movie making business, so it’s good to see a bit of leniency given by the studio for the sake of art and the story’s integrity. It’s great when a complex story and an important subject are given the best treatment and Beautiful Boy is the perfect example of passion and integrity in action to produce a respectful and compelling adaptation.

Spy

Dir: Paul Feig

2015

***

2015’s Spy is probably the only Paul Feig film I don’t hate because it is the only Paul Feig film that wasn’t hyped to hell. It features way too many in-jokes and people who believe they are funnier than they really are but to give it due credit, it is at times, more inventive than the spy films it attempts to parody. It might have ruined Jude Law’s chances of being the next James Bond but that ship had probably sailed anyway. I’m not the world’s biggest Melissa McCarthy fan but she’s best when she isn’t playing a confident character, her strengths are always when she’s vulnerable and here for the first time in her career she’s sort of both. She has used the balance since to great effect. It’s a madcap spy movie/James Bond send up and Feig clearly understands that the best such films are the ones that don’t stop to breathe. McCarthy plays Susan Cooper, a 40-year-old, single, desk-bound CIA employee who remotely assists her partner, field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law), while harbouring secret romantic feelings for him. We follow them both on a typical mission as Fine gets himself into a troublesome situation which Cooper inevitably gets him out of while the office around her falls to pieces after being infested with vermin (a shameless, and rather pointless nod to an episode of the Office which Feig directed). During their latest mission, Fine accidentally kills arms dealer Tihomir Boyanov as he sneezes during a confrontation before extracting the location of a nuke in a suitcase from him. Susan uncovers evidence that Rayna (Rose Byrne), Boyanov's daughter, has contacted Sergio De Luca (Bobby Cannavale), a suspected broker with ties to various terrorist groups, so Fine infiltrates her home. However, Rayna shoots Fine dead, while Susan watches helplessly online. She then reveals that she knows the identities of the agency's top agents, knowing that a remote agent would be watching. Susan, who is almost certainly unknown to Rayna, volunteers to track her (she was a top trainee agent, albeit over ten years ago). When her boss, Elaine Crocker (Allison Janney), reluctantly agrees, the ultra macho Rick Ford (Jason Statham) quits in disgust. With her best friend Nancy (Miranda Hart – in a role said to have been written especially for her) providing intelligence, Susan goes to Paris undercover. Ford continually shows up to tell Susan she will fail because of her inexperience. The next morning, Susan discovers that De Luca's office has burned down. She finds a photo of a man standing next to the fire and eventually finds him and follows him before seeing him switch his backpack with Ford’s, the switched bag containing a bomb. Susan warns Ford in time during a concert and then pursues the man into an abandoned building. During the ensuing fight, he falls to his death. When she checks the man's video camera, Susan learns that De Luca is going to Rome. In Rome, Susan meets her contact Aldo (an over the top Italian stereotype played by Peter Serafinowicz). She follows Sergio into a casino, where she ends up saving Rayna's life. Rayna brings Susan into her inner circle and takes Susan on her private plane to Budapest. In mid-flight, the steward kills Rayna's bodyguard and pilots, but Susan subdues him. Rayna believes Susan to be a CIA agent, but Susan convinces her that she was hired by her father to protect her. In Budapest, Susan meets Nancy, who was sent by Crocker. After being shot at, Susan pursues and catches up with the would-be assassin who turns out to be CIA spy Karen (Morena Baccarin), who sold Rayna the names of the other agents. She tries to shoot Susan, but an unknown sniper kills her instead. Susan, Nancy and Aldo accompany Rayna to a party to meet Rayna's contact. That turns out to be Lia, the woman who distracted Ford in Paris. Nancy creates a diversion (by pretending to be a crazed fan of guest performer 50 Cent) so that Susan can try to apprehend Lia unnoticed. Because of Ford's inopportune intervention, however, Lia runs off. Susan chases after her. After a brutal fight, as Susan is about to arrest Lia, she is instead killed by Fine, who earlier faked his death and is now Rayna's lover and associate. Rayna imprisons Susan and Aldo in a bunker. Later, Fine reveals to Susan that he is trying to gain Rayna's trust to locate the nuke, and he was the one who killed Karen. Susan and Aldo escape. At De Luca's mansion, Fine, Rayna and Sergio wait for Solsa Dudaev, head of an al-Qaeda-funded terrorist group. Susan convinces Rayna and De Luca that, even though she works for the CIA, she will do anything to protect Fine, admitting that she loves him. Dudaev gives De Luca a suitcase full of diamonds, and Rayna produces the device. De Luca has Dudaev and his men killed, then reveals his plan to sell the device to another buyer (though they also intend to bomb New York City), before pointing his gun at Rayna. Ford distracts him, allowing Susan to kill his men. Sergio escapes to his helicopter with the device and the diamonds, but Susan grabs onto the landing gear. In the ensuing struggle, Susan throws the diamonds and the device into a lake below. De Luca attempts to shoot Susan, but Nancy, following in another helicopter provided by 50 Cent, shoots him in the back before he can. He grabs on to Susan's necklace (a gift from Fine), but she releases the catch and De Luca falls out of the helicopter to the lake, presumably dead. The nuke is retrieved by the CIA, and Rayna is arrested, but she makes peace with Susan - accepting her as a friend. Ford, realising that he had underestimated Susan's skills, compliments her on her job. Crocker tells Susan that she will remain a field agent, and that her next assignment will take her to Prague to infiltrate a drug smuggling ring. Fine invites Susan to dinner, but she instead opts for a night out with Nancy. The next morning, Susan wakes up in bed next to Ford and screams, while Ford claims she "loved it". During the credits, it is revealed that Rayna is imprisoned; De Luca is lost after falling to the lake; and Susan is tasked with different missions (including one where Ford is captured by mafia). The credits sequence suggests that Feig hoped there would be a sequel but I believe the chances of that were always thin. The remote assistance aspect of the film is very clever and I wonder whether they should have stuck to a film that concentrates on only using that dynamic. I even think a sit-com, ala The American Office, could suit the format well. I knew Jude Law was going to be still alive because he was both the most expensive actor cast and was the best character of the film. That said, I was happy to see Miranda Hart in a big budget Hollywood movie as I was Peter Serafinowicz but it was Rose Byrne’s transformation into villain that impressed me the most. Its not perfect though, far from it. I hate films that feature concerts for no good reason and why they featured a Verka Serduchka concert is anyone’s guess. I don’t care for pointless cameos either, although seeing 50 Cent and Miranda Hart together shooting a machine gun out of a helicopter isn’t something I thought I’d ever see in a film. So while I’m relieved and surprised that a Paul Feig film didn’t bore me to death, it is still a below-par Spy spoof. Michel Hazanavicius and Jean Dujardin’s OSS-117 films are still yet to be bettered in this respect and I’d even watch Naked Gun ​33 1⁄3: The Final Insult over this any day of the week.

