The Week Of

Dir: Robert Smigel

2018

***

While I always like to give everyone a fair chance, I can totally understand why people flat-out refuse to watch Adam Sandler films. I admit that I was one of those people, I will watch his films now but they are never – ever – going to be my first choice. However, there was something about the trailer to The Week Of that appealed to me and after watching it I can’t say I was disappointed. There were a few annoying Adam Sandler-isms that the film could have done without, such as the weird boob-false leg dream Chris Rock’s character has and Sandler – still not realising everyone hated Jack & Jill – in drag. Apart from those scenes though, he is fairly restrained and on good form. Sandler can be funny and rather charming, it’s wonderful when he is, and he just about manages to be both here. It’s the strong supporting cast and the sweet story that I liked. Filmed in a sort of fly-on-the-wall style (a subtle mockumentary if you will) that most modern-day sitcoms have adopted, it suited the structure of the scenario rather well. The ideas were original, even though the setting was well-trodden. The story was never forced and neither were the characters, which meant that even though the whole ‘wedding gone wrong’ scenario is nothing new, there was nothing cliché about it. I thought it was actually really well observed. Sandler actually keeps it together nicely, and even though Chris Rock seemed a bit too distant at times, there was a balance between the two and the fact they weren’t at each others’ throats throughout the film was rather refreshing. It is the lack of conflict that I liked most about the film – two very different families coming together for a wedding – both fathers being chalk and cheese, the father of the bride struggling financially and the father of the groom clearly loaded. It’s low concept but it isn’t low on laughs, in fact I found myself giggling the whole way through. It’s all about the performances and the physical comedy, the detail and those little finishing touches. There are outlandish moments that add very little, for example, there is a scene whereby Sandler and his wife (played by the excellent Rachel Dratch) and brother (the always quality Steve Buscemi) release bats into the mayors office. It’s mildly amusing in its silliness but its nothing compared to the scene where Sandler’s son is followed to his Little League match by the whole wedding party who cheer him on so much that he cries (it’s much funnier than it sounds). Even the scene whereby a man with no legs gets lost in a pool of sponge bricks made me laugh but on paper it reads as a typically dreadfully tasteless Sandler joke. It’s an anomaly. It’s no masterpiece but it almost seems as much due to Sandler’s usual good film/bad film ratio. Hardcore fans might be bored by it, I’m not sure, but I thought there was something innocent and delightful about it. The sentiment is pure. After that, it’s all about the funny half-thought observations – like how ridiculous strippers look without loud music for instance. I think Sandler is at his best when he’s his most generous and here he lets everyone else have the big laughs to great effect. Robert Smigel’s direction is strong, and overall it’s a rather pleasant surprise and a very happy watch. I think it might have been dismissed a bit too early by some folk.

Batman: Gotham by Gaslight

Dir: Sam Liu

2018

***

DC animations and Warner Bros. Animation sometimes get it wrong but are generally dependable when it comes to their superhero cartoons. I find that they usualy let themselves down though when they fiddle about with the stories of some of the better known and more popular graphic novels. I thought Batman: Killing Joke was a bit of a let down but the non-adaptations are generally quite good. I have always been a huge fan of DC’s Elseworld one-shots and have long-thought that they are the way to go as far as the animation studio goes so I’m thrilled that they’ve now made the first – and perhaps greatest - Batman Elseworld one-shot, 1989’s Batman: Gotham by Gaslight. The adaption is fairly faithful too, with only the inclusion of Selina Kyle/Catwoman as the big difference with some minor detail left out. It’s set in the Victorian era of Gotham City and has Bruce Wayne/Batman hunting down Jack the Ripper. Many Batman regulars turn up as Victorian characters, a good mix of old and new. Characters include Poisen Ivy, Hugo Strange, Harvey Dent, Harvey Bullock, James Gordon, Selina Kyle, Cyrus Gold and of course Alfred Pennyworth. It’s a cracking mystery with a clever twist. The story beguins with the citizens of Gotham believing that the Batman and Jack are the same man. Stage actress Selina Kyle, a protector of the women from "Skinner's End", is critical of Gotham Police Commissioner James Gordon and Chief of Police Harvey "Bulldog" Bullock for their inaction in stopping Jack. Selina acts as bait for Jack after Poisen Ivy (a prostitute in this film) is murdered in a back ally. It works, but Jack gets the upper hand during their fight until the arrival of Batman. After escaping, Batman asks Gordon to help him bring Jack the Ripper down, also with help of Selina. At the Theatre with his friend Harvey Dent, Bruce meets Selina and the two bond at the Dionysus Club, without Selina knowning his secret identity. Bruce is later met by Hugo Strange, claiming he knows the killer and wants to meet with Batman. At Arkham Asylum, Hugo is attacked by Jack the Ripper and is ripped apart by his own crazed patients. Batman chases Jack on top of an airship in a fight that leaves Batman wounded as the airship explodes and Jack the Ripper escapes. Batman also rides a steampunk motorcycle but I’m happy to say that is where the whole overdone steampunk starts and ends. The conclusion leads the story to the Gotham City World's Fair, every detail referencing the Victorian era rather cleverly. It’s a slower story but it is an intelligent one. I dare say kids would be bored stiff by it but then it really isn’t for them anyway and I’m pretty sure its one of the few DC animations that has a higher rating. I love the original graphic novel and I’m not sure it would ever be possible to match its brilliance, but they do a fairly good job here. It’s a sign that they are considering new (older) ideas anyway, so there is hope for some of the other classic elseworld stories in the forthcoming. Bruce Greenwood, in his third outing voiceing the caped-crusader, is pretty good and I think I’m now finally sold on his casting. Anthony Head was a surprisingly good Alfred pennyworth and no animation is worth its weight without John DiMaggio. Jennifer Carpenter was also very impressive as she jumps from Marvel (she voiced Black Widow back in 2015) to DC, I’m sure it won’t be the last time we hear her voice as Selina Kyle. DC animations are getting better for sure and less hit and miss like they used to be. I think a lot of this has to do with Sam Liu who is now the animation director of choice.

