Showing posts with label Andrew Niccol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Niccol. Show all posts

Friday, 16 November 2018

Good Kill
Dir: Andrew Niccol
2014
****
I find Andrew Niccol’s films to be rather hit and miss, while I always find his work to be refreshingly ambitious, some are better than others. Gattica is a modern classic and was my favorite of his until Good Kill came along. While 2014’s Good Kill is a little clumsy in places and isn’t as stylish as Gattica, it has a brilliant idea and a phenomenal script that make it one of the most important (and rather overlooked) films of the year. Everyone has a different opinion regarding UAVs and drone warfare but the brilliant thing about Niccol’s film is that it addresses both sides fairly by asking only the fundamental questions. While we see the film through one man’s experiences, all of the moral aspects – as well as the political – are addressed and explored. All of the ‘what ifs’ and ‘whys’ featured are relevant and timely, from the overall question of whether UAV warfare is right, to why the remote pilots still have to wear flight suits. It is a focused film, intelligent and never dumbed down for the audience. While it may feel like Niccol uses stereotypes in order to tell the story, I believe that a good cross-section of society’s views and beliefs are represented – and are represented fairly. The film stars Ethan Hawke and it is the third time the actor and director have worked together. Interestingly they seem to take a eight year gap between working with each other – I wonder whether this will continue. The story begins in 2010 and follows Major Thomas Egan (Hawke), an officer with the U.S. Air Force stationed at an Air Force Base just outside of Las Vegas. He is a former F-16 Falcon pilot, married, with two children who live with him in a suburban house off-base. His current assignment involves flying armed MQ-9 Reaper drones in foreign air space in support of the U.S. War on Terror. He is admired by his commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Jack Johns (Bruce Greenwood) and support staff for his calm demeanor, precise flying, and adaptability. Privately, he is concerned about the assignment, which he took after being informed there was reduced call for and increased competition for fighter pilots in the Air Force. His previous CO informed him that a tour flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) would look good on his record and would increase his chances of being posted back to a flying assignment. Major Egan is a pilot through and through – he has a leather jacket, and old muscle car and he wears his mirrored sunglasses at all times. At first, the new assignment seems stressful but relatively benign. He is assigned to attack more clear-cut terrorist cells, vehicles, and facilities in Afghanistan. He flies these assignments during daylight hours over his targets, which is night-time in Las Vegas, leaving his days free for his sleep period, and to spend time with his wife and children. However, the high-tempo assignment – he is attacking targets on almost a daily basis – begins taking its toll. His wife notices the stress he's under and he begins drinking when off-duty. Still, his performance is excellent and his crew is rated among the highest in the squadron, so, on the orders of his commanding officer, he is assigned to more challenging missions under the direction of CIA controllers. Many of these targets are in Yemen and Somalia, places where the U.S. has no acknowledged military mission. The targets themselves are increasingly morally and legally ambiguous. The CIA controller calls the shots and orders hits on public buildings and crowds of people explaining that they are sleeping spots for high level terrorist leaders or factories for making explosives but without providing evidence for such. Collateral damage goes from being a rare occurrence to a routine one. On several occasions, the CIA controller orders strikes on obvious civilian targets – including women and children – describing these casualties as unfortunate but necessitated by terrorist leaders using them as human shields. The crew are torn, half are happy to follow orders and believe in the ‘hit them before they hit us’ while the other half believe they are part of a war crime. Egan's performance declines and his drinking intensifies. He narrowly avoids being arrested for drunk driving, and starts avoiding home commitments, not wanting to inflict the stress he's under on his wife. He relishes a rare over-watch assignment protecting U.S. troops as they sleep, but must break a promise to his wife in order to perform the mission. On another over-watch mission, the troops are killed by an improvised explosive device that Egan could not protect them from. After a stress-induced violent episode at home, Egan's wife demands to know the details of Egan's work, and Egan tells her about a particularly nasty episode where he was ordered to kill a group of people and to then follow their coffins to the funeral, only to strike the mourners during the ceremony. Soon after, she says she is leaving him and taking the children to Reno, Nevada, blaming his drinking and violent behavior. Finally, Egan cracks. His CIA controller orders a strike on a small group of civilians responding to a building Egan had previously destroyed. Rather than obey the order, Egan simulates a glitch in the UAV control system and the targets escape. His CO has no choice but to demote him away from the attack role into a surveillance one. While on a surveillance mission, Egan notices a man whom he had previously watched rape a woman several times approaching her home. His Mission Intelligence Coordinator had previously described this man as "a bad guy. But not our bad guy." Egan conspires to send his support staff on a break, then uses the surveillance UAV to attack and kill the rapist. He then leaves the base without orders and is seen driving away from Las Vegas toward Reno. It isn’t half as heavy-handed as it could have been, while the ending is weirdly positive, it also highlights other dangers UAVs bring. It is too easy to kill using UAVs, our ‘hero’ kills a bad guy knowing he’ll get away with it due to all the ‘off the record’ hits he’s made but it still doesn’t make his actions right. The film highlights the different levels of moral ambiguity brilliantly. The similarities of seeing areal shots of Las Vagas against the targeted shots of Yeman are also brilliantly conceived, especially when a character asks what would happen when ‘they’ get their hands on UAV technology. It has a haunting quality about it that says with you long after viewing, and 24 hours after watching I had a long list of questions I was asking myself. Behind some of the Top Gun visuals and stereotype characters there is a big question that lingers until you can’t ignore it. I think it is masterfully done. It’s brilliantly written and directed by Niccol and both Ethan Hawke and Bruce Greenwood both put in great performances, I still don’t see the point of January Jones but she is all that is wrong with this picture.