The Boss

Dir: Ben Falcone

2016

*

I disliked Ben Falcone’s The Boss for many different reasons but overall I hated it because it was only half an idea. It’s as if they decided to have a basic premise and then chose to wing the rest. It’s quite an arrogant stance really. It is true that Melissa McCarthy has somehow still got an audience and can pull a crowd but where is the humour? I will always appreciate humour that doesn’t necessarily make me laugh and isn’t my type, but what was so funny here that makes the film deserved of the description comedy? Of course you don’t need to constantly tells jokes to make a film a comedy and neither do you always need to rely on slap-stick. There are many performers who are just funny, it’s in they’re bones, just a gesture can raise a smile but McCarthy ain’t one of those performers. It’s got to a point now where film makers are telling audiences that their film is funny and the audiences are believing them without question. We are living in particularly brain-dead times when a film such as The Boss isn’t totally rejected and ridiculed. Some people love it. End of days my friends. The shoddy premise sees McCarthy play a rich industry boss who is sent to prison for insider trading. The film is based on a character McCarthy created for the comedy troupe Groundlings which I can only imagine made more sense. The character doesn’t seem to be a parody of anyone in particular and is a cross between a high-flying business person and a mafia boss, without really being like either. The story begins properly as McCarthy’s character, Michelle Darnell, leaves prison having served her sentence. She’s ready to rebrand herself as America's latest sweetheart, but not everyone she worked with is so quick to forgive and forget. With nowhere to go and no one to scam, Michelle is forced to move in with former assistant Claire (Kristen Bell) and her young daughter, Rachel (Ella Anderson). Now at her lowest point, Michelle wastes no time in devising a winner-take-all plan to rebuild her empire which abuses the trust and kindness of Claire and Rachel. Things are made tougher for Michelle by the fact her former mentor (Kathy Bates – who plays a slightly older version of her) and former lover Renault, who still holds a heavy grudge towards her for their breakup. Universal was at first unable to decide on the gender of Michelle’s ex-lover. Before Peter Dinklage was finally cast, the studio also considered Oprah Winfrey, Jon Hamm and Sandra Bullock as possibilities. Again, the total lack of direction is mind-numbing. I’m guessing they went with Peter Dinklage because he is small and therefore funny, because small is funny. I don’t know what is more puzzling though: the fact that the film was green-lit and given a $29 million budget or that it ended up making $78.8 million at the box office. Although Kristen Bell, Kathy Bates and Peter Dinklage should have known better, they all escape the film relatively unharmed. Ben Falcone is clearly blinded by love, his wife (McCarthy) is everything in his eyes and in his mind her very presences is enough for a film to click/be funny/make money. He is of course wrong. Putting whether you find McCarthy funny or not (not in my case), there is never an excuse for not writing a script. That said, McCarthy did co-write the script, so one has to ask who loves her more, her husband or herself. It’s dreadful. I have nothing more to say about it.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