Avengers: Infinity War

Dir: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

2018

*****

I ordered an extra-large portion of popcorn before watching Avengers: Infinity War and it was definitely the right decision, although maybe I should have bought two. It seems every new Avengers film is ‘the best yet’ and Infinity War is certainly no exception. I’ve pondered the film I only watched yesterday and I’ve been honest with myself – I have calmed my giddying excitement and still I believe it is the second greatest superhero/comic adaptation ever made (no one will ever better Superman 1978 in my heart). Since 2008 Marvel Studios have managed to adapt some of the most outlandish characters and scenarios and make them believable but I think for the very first time, ever, they have captured the pure essence (craziness) of the comic book with Infinity War. Civil War was great, a new chapter in superhero/comic adaptation movies but it is nothing compared to this. I love everything they do but this time Marvel really have brought their comics to life without compromise or complication. It’s everything comic book fans have ever wanted but never in a million years thought they would ever see – and more. It really isn’t that long ago when studios – and some fans – would suggest the very idea of having a man in a robotic suit, a God and a talking tree in the same film wouldn’t work and that some things can only exist properly within the realms of the comic book, but Marvel have proved them wrong. I remember the excitement when Nick Fury turned up at the end of 2008’s Iron Man but even then it felt like a tease, a hopeful wish that you took with a pinch of salt, indeed, many superhero/comic adaptations have been touted since and have fallen by the wayside. The Russo brother’s film kicks bottom. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely’s script – that is loosely adapted  from Jim Starlin's 1991 comic series "The Infinity Gauntlet" and Jonathan Hickman's 2013 "Infinity" comic, comes together perfectly, with each character – all sixty-four – having their fair share of action. Not one character is lost in the background, some may only feature for a few minutes but each one serves a purpose and is recognised. We’ve had eighteen films worth of character development, now its time for said characters to do what superheros do without any nonsense. By now it is no secret that Thanos is coming, he wants all of the six Infinity Stones to become the most powerful (and destructive) force in the universe. His intentions don’t quite match anyone else’s. The Infinity Stones have featured heavily up to this point within the MCU and all of the films – particularly the few released in the couple of years previous to Infinity War – have led to this point. We first saw The Space Stone (also known as the Tesseract) in Captain America: The First Avenger. After Cap got hold of it and Tony Stark recovered it, it was stolen by Loki who caused all sorts of mischief (of which he is the god of) with it in the first Avengers film. The Mind Stone, which was housed in Loki's staff until Avengers: Age of Ultron is now in Vision’s forehead – indeed, Stark and Banner’s knowledge, Iron Man’s computer and The Mind Stone all come together to make Vision. The Power Stone, first seen in Guardians of the Galaxy, is under control of the Nova Corps. The Reality Stone (also known as the Aether) was first seen in Thor: The Dark World and was placed in the care of the Collector. The fifth stone, the Time Stone (also known as the Eye of Agamotto), was revealed in Doctor Strange and is under his protection in Kamar-Taj. The whereabouts of the sixth stone, the Soul Stone, was unknown up to this point and its big reveal is one of the film’s highlights. As Thanos plunders the galaxy, he meets pretty much everyone in the MCU as they scatter and form separate groups. These little team-ups are a dream come true for fans and an exciting new element to the films. The cast is astonishing, not only do we have Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Don Cheadle, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Josh Brolin, Tom Hiddleston, Chris Pratt, Idris Elba, Benedict Wong, Pom Klementieff, Karen Gillan, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper and Gwyneth Paltrow reprising their roles, you have Benicio del Toro, Danai Gurira, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, William Hurt, Kerry Condon, Peter Dinklage as a new addition to the cast and a couple of very pleasant surprises. After a decade of speculation, the film keeps you guessing from beginning to end and none of it is predictable. I guessed maybe two out of a hundred revelations but that’s about it. I’m struggling to think of another film that has this amount of excitement. The excitement levels never fall either, it’s amazing how they kept it going as they did for over two and half hours without it becoming convoluted and over-complicated. It takes the audience through every single emotion, our heros are super but we know they are all vulnerable in their own separate ways, so the outcome is always a mystery. Its excitement comes with real suspense and, for the first time, a real darkness. Marvel’s signature humor is alive and well – with some of the funniest moments so far in the MCU – and its balance between the two is unique. It shouldn’t work but it does. It’s amazing that a film with a walking, talking tree in it could be taken serious at all, but Infinity War proves that a film can be funny, exciting, dark and sad at the same time as being superiorly inventive and more intelligent than any action film has been before. Thanos is a big bulky super villain but he is just as fragile as our heroes. I don’t think a super-villain has ever been as complex before and we certainly have never seen the world from a super-villains perspective before, at least not quite like this. It’s a shame his chin looks like a scrotum though. The film is full of high points but the climax is something else. The eerie contemplative silence that fell upon the packed cinema I watched it in was like nothing I’ve witnessed before, it was the power of cinema at full force. People who dismiss superhero films and comic book adaptations as blockbuster nonsense really are overlooking something special and are missing out. Imagine mixing The Godfather, Indiana Jones, Superman, James Bond and Star Wars together – the result might look something like this. It doesn’t feel like a film, it feels like an event, I’m clearly giddy with excitement but I don’t think I’m exaggerating. The cliff-hanger ending is torturous, it’s going to be a long wait until the next film but with nineteen films now in the MCU, a re-watch of them all should help me pass the time. Poor old DC. If someone who works at 2000AD is reading, please take note, a 2000AD universe of films is totally possible, so get on it.