Wednesday, 16 September 2015

The Host
Dir: Andrew Niccol
2013
**
While I don't think Andrew Niccol's The Host, based on the novel by Stephenie Mayer, was as bad as the critics say it was on release, it certainly wasn't perfect. I think The Host suffered before it was even released by the fact that Stephenie Mayer and her Twilight Saga series had dominated the media somewhat, cutting audiences right down the middle. Stephenie Mayer was idolised by many and hated by the rest. I'm not a 'young adult', so I haven't read the novel the film is based on and couldn't say whether it was a good adaptation or not. At first I was slightly appalled by the obvious Body-snatchers plagiarism, although parasitism isn't something that can be copyrighted the similarities were clear. It's also a little unfortunate that the actors depicting the humans in the story are wooden and so similar to each other as they seem more alien than the aliens. The futuristic style of the film is Andrew Niccol at his most relaxed, white suits and silver vehicles are fairly lazy ways of depicting a futuristic society and are a far cry from his previous work. However, somewhere beneath the dodgy acting, unconvincing romance and stale script is an interesting idea. Whether this idea works in the novel or not I couldn't say, it certainly doesn't in the film, which is such a shame. The possibilities that could lead from duel ownership of one body are vast, a slushy teen drama being pretty far from the best scenario. There are clever ideas floating about but essentially the story makes little sense and certain moral questions are picked up and discarded in ridiculous fashion. It's a rather shallow and unimaginative bit of sci-fi but Saoirse Ronan is very good and it's much better than any of the Twilight films.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

In Time
Dir: Andrew Niccol
2011
***
Andrew Niccol is a great Sci-fi writer, his 2011 thriller In Time is his best film since his debut Gattaca, released in 1997. He has certainly developed a distinct style over the years and his depiction of the future is among one of my favorites of the genre in recent years. The idea of a future whereby time is currency is brilliant and just as good as any dystopian work by Philip K. Dick, Aldous Huxley, Ray Bradbury and from a sociological perspective, his work is as accomplished as any of George Orwell's. The film is directed well with some beautiful examples of composition but it's never as good as the idea. Far too much of the movie is filmed in the Los Angeles Storm Drains and the Bridges that cross it, which leads to several continuity errors. I didn't buy the scene whereby Justin Timberlake's character, who is a hardworking laborer from the poorest part of the country, suddenly becomes a poker pro and James Bond-alike as soon as he inherits a large amount of time (money) either. The first act of the film pretty much remains forgotten as the story soon turns into a Bonny and Clyde meets Robin Hood tale, when really they should have tackled the politics side of the idea. We're constantly told that Vincent Kartheiser's Philippe is a rich thief but his villainy is never really explored convincingly. I also thought Cillian Murphy's 'Time Watcher' role was underdeveloped which is a huge missed opportunity. Overall, I feel this should have been more a thriller with a bit of action rather than an action thriller. It seemed a bit rushed and unpolished and I'm afraid, apart from Murphy, it was fairly miscast. It is so close to being the masterpiece it should have been that I can't help but feel disappointed it wasn't.