Dir: Mike Mitchell

2019

**

I think the fact that Warner Animation Group and Warner Bros. Pictures had confirmed that The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part would be the fourth and final film in The Lego Movie franchise ( following the release of the first film's two spin-offs, The Lego Batman Movie and The Lego Ninjago Movie) is a clear indicator that this was an idea that had run its course. This was a refreshing move considering the films make a ton of money, and it was a rare but welcome bit of integrity in the world of franchise/big business etc. ‘Go out in style’ and ‘Quit while you’re ahead’ are two solid ideas, the only problem here being that the film isn’t very good. In fact, it’s actually rather dull. The magic of the first film was in its charm. It understood how kids played with LEGO and ignored how LEGO wanted kids to play with it. The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is just a mindless tirade of blurred action scenes and convoluted sub-plots that stumble through ideas of childhood, empathy, regret and much of what people had forgotten about the first film. I found Emmet to be fun, funny and charming in the first film, here he is as annoying as the other characters found him in the original. The songs are dreadfully lethargic and depend largely on the popular tunes of the first film. The contrast between this and the original are much like the difference between The Lego Batman Movie and The Lego Ninjago Movie, that is, one is for everyone and the other is for the brain-dead and children who will literally watch anything. The film grossed over $191 million worldwide against a budget of $99 million, somehow making it a box office failure, something I still don’t quite understand, but those numbers should have been way higher. I think people enjoyed the first but the novelty of such an idea was always going to have a limited shelf-life. I do believe The Lego Ninjago Movie helped kill off the enthusiasm. I think what confused me most about the film is how it tells its audience the basis of the story and then tries to reveal it as a surprise twist at the end. Following the events of the first film, Finn's sister Bianca has been invited to share their father's LEGO collection. In the LEGO universe, this is represented by the arrival of Duplo aliens. Emmet builds the aliens a heart as a token of friendship but one eats it and playfully demands more. Lucy and the Master Builders interprets this as an attack and retaliates, and the ensuing battle destroys Bricksburg. Despite all this, Emmet tries to assure Lucy that "Everything can still be awesome." Five years later, Bianca has taken more of Finn's LEGO creations and other toys to play with. In the LEGO universe, the Duplo army's invasions have turned Bricksburg into the post-apocalyptic wasteland Apocalypseburg, hardening its citizens. However, Emmet remains upbeat and wants to move into a dream home with Lucy, who tells Emmet he needs to adapt to their new harsher world. Emmet himself is also troubled by visions of an impending cataclysm dubbed as "Armamageddon". Soon, a LEGO mini-doll named General Mayhem arrives and proclaims that Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi of the Systar (sister) System wants to marry Apocalypseburg’s leader. Mayhem's forces capture Batman, Lucy, Benny, MetalBeard, and Unikitty after they argued who was the leader. They are taken to the Systar System, where Batman eventually agrees to marry Wa'Nabi, while the others are being tempted to remain, which only Lucy resists. In pursuit, Emmet converts his house into a spaceship and travels through "the Stairgate" – out of the basement – and is saved from an asteroid field by rugged adventurer Rex Dangervest. Emmet begins to toughen up by mimicking Rex, hoping to impress Lucy. Meanwhile Lucy and her friends are taken to a spa and while seeing them being "brainwashed", she escapes to find Emmet. Meanwhile, Rex and Emmet evade Wa'Nabi's forces and find Lucy. Deducing that the wedding is a front for Armamageddon, Emmet devises a rescue plan where Lucy will switch off the music defending the Space Temple where the wedding will take place, and Emmet will destroy the reception cake, encased in a temple, to stop the wedding. As Lucy fights Mayhem, she learns the Systar System never meant to antagonize Apocalypseburg, but merely failed to communicate their desire to coexist in peace – in the real world, Bianca simply wants her older brother Finn to play with her. They also hope that the wedding to bring about peace. She also discovers that Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi's original form is the heart Emmet gave the aliens. Realizing Rex has sinister motives, Lucy tries to stop Emmet and show who she really is, but Emmet doesn’t believe her and destroys the temple. In the real world, Emmet's destruction is carried out by Finn angrily destroying Bianca's LEGO temple wedding cake. Emmet realises his mistake but is seized by Rex, knocking Lucy onto a shelf. Aboard his ship, Rex reveals that he is an embittered version of Emmet from the future; abandoned for years underneath a nearby clothes dryer after crashing in the asteroid field, he became Rex – "Radical Emmet Xtreme" – and built a remote time machine to save Emmet/himself. As revenge for being neglected while the other toys were played with, Rex has tricked his past self into bringing about Armamageddon. When asked what Armamageddon really is, Rex explains what is happening in the real world right now, that is that Bianca and Finn’s mother has halted their bickering and has asked them to put away their LEGO sets, representing Armamageddon (as in just wait until "Our momma gets in"). Rex then throws Emmet under the dryer where he had been abandoned to make him become himself after Emmet refuses to give up on his friends. Everything in the LEGO universe begins to crumble and fall into the dark hole of the Bin of Storajj, represented by Finn and Bianca taking their creations apart and putting them in storage bins. Being unable to accept that this is the end, Lucy urges everyone to sing "Everything's Not Awesome", which Finn hears and then rebuilds the heart for Bianca, thus reviving Wa-Nabi and inadvertently restores the LEGO universe, allowing Lucy to rally the others into escaping from the storage bin in various spacecraft to save Emmet and stop Rex. Emmet and Lucy overpower Rex and sabotage his time machine with a heart bomb. Rex redeems himself as he and his timeline fade from existence when Emmet refuses to be like him, and Emmet and Lucy reconcile. In the real world, Finn and Bianca's mom has a change of heart upon seeing them reconciled and watches them play with their LEGO creations together. The LEGO universe is transformed into a mishmash of the restored Bricksburg and the Systar System called the peaceful "Syspocalypstar". Emmet's dream house is rebuilt and gets an original album of "Everything Is Awesome", revealing Lucy on the album, much to his surprise. Now, as nice as the story is of a young pair of siblings playing nicely together, I can’t help but think that many of the ‘toy’ themes have been covered, and covered better, by the Toy Story films. It’s clever, but far too confused for the heart of the story to be appreciated fully. It gave me a bloody headache. I look forward to not watching another LEGO film and not watching another Chris Pratt film for a while.