All Eyez On Me

Dir: Benny Boom

2017

***

Tupac Shakur is a legend to many, a young spirit who inspired a generation but died tragically young. Before Tupac it was pretty much only rock stars who enjoyed such notoriety, in life and in death. So much of his life and career is now hearsay, those close to him will sell you anything you want to hear for the right price and the fact that many still think he’s still alive (he is totally still alive) only pushes his legendary status further. So it is something of a relief to see that, for the most part, Benny Boom’s biopic is relatively comprehensive. So a few details might be argued by those that were there, a few relationships are totally missing and the ones there weren’t quite how they appear but considering the usual confines of a feature length biopic, I think they did okay. All Eyez on Me (the title of Tupac’s forth studio album) follows Shakur from his childhood living with his strong mother Afeni Shakur, a prominent member of the Black Panther movement and his step-father Mutulu, a revolutionary constantly under surveillance by the FBI. He was an intelligent guy but he generated just as much controversy as he did praise. I think what the film got across most successfully was that although he was clearly bright, he was also very young and was thrust into the limelight at a very early age. It came after a lot of hard work and talent but fame is a funny thing – especially when millions of fans wait eagerly for whatever you’re going to say next. Due to his strong beliefs and his his family history, pretty much everything he said was scrutinised and for ever fan there was at least two other people waiting to comment on an apparent lack of conviction. It’s an age old problem, people find it hard to accept it when a rich man defends the poor man, and Tupac’s life was a little bit like that. I think the film got him right, his depiction is fair and it shows his strengths as well as his weaknesses – for everything else you just have to read between the lines. The structure works really well, with the first half of the film covering Tupac’s life up until his prison sentence told through his interviews with author/journalist/activist Kevin Powell and the second half following his life as it happens after he get released. Powell actually filed a lawsuit against the producers for copyright infringement, although the character is only referenced as ‘The interviewer’ and not him directly – although it is clearly meant to be him. For all the misgivings and inaccuracies (and fiction) there are also some great examples of attention to detail, particularly of Tupac’s last few hours. However, the weakest moments are probably of concert footage of which there are many. Benny Boom is a music video director, so it is puzzling how this is the weakest part of the movie. The real strength of the film though is in the lead performance from Demetrius Shipp Jr. He is the spitting image of Tupac but he is also a brilliant actor who clearly felt passionate about his role. I thought Grace Gibson was great as Faith Evans and I loved Chris Clarke’s take on Shock G in full Humpty Hump mode but having Jamal Woolard reprise his role as The Notorious B.I.G. was a genius move. Notorious is a great biopic, probably still better than All Eyez on Me but the merger of the two films in this way makes them both stronger in my opinion. The Snoop Dog dubbing is questionable and the jury is still out on who plays Dr. Dre the best but overall the performances are outstanding and are the reason the film works as well as it does. Who knows what super-fans thought of it, I never really got into Tupac but I loved Digital Underground and I thought it was a cleverly put together film on a tricky subject.

Skokie

Dir: Herbert Wise

1981

****

I really like Skokie. It’s a made-for-television drama that used to be repeated quite a bit in the 90s and even though I’d already seen it – quite a few times, I always found myself watching it again. It’s that perfect ‘off work sick’ film but of course, it’s far more important than all that. Skokie explores a very serious issue, the problem is that it wanders into melodrama and often the performances are a little too much. Maybe that’s why I like it but it does help the message. Based on the real life NSPA Controversy of Skokie, Illinois, which involved the National Socialist Party of America, the film retells the history of the event through the eyes of a few key players. In 1977 and 1978, Illinois Nazis of the National Socialist Party of America (derived from the American Nazi Party) attempted to demonstrate their political existence with a march in Skokie, far from their headquarters on Chicago's south side. Originally, the NSPA had planned a political rally in Marquette Park in Chicago; however the Chicago authorities thwarted these plans, first, by requiring the NSPA post an onerous public-safety-insurance bond, then, by banning all political demonstrations in Marquette Park. Seeking another free-speech political venue, the NSPA chose to march on Skokie. Given the many Holocaust survivors living in Skokie, the village's government thought the Nazi march would be politically provocative and socially disruptive, and refused the NSPA its permission to hold the event. The NSPA appealed that decision, and the American Civil Liberties Union interceded on their behalf, in the case of the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. An Illinois appeals court raised the injunction issued by a Cook County Circuit Court judge, ruling that the presence of the swastika, the Nazi emblem, would constitute deliberate provocation of the people of Skokie. However, the Court also ruled that Skokie's attorneys had failed to prove that either the Nazi uniform or their printed materials, which it was alleged that the Nazis intended to distribute, would incite violence. The NSPA members are portrayed a little ridiculously in the film, they are indeed ridiculous people that should be mocked but in terms of real drama I think they could have come across more hateful, as that is what they’re full of (among other things). This was all satirized to great effect in The Blues Brothers, released the previous year. What the film does successfully however is mix real and fictional characters and events, including fictionalizing aspects of some of the main characters. The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Herb Lewisohn (played brilliantly by John Rubinstein) is fictional, apparently based on attorney (and later law professor) David A. Goldberger who argued the case in real life, While ACLU national lawyer Aryeh Neier (played by Stephen D. Newman) is a real person. Holocaust survivor and main character Max Feldman (played by the wonderful Danny Kaye) is fictional, while Holocaust survivor Sol Goldstein (played by David Hurst) is a real person. Eli Wallach and Carl Reiner are great as Moderate leaders of the local Jewish community and John Rubinstein, Stephen D. Newman, Ed Flanders and Brian Dennehy are all great in their respective roles but this is Danny Kaye’s film from start to finish. As the leaders of the Jewish community ask that people ignore the neo-Nazis - the strategy being that they put forward a "quarantine", isolating the meeting by totally ignoring the neo-Nazi presence and refusing to be provoked. Max Feldman, a Holocaust survivor , understands the logic behind the Jewish community refusing to acknowledge the rally and thus refusing to feed the media any publicity but he also remembers that he was told to ignore the Nazis nearly 40 years ago in Germany, and before he knew it he was in a concentration camp. This time he will take action, and he is ready to shed blood if necessary. Led by Max, most members of the community agree to protest, leaving the audience to decide which was the best method of protest in this sorry scenario. It has its faults but I would argue that this is an example of classic made-for-television greatness and Kaye’s final performance (only his second in a serious role) is of great credit to him.