Shin Godzilla

Dir: Hideaki Anno, Shinji Higuchi

2016

*****

Shin Godzilla, or Godzilla: Resurgence as it is also known, is the first Godzilla film (out of thirty or so films and counting) to really capture the essence and message of the original. It is easy for a viewer to have missed the message of the first film, especially thanks to its questionable (but lovable) sequels such as Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla and Son of Godzilla, stretching from the Shōwa period (1954 -1975), Heisei period (1984 - 1995) and Millennium period (1999 - 2004), not including 1976’s Italian Godzilla, the Japanese/America collaborations and the Hollywood versions. Shin Godzilla marks the beginning of the Reiwa period and a more mature direction. Whereas the original Godzilla was conceived as a metaphor for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Shin Godzilla draws inspiration from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, as well as the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Godzilla is essentially the collective fear of a tsunami, earthquake and failing nuclear reactor rolled into one. Indeed, the sight of the blue-jumpsuited government spokesmen convening emergency press conferences and scenes of people quietly regarding mountains of debris is something that could have been lifted straight out of television footage of both events. The original Godzilla was fear and paranoia in 1954 and Shin Godzilla is exactly the same, just updated for a 2016 audience. That said, as well as fear and paranoia, there is also a great big slice of satire. It acknowledges the ridiculousness of the original films by adding intense realisum and takes a swipe at Japanese politics. As author William Tsutsui said, Shin Godzilla leaves no doubt that the greatest threat to Japan comes not from without but from within, from a geriatric, fossilized government bureaucracy unable to act decisively or to stand up resolutely to foreign pressure. There is plenty of footage of Godzilla clumsily trashing the Tokyo suburbs but most of the film deals with the nonsensical bureaucracy that would occur if such a disaster were to ever happen. The majority of the film features board room meetings and political discussion. On paper it sounds like the most boring Godzilla film you could ever imagine but that couldn’t be further from the reality. The ultra-realisum makes the film all the more effective. The other aspect of the film that makes it stand out over the other films in the franchise is just how MANGA influenced it is. The initial scenes of Godzilla before he is fully developed are incredible and terrifying, which in turn acts as a great metaphor for the early stages of any major disaster. Toho announced plans for its new Godzilla film stating that it was good timing after the success of the American version of 2014. I can’t help but think they wanted Godzilla to go back to his roots, in story and geographically. Shin Godzilla has no ties to Legendary's MonsterVerse and is essentially a reboot to the Toho series. Toho additionally put together a project team, known as "Godzilla Conference" or "Godzi-con", to formulate future projects. Godzilla himself was modernised but still had the look of the original. Directors Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi stated that they intended to provide the most terrifying Godzilla that Japan's cutting-edge special-effects movie-making team can muster." A variety of techniques such as puppets, animatronics, and digital effects were initially considered and an upper-body animatronic was produced but went unused after Toho decided to create a completely CG Godzilla. On the whole Godzilla looks good and the effects are decent, but there are one or two scenes where Godzilla looks like he’s out of a 90s video game. However, these scenes are short and it doesn’t effect the overall enjoyment of the film in any way. It’s strange really, as Gareth Edwards made his debut Monsters back in 2010 and got the 2014 Godzilla job as a result. 2014’s American Godzilla was your typical big bad monster movie but Shin Godzilla is just like Monsters, and I’d be very surprised if Edwards’ film wasn’t Toho’s main inspiration. The title "Shin Gojira" was cleverly chosen due to the variety of meanings the syllable "shin" could convey, such as "new", "true", and "god". This is clearly Toho telling the world that this is the authentic Godzilla, everything else is a remake. It’s an incredibly bold move from Toho but it works brilliantly. Not only is it incredibly clever, it somehow takes a theme and a character that has appeared countless times and has had thirty odd films made about it, and creates something completely original. I loved everything about it. Never in a million year would I have thought that a Godzilla film set in a conference suite would be a good idea but here it is, standing tall as one of the best films of 2016.