Glen or Glenda

Dir: Ed Wood

1953

*****

Ed Wood’s 1953 drama Glen or Glenda has been described as one of the worst films ever made – a sentiment I whole-heartedly disagree with. While the film had some notoriety, it wasn’t until Tim Burton’s 1994 biopic of the infamous director that the great viewing public really became aware of it’s existence and of its meaning. Glen or Glenda was Wood’s plea for tolerance, a semi-autobiographical docudrama about cross-dressing and transsexuality. Wood had been a transvestite for some time and when he was asked by low-budget Hollywood producer George Weiss to make a movie exploiting the recent sex reassignment surgery of Christine Jorgensen, which made national headlines in the U.S. in 1952, he saw an opportunity. Weiss wanted sensationalism and in many ways Wood gave him just that but on his terms and from the perspective of the subject. He may have muddled the subject somewhat but his intentions are pure. He had to compromise quite a bit, which is a little detrimental to the finished film, but all things considered this is a film way ahead of it’s time. Unfortunately the film is remembered for its pointless erotic-themed vignettes that appear half-way through the film and have very little to do with the content or the main story. These however, were not created by Wood. They were reportedly added by Weiss as he needed extra scenes to add to what he felt was an overtly -short film. Sadly these scenes seem to tell their own tales of gender dynamics, the whipping scene for example suggests a Master/slave relationship, that the man is dominant and the woman submissive, which reflects male chauvinism, not at all what the film is about. Weiss wanted sensationalism and titillation, such was the popularity of 1950s exploitation films and the grindhouse scene. This made it appeal even more so to certain viewers, and who doesn’t like a bit of 50s exploitation, but it did nothing for Wood’s heartfelt plea of tolerance. Cut out the erotic scenes and you have a completely different (better) film. Wood persuaded Bela Lugosi, at the time poor and drug-addicted, to appear in the movie. His character of The Scientist, who narrated the film making cryptic comments about humanity is largely ineffective and not really necessary but this style and indeed the inclusion of Lugosi was a Wood signature by this point and it probably wouldn’t have felt the same without either. Back in 1981, Paramount reissued Glen or Glenda and heralded it as a lost masterpiece akin to Citizen Kane, Freaks and The Godfather, after the Golden Turkey Awards awarded Wood with the title ‘Worst director of all time” – something that kick-started a resurgence of interest in him and his work. Unfortunately, the big New York premiere, paid for by Warren Beatty and featuring six minutes of lost footage, was cancelled after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan the day before. The curse of Ed Wood struck again but the limited release did well and the film appeared in many film festivals over the following year. The real strength behind the film, and the reason it should be reconsidered as something much greater than it currently is, is how it explains things. The narrative explains to the audience that Glen is a transvestite, but not a homosexual. He hides his cross-dressing from his fiancée, Barbara, fearing that she will reject him. He still loves her the same way he would if he wasn’t interested in wearing women’s clothes and this simplicity is laid bare, it is not a deviance or a perversion and it’s far more common than most people might think. Ed Wood’s methods weren’t totally successful but I believe they helped. Making it a docudrama was a key factor in its successful side but some levels of ignorance will always remain untouchable, no matter how hard you try to educate it. It’s a masterpiece with niggles, ahead of its time and still largely misunderstood. I love that Tim Burton stood up for Wood with his loving tribute and its about time more film-goers gave a little more love to Wood as his films are gold. So many classics aren’t as good as their hype – they are gold plated. Wood’s films how ever are gold, it’s just that most of the time they’re tin-plated.

The Appaloosa

Dir: Sidney J. Furie

1966

***

Director Sidney J. Furie is probably best known for The Ipcress File, for co-directing The Jazz Singer, for creating the Iron Eagle series and for directing the understated masterpiece that is Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. His 1966 Western The Appaloosa, is largely overlooked but for good reason. It’s a film that I admit I enjoyed but there is something lacking from it compared to other westerns; there is no sense of suspense or intrigue and I actually liked the villain more than the good guy.  Based on the 1963 book by Robert MacLeod, the Appaloosa of the title is a beautiful horse (the Appaloosa is a breed) belonging to Matt Fletcher, played by Marlon Brando, a Mexican-American buffalo hunter who returns home only to have his beloved stallion stolen by a powerful bandit called Chuy Medina (played by John Saxon). Fletcher’s Appaloosa is stolen from him with the help of Medina’s girlfriend Trini (Anjanette Comer) who takes advantage of him while he is visiting the local church, having returned home after many years. Fletcher is the archetype western traveler returning home after years of travel, looking to settle down after a life of confrontation. As always with such characters, trouble is just around the corner, attracted to them like flies are to Appaloosa poo. Fletcher senses that Trini wasn’t acting out of spite but against her will, he later learns that she was sold to Chuy at the age of fifteen and has been brutalized by him ever since. Fletcher begins to hunt down the bandit to recapture the horse, but finds matters more complicated than expected when he and Trini become close. Fletcher is subjected to torture and humiliation by Chuy and his minions. A later foray into Medina's camp results in a brutal arm wrestling match in a bar between Fletcher and the bandito that ends with Fletcher being stung on the arm by a scorpion and left for dead. Fletcher is rescued by Trini in an act of redemption and set upon sweet revenge but not before having to choose between his beloved horse and his Chiquita. There is very little that is unique about The Appaloosa but there are a few points that I really enjoyed about it. Marlon Brando’s aloof performance might have endeared him to a few, and I’m sure he thought he was doing something different, but the genre is full of unique and complex protagonists, there isn’t anything uniquely special about him but he is likable and there is something refreshingly flawed about him. Certain scenes in the movie seem out of place, like the initial meeting of Fletcher and Trini inside the town church. There is something unwestern-like about it that makes it stand out. The arm wrestling scene is brilliant and the standout moment of the movie but the conclusion is also very pleasing. However, the best part of the film by far is the brilliant performance by John Saxon as the bandit Chuy Medina. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor which I think was a little unfair as he was a main character but he certainly deserved the nomination, as he stole every scene he was in and is up there with some of the greatest western villains within the genre. I can see why the film is largely overlooked but certain aspects of it make it a western that aficionados of the genre still celebrate and use as a comparison to the classics. It’s well worth checking out if you’re a fan of getting dust in your chaps.

Queen of the Desert

Dir: Werner Herzog

2015

****

I adore the films of Werner Herzog and have been frustrated by the decline of production in recent years. He hadn’t made a feature film since 2009’s My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? and then suddenly two come at once. His documentaries have also slowed a bit, but they continue to be strong and full of Herzog wonder, his feature films however, have been a little puzzling to say the least. I enjoyed Queen of the Desert and Salt and Fire that came out a year later, but my goodness they’re totally different films. Salt and Fire feels more like a Herzog film but with some of his magic missing. Queen of the Desert is a great film, epic but without any of the clichés associated with such a film. It doesn’t feel much like a Herzog film, which is slightly disappointing if I’m being honest, but I still enjoyed it very much. We all know the story of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) but few people know of writer, archaeologist, explorer, cartographer and political officer Gertrude Bell. Born into a wealthy family, Bell’s grandfather was the ironmaster Sir Isaac Lowthian Bell, an industrialist and a Liberal Member of Parliament. His role in British policy-making exposed Bell at a young age to international matters and most likely encouraged her curiosity for the world, and her later involvement in international politics. She displayed a thirst for adventure from a young age and without a mother figure (her mother died when she was four) it was never discouraged – her father and uncle doing quite the opposite. Bell's uncle, Sir Frank Lascelles, was British minister at Tehran, Persia. In May 1892, after leaving Oxford, Bell traveled to Persia to visit him. She spent much of the next decade travelling around the world, mountaineering in Switzerland and developing a passion for archaeology and languages. She had become fluent in Arabic, Persian, French and German as well as also speaking Italian and Turkish. In 1899, Bell again went to the Middle East. She visited Palestine and Syria that year and in 1900, on a trip from Jerusalem to Damascus, she became acquainted with the Druze living in Jabal al-Druze. She traveled across Arabia six times during the next 12 years and played a major role in establishing and helping administer the modern state of Iraq, utilising her unique perspective from her travels and relations with tribal leaders throughout the Middle East. During her lifetime she was highly esteemed and trusted by British officials and given an immense amount of power for a woman at the time. She has been described as one of the few representatives of His Majesty's Government remembered by the Arabs with anything resembling affection. She is still remembered fondly in the middle-east to this day. Absolutely the sort of fascinating person Herzog is attracted to, but the period is new to him, not that he’s ever had a problem with it, but there is something rather un-Herzogian about the film. A big part of the film deals with her romance with embassy employee, Henry Cadogan. Their romance did not last long as her father considered him bad company for their daughter and forbid them to marry. Cadogan committed suicide as a result and although Bell found later love with Maj. Charles Doughty-Wylie, it was her relationship with Cadogan that always stayed with her. This isn’t particularly well documented in real life and a few of her previous relationships are left unmentioned but it is Cadogan’s suicide that is concentrated on due to the fact that Bell’s death – from an overdose of sleeping pills - is often suspected as being intentional. It’s a fascinating film, it may not sound like I enjoyed it but I did, it’s just that I watch Werner Herzog films for two reasons, firstly because I know it is always going to be interesting and secondly because it will be full of Herzogisums. It’s interesting, but those special scenes that could only come from the mind of Werner are few and far between. His films are unlike any other directors so I suppose I view and judge them in a different way. There was a wonderful moment that included an unexpected vulture and rather shocked and speechless Nicole Kidman but I suppose, as much as I would have loved it, a scene with a talking lizard just wouldn’t have been appropriate. It’s a brilliant modern epic about a remarkable historical figure that people should be more aware of. It’s beautiful, well directed and well performed, especially by Nicole Kidman in the lead role.

A.C.O.D.