André the Giant

Dir: Jason Hehir

2018

****

At the very beginning of Jason Hehir’s documentary on the life and career of wrestling legend André the Giant, the audience is told that what you think you might know about the man might not true, and that there is a huge difference between the man and the myth. I confess, I went into the film expecting it to be an expose on all the wild shenanigans the giant Frenchman got up to in and out of the ring but it turns out there was a lot more to him than just being able to drink 12 bottles of wine a night. Besides, when you’re a giant, 12 bottles of wine is only a couple of glasses to us regular folk. He was born André Roussimoff in Molien, to the north-east of Paris in the canton of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre. He was the son of immigrants, his father was Bulgarian and his mother was Polish. His nickname growing up was "Dédé". As a child, he displayed symptoms of gigantism very early, reaching a height of 6.3 ft and a weight of 208 lb by the age of 12. André was a good student, particularly in mathematics, but he dropped out after the eighth grade since he did not think having a high school education was necessary for a farm labourer. He spent years working on his father's farm, where, according to his brother, he could perform the work of three men. He also completed an apprenticeship in woodworking, worked in a factory but none of these occupations brought him any satisfaction. At the age of 18, André moved to Paris and was taught professional wrestling by a local promoter who recognized the earning potential of his size. He trained at night and worked as a mover during the day to pay living expenses. He was billed as "Géant Ferré", a name based on the French folk hero Grand Ferré, and began wrestling in Paris and nearby areas. Canadian promoter and wrestler Frank Valois met André in 1966, becoming his business manager and adviser. He began making a name for himself wrestling in the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa. He made his Japanese debut in 1970, billed as "Monster Roussimoff", wrestling for the International Wrestling Enterprise. Wrestling as both a singles and tag-team competitor, he quickly was made the company's tag-team champion alongside Michael Nador. During his time in Japan, doctors first informed Roussimoff that he suffered from acromegaly. Japan was big for André but he soon moved to Canada, where he became an immediate success, regularly selling out the Montreal Forum.  However, promoters eventually ran out of plausible opponents for him and, as the novelty of his size wore off, the less tickets he sold. He wrestled numerous times in 1972 for Verne Gagne's American Wrestling Association (AWA) as a special attraction until Valois appealed to Vince McMahon Sr., founder of the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF), for advice. McMahon suggested several changes. He felt André should be portrayed as a large, immovable monster, and to enhance the perception of his size, McMahon discouraged him from performing maneuvers such as dropkicks (although he was capable of performing such agile maneuvers before his health deteriorated in later life). He also began billing Roussimoff as "André the Giant" and set up a travel-intensive schedule, lending him to wrestling associations around the world, to keep him from becoming overexposed in any area. Promoters had to guarantee André a certain amount of money as well as pay McMahon's WWWF booking fee. It is safe to say André was at the cusp of a new beginning in wrestling but it is also safe to say he himself was a reason behind that change. On March 26, 1973, André debuted in the World Wide Wrestling Federation (later World Wrestling Federation) as a fan favorite, defeating Buddy Wolfe in New York's Madison Square Garden. André was one of professional wrestling's most beloved heroes throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1976, André fought professional boxer Chuck Wepner in an unscripted boxer-versus-wrestler fight. The wild fight was shown via telecast as part of the undercard of the Muhammad Ali versus Antonio Inoki fight and ended when he threw Wepner over the top rope and outside the ring and won via count out. In 1980, he feuded with Hulk Hogan, where unlike their more famous matches in the late 1980s, Hogan was the villain and André was the hero, wrestling him at Shea Stadium's Showdown at Shea and in Pennsylvania, where after Roussimoff pinned Hogan to win the match, Hogan bodyslammed him much like their legendary WrestleMania III match in 1987. The feud continued in Japan in 1982 and 1983 with their roles reversed and with Antonio Inoki also involved. In 1982, Vince McMahon, Sr. sold the World Wide Wrestling Federation to his son, Vince McMahon, Jr and everything changed. As McMahon began to expand his newly acquired promotion to the national level, he required his wrestlers to appear exclusively for him. McMahon signed André to these terms in 1984, although he still allowed him to work in Japan for New Japan Pro Wrestling. All of the smaller state run leagues died out and wrestling found a new, national audience on cable television. One of André’s feuds pitted him against the "Mongolian Giant" Killer Khan. According to the story line, Khan had snapped Roussimoff's ankle during a match in 1981 by leaping off the top rope and crashing down upon it with his knee-drop. In reality, he had broken his ankle getting out of bed the morning before the match. The injury and subsequent rehabilitation was worked into the existing André/Khan story line. After a stay at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, André returned with payback on his mind. The two battled on July 20, 1981, at Madison Square Garden in a match that resulted in a double disqualification. Their feud continued as fans filled arenas up and down the east coast to witness their matches. On November 14, 1981, at the Philadelphia Spectrum, he decisively defeated Khan in what was billed as a "Mongolian stretcher match", in which the loser must be taken to the dressing room on a stretcher. Another feud involved a man who considered himself to be the "true giant" of wrestling: Big John Studd. Throughout the early to mid-1980s, André and Studd fought all over the world, battling to try to determine who the real giant of wrestling was. In 1984, Studd took the feud to a new level when he and partner Ken Patera knocked out André during a televised tag-team match and proceeded to cut off his hair. The reality was that André got on very well with his arch rivals and behind the scenes the they all got on famously. André was at the centre of the wrestling world, in the documentary many wrestlers talk of how they looked up to him (literally as well as figuratively) and that he was the reason they got into the sport in the first place. People remember the latter half of his career because it was on television but he’d been doing the same gigs for over a decade all over the world. The interviews with his friends and colleagues are heartfelt and it is clear that twenty-five years after his death, he is still desperately missed. Wrestlers are bad actors, so when these guys begin sobbing in front of camera you can believe the tears are real. Hulk Hogan is especially upset when talking about their famous Wrestle Mania match of 1987 and, explaining that at this point André was in huge amounts of pain but went ahead not only because he needed the money, but because he knew it was what was best for his friend and for wrestling in general. Vince McMahon, Jr sheds a few tears also in a remarkably revealing interview. I don’t think he’s a great guy and he has pushed many a wrestler in the ring when their health really wasn’t up to it, but whether it was guilt or what, his tears were clearly meant. Along with many of André’s wrestling buddies, his cast-mates from The Princess Bride are interviewed as are family members. The interviews with his driver are perhaps the saddest and heartfelt, especially when he spoke of how André knew he was not long for the world. It’s a sad film for sure but also a great celebration of the man and his achievements. Whether you like wrestling or not, the guy is a legend and will clearly remain as such.