Dir: Stuart Zicherman

2013

***

A.C.O.D. – or Adult Children Of Divorce – is a gentle comedy that is no masterpiece but has a certain charm about it that makes it a likable watch. Written and directed by Stu Zicherman, he has since admitted that much of the story is biographical, he himself being a child of what he described as a seriously messy divorce. I’m pretty sure he exaggerated in the screenplay but actually the story is refreshingly sensible and the film is free of awkward humor and misjudged slap-stick. It stars Adam Scott in the lead role and Amy Poehler in a supporting role, so the Parks and Recreation references come thick and fast – thicker and faster than one might initially assume – so if you, like me, haven’t watched any of the television series, you’ll be aware that the obvious references are there, you just wont understand them. I also think that Scott character, the film’s protagonist, is somewhat underwritten and underdeveloped. His actions didn’t match what we know about him and even when we know he’s having something of a breakdown, the way he acts isn’t the opposite of his usual persona as we are led to understand it is. Basically Scott’s character, the level-headed centre of the film, is the least interesting element of the story. It is the rest of the cast and characters that make the film so watchable. Firstly, I’ll watch anything with the great Richard Jenkins in, the guy is incredibly overlooked considering he carries most films he's in but always as a supporting character. Catherine O’Hara is fantastic as Scott’s mother, attentive and fiery all at the same time. Clark Duke is the film’s chipper innocent that cuts through the scripts heavy skepticism rather well and Amy Poehler and the wonderful Ken Howard play complete opposites as Scott’s step-parents to great effect. Jane Lynch’s appearance is short but sweet as Scott’s childhood counselor. Jessica Alba is also in the film. I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead is short changed as Scott’s girlfriend, it’s a thankless role really and at nearly fifteen years his junior, isn’t it time Hollywood matched actors of a similar age? I know Adam Scott is fairly baby-faced but surely this cliché needs to die of old age soon? The story itself seems to skip from one vague idea to the next, never once lingering around the interesting bits to see what might develop. If the performances weren’t so good or the character so well written it would have been a painful watch but as it is it flows quite nicely. The conclusion is predictable but the very last scene is wonderfully open to interpretation, indeed, the very last scene is a superb way to end. The truth is though that as okay as the film is, I can’t help but think that it was written as a television sitcom pilot. It could have been a good sitcom too, not a long-running show but a one season comedy drama. There is a gaping hole were the poignancy is clearly meant to be and it certainly isn’t the satire it thinks it is but it is well rounded and has enough charm to just about get away with it. There is certainly nothing unlikable about it.

Hard to Be a God

Dir: Aleksei German

2013

*****

Aleksei German’s 2013 swansong is a unrelenting slog of brutal but beautiful imagery. Hard to Be a God is often hard to watch due to content and a lack of chapters but German was a master of cinema, a unique talent, with plenty of his signature moves to keep the audience enthralled throughout. Based on the novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Hard to Be a God follows Anton, a scientist from earth who has traveled to an almost identical planet that is eight-hundred years behind in terms of development. The inhabitants of this planet have brutally suppressed a renaissance movement, murdering anybody they consider to be an intellectual, and thus the planet is stuck in the middle ages. One of thirty earthlings on the planet, Anton acts as an undercover operative, an observer forbidden to assist too actively within society, as his assistance would interfere with the natural progress of history. Although Anton is forbidden from interfering directly, he is sent to infiltrate the local populace of the Kingdom of Arkanar and help them progress as a society from afar. He assumes the identity of Don Rumata, a nobleman who resides in a large castle surrounded by poverty. However, as time progresses and the depravity takes its toll, he can’t help but get involved within society and takes Ari, a young woman, as his bride. They live together in a castle along with the juvenile prince of Arkanar. Rumata's presence divides local opinion; some treat him as a God due to his obvious precents and intellect, while others despise him. Anton tasks himself with finding Budakh, a doctor who has been kidnapped by Don Reba, the tyrannical prime minister of Arkanar. Reba's militia, referred to as "the Greys", are responsible for the murder of many intellectuals, including scientists and writers. During his travels, Rumata witnesses the backward ways of the locals and becomes increasingly frustrated with them. Anton’s travels and interaction with the locals is the core of the film. At nearly three hours long, it will be more than most people can take but personally I found the constant interference between the extras and the main characters fascinating and often hilarious. When Anton returns to his castle, he finds the local area has been taken over by religious zealots in his absence, called "the Blacks", who prove to be just as oppressive as the Greys. Anton discovers that Budakh is an impostor, and that the real Budakh is still imprisoned at Don Reba's castle. He returns to Reba on peaceful terms and searches the sewers of the castle for Budakh. He eventually finds him, as well as Baron Pampa, who has been tortured by Reba's men. Rumata, Pampa and Budakh escape Reba's castle, but Pampa is shot by archers and killed. Upon returning to his village, Rumata becomes annoyed when he discovers that Budakh, apparently a great doctor and intellectual, is actually a bumbling fool who is unable to even urinate properly. He sends Budakh away and retires to his castle. The next day, the Greys attack the castle and kill Ari. Enraged, Anton butchers their leader. When questioned by a traveler who reveals himself to be another earthly, Anton replies of his actions “It’s hard to be a god!”.

The film's core idea is that human progress throughout the centuries is often cruel and bloody, and that religion and blind faith can be effective tools of oppression, working to destroy the emerging scientific disciplines and enlightenment. Anton’s evolution from an emotionally un-involved 'observer' to someone who rejects the blind belief in theory when confronted with the cruelty of real events is bizarre but believable making it just about the strangest sci-fi ever made but it somehow works brilliantly. Characters rub their faces in feces, they fondle the dead and spit and urinate wherever they like. The depravity is often overwhelming. However, there is something astonishingly beautiful about it, like a renaissance painting come to life. The film feels like an old Star Trek episode whereby the crew would be trapped on an underdeveloped alien planet but without a star ship or phasers and making love to green women. Visually, it’s a cross between Andrei Tarkovsky and Terry Gilliam, both serious and a comedy all at the same time. It also breaks the forth wall many times with extras looking right at the camera and addressing the audience as if we were there. It took six years to film and a further seven years to edit. It was released thirteen years after filming started but sadly Aleksei German died just before completion. Not for everyone, Hard to Be a God will elate and disgust in equal measure, you may only watch it once but for my money, it’s an overlooked masterpiece.

Borg vs McEnroe

Dir: Janus Metz Pedersen

2017

****

The only sports I like watching are Snooker and Darts. I’ve never found Tennis to be that exciting, I like playing it but I find it boring to watch, with perhaps only Golf being less entertaining. However, I can appreciate a match/game full of excitement, determination and pure fight – the famous Borg vs McEnroe 1980 final at Wimbledon being such an event. All I knew about either player before watching were that, apart from both being good at Tennis, Borg was a Swedish sex-symbol and McEnroe shouted at umpires a lot. I really have nothing against Tennis itself, I just can’t stand people who like Tennis – and living fairly close to Wimbledon, I have to say I generally hate the two weeks that everyone suddenly obsesses about the sport. I digress. How entertaining could a film about two Tennis players and a match that happened nearly forty years ago be? Well, thanks to a great scripts, a great director and two very impressive performances, the answer is ‘very’. Borg and McEnroe were always compared to each other as being complete opposites but as Ronnie Sandahl’s brilliant script explains, this assumption couldn’t have been any further from the truth. The only difference between the two players was how they showed their emotion and how they both tuned their focus. There is clearly far more to Tennis than I first thought and I soon found myself engrossed in its world. Seeing the origins of Borg’s childhood was fascinating, we certainly see more of his and less of McEnroe’s (Borg is also thanked in the end credits while McEnroe is not – which might suggest only one of them was enthusiastic about the film) but McEnroes behaviour is explained well and both men are depicted (and defended) equally. The big match is of course the climax of the film, and it is extremely exciting, but it certainly isn’t the important aspect of the film. Indeed, by the end it really does feel like both men win. The visual direction of the film is stunning. From the view of Borg’s Monnaco apartment to the aerial view of Wimbledon’s centre court, the film is a rich tapestry that gets the era and the mood balanced in total harmony. The attention to detail is perfect, with only one scene failing whereby Borg is seen supposedly jogging in London, when it is clear he is more likely in Prague or Sweden. However, that is only a slight mistake, the rest looks as if it were filmed there and then. Sverrir Gudnason is the spitting image of Bjorn Borg and Shia LaBeouf’s performance is possibly his best to date. Ronnie Sandahl wanted Gudnason for the part early on in the development of the film but purely because he looked the part. However, Gudnason spent six months in which he trained fifteen hours a week, with two hours of tennis and four workouts with a personal trainer. He didn’t meet Borg before filming but that seems to be quite normal these days and I understand why. However, Borg’s real son Leo portrays him from the age nine to thirteen. Shia LaBeouf contacted the production team when he first heard of the script. He made his case by stating that he identified strongly with McEnroe and felt he was a misunderstood person, much like himself. He admitted to crying when he first read the script and also said how much he loved and respected McEnroe as a person but he also didn’t meet the player he portrayed before shooting. Two very different actors with two very different styles portraying two very different players with two very different styles and it works perfectly. Gudnason and LaBeouf are both incredible. I’m unfamiliar with Gudnason’s previous work but I’m sure this will rocket him into the limelight and maybe, at last, LaBeouf will be taken seriously. He’s a great actor, misunderstood and overlooked. It’s a very different kind of sports film, a little bit like Rush but far more about the players, their mindset and also about how sports people are portrayed – this particular match going some ways in changing it. A real pleasant surprise for this non-Tennis fan.

Rampage

Dir: Brad Peyton

2018

***

Rampage has received some pretty damning reviews since its release, it’s almost as if people have taken it too seriously. Don’t get me wrong, big dumb action blockbusters aren’t always a means of escapism, I like to switch off my brain occasionally and watch something big and ridiculous just as much as the next guy (and I eat my popcorn by the tonne) but there is a fine line between fun and not fun. A good example of not fun would be director Brad Peyton and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s 2015 earthquake actioner San Andreas. Expectations of their third collaboration (they also made Journey 2: The Mysterious Island together) were pretty low indeed, probably made worse by the fact that Rampage looked a bit like San Andreas but with the inclusion of a big monkey and a large dog. Expectations exceeded – but in the opposite direction. I enjoyed it quite a lot. I can’t justify a four star rating but I have to say I am tempted, as it was a film worthy of the largest size bucket of popcorn the cinema had to sell. I vaguely remember the original video game on which the story is based and remember being unimpressed with it but liking the concept, I had no idea how they could adapt it into a film. I’m still rather staggered by how they achieved it to be honest, because even though the concept is utter nonsense, it was weirdly believable. Jurassic Park’s science is flawed but we all love that, Jaws passed down family-specific vengeance in her genes – utter nonsense but it’s a classic, and with all the love in the world, Independence Day is one of the stupidest films ever made – I’ve seen it a hundred times. I was fine with the premise that secret genetic experiments are happening on a space station orbiting the earth - I love a bit of space action. The idea that the dangerous samples crash-landed on earth and were discovered by two wild animals and a giant zoo-dwelling albino gorilla was also acceptable. The fact that said space station was destroyed by a giant rat did stretch me believability somewhat but it was an idea that was more than okay with me. In the original Midway Game, the large angry animals were all originally humans that had been experimented on, so this idea is far simpler and made sense in a funny sort of way. The science is flawed for sure but the idea is free from convolution. Sure, there was always a helicopter lying around when our heroes needed one and the script and certain scenarios could have been tweaked but apart from that the film is refreshingly pure. It’s giant gorilla, big wolf and humongous alligator vs the city and then eventually vs each other. There is also a justified reason for Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s character to be involved. The suited executives are the bad guys and the only government official you can trust is dressed like a cowboy – it’s standard big dumb action movie logic and its okay. Who doesn’t like Dwayne Johnson? The scenes with him and his mate George the giant albino gorilla are rather sweet and the animal vs animal scenes are genuinely exciting. The film’s villain has one of the best exits I’ve seen since Shark Attack 3 and not one of the cast members or character annoyed me. It is big and dumb but it is heaps of fun, mainly down to the ridiculously good science fiction elements and the fact that the concept is stupidly cool. The negativity I’ve read for this film seems a little harsh in light of how charming Rampage is. To fault it on its science is silly, to dismiss it based on Peyton’s previous efforts is also unfair. It goes without saying that it isn’t for everyone and it’ll never go down in history as a classic but there is plenty of fun to be had. If that’s not enough to convince you then consider this – infamously bad director Uwe Boll threatened to file a lawsuit against Warner Bros. if the studio did not change the film's title. Boll, who produced and directed an unrelated Rampage film trilogy, claimed that the Warner Bros. film would "shrink" his brand and revenues he could use for future installments of his Rampage films. He also went on to say that the Warner Bros. film "confuses the audience" and is "one of those typical feelgood, popcorn bullshit movies that the studios use to brainwash America even more!” If Uwe Boll questions a film’s quality, then it can’t be that bad!

The Beguiled

Dir: Sofia Coppola

2017

****

I never thought a director such as Sofia Coppola would consider remaking a Clint Eastwood movie, although if I had to guess I suppose I would pick The Beguiled. Her 2017 film is of course an adaption of Thomas P. Cullinan’s novel A Painted Devil, which Don Siegel adapted in 1971 to great critical success. The Beguiled tells the story of a wounded Union Army solder (played by Colin Farrell) who is discovered in the Virginian woods by a young girl. Although he was the ‘enemy’ the girl takes pity on him and remembers her religious upbringing and lessons of compassion, and helps him back to the Seminary school for Young Ladies from where she lives. The Civil War was in its penultimate year and all but the school’s headmistress, a teacher and handful of students remain. Cut off in the remote outback, the schools headmistress Martha Farnsworth (played by Nicole Kidman) replies on teacher Edwina Morrow (played by Kirsten Dunst) to help her care for the five girls left in their care. They take in the solder with the intention of giving him over to Confederate officers once the large wound on his leg has healed. Their initial fear and resentment for the solder is replaced with curiosity, compassion and eventually lust and attraction. The solder is polite and helps where he can, knowing that he is in the safest place he could be. However, the women begin to compete for the solders affection, which is at odds to their long-lived sense of comradery and commitment to each other. The results are climactic, with the story building to a disturbing conclusion. Siegel’s version of the story was more in keeping with the original than Coppola’s but I would argue that Coppola’s version better captures the beguiled nature of the story’s characters. Siegel said of the story that at its core it deals with the themes of sex, violence and vengeance and was based around the basic desire of women to castrate men. He cast Clint Eastwood in the main role because, as Eastwood put it “"Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino play losers very well. But my audience like to be in there vicariously with a winner. That isn't always popular with critics. My characters have sensitivity and vulnerabilities, but they're still winners. I don't pretend to understand losers. When I read a script about a loser, I think of people in life who are losers, and they seem to want it that way. It's a compulsive philosophy with them. Winners tell themselves I'm as bright as the next person. I can do it. Nothing can stop me.” I think both men are completely wrong. I don’t see the wounded solder as being a winner or a loser, just a normal man, caught up in a war that isn’t his own, who cheats death and sees an opportunity. It’s really not a film about winners. I do like the 1971 version but I loved Sofia Coppola’s version. I expected this to be filmed as an epic with big lush visuals of the beautiful Virginian plantations but Coppola’s decision to film on 1.66 aspect ratio does make the film feel suitably claustrophobic, given that the school is large but only houses eight people who are essentially living close to one another. One of the major changes in this version is the exclusion of the school’s slave Hallie, the only slave who hasn’t fled. In the original she too bonds with the solder but Coppola – who was heavily criticised for ‘whitewashing’ – decided that the story’s situation was different to the subject of slavery and the Civil War. She added that slavery is a subject that should be covered properly or not at all, saying it was best "not to brush over such an important topic in a light way," and that "Young girls watch my films and this was not the depiction of an African American character I would want to show them.” I don’t think she is re-writing history, sugar-coating the story and certainly not ‘whitewashing’ the characters and I agree that if one can’t do justice to a subject then they shouldn’t include it. It is correct to question the ethics of a film but I don’t think any harm has been done here. If you want to question ethics in cinema then go back to Clint Eastwood’s films, you’ll have a field day. The visuals are stunning, the pace is spot-on and the eerie conclusion is perfect. It is also clear that Coppola is a director who can get the best from her actors. Farrell even said that this has so far been his favorite shoot, crediting Coppola in making him feel as comfortable as possible, which helped him with his own development of character. Dunst and Elle Fanning have worked with Coppola before and I think her and Dunst’s collaborative career is one of the best (and overlooked) of recent years. Nicole Kidman seems to be the actor ever director wants to work with, she is dependable and I’m sure brilliant to make a film with but, as much as I think she did a good job, I still don’t really see any magic. I can think of many other actors who could have done as good and who would have brought a little more magic to the role that could have had far more teeth then Kidman let show. I think it was a performance, a more powerful score and a few striking scenes away from being a pure masterpiece.