Jason Bourne

Dir: Paul Greengrass

2016

**

Jason Bourne? Jason Bored more like! Matt Damon said back in 2007 after The Bourne Ultimatum that he was done with the franchise stating that "We have ridden that horse as far as we can". So why he decided to get back in the saddle and run that horse into the ground for a fourth time is beyond me. He's doing alright isn't he? I'm sure the money was good but seriously, I can't see the script being any more exciting than the final result, surely he must have read a thousand and one scripts just like it and rejected them all? Paul Greengrass knows better too, doesn't he? I'm in the minority but I quite liked The Bourne Legacy, mainly due to Jeremy Renner's performance but also because it embellished on the original film's idea, it expanded it and opened up the franchise to many different possibilities. It's completely lazy that all that was scrapped and they set about reusing the original plot in many respects and forgot that the last film ever happened. If Bourne was brought back into the story following on from The Bourne Legacy then I think they would have been on to something but as it is this film is indistinguishable from all the other Bourne films and twice as boring. It begins with a fight, which is followed by a car chase, which is followed by nonsensical computer speak, followed by another car chase and then another fight. The car chases are uninteresting and the fight scenes are long, drawn-out and relentlessly dull - not to mention unnecessary. Everything that should be exciting about the film is incredibly un-enthralling and largely forgettable. It desperately needed that 'one scene' to be remembered for but no scene comes close, the action is simply filmed using shaky-cam techniques to try and make up for the fact that nothing of much interest is really happening. There are a couple of scenes where you can actually see people in the background pointing at the film crew and taking pictures of the filming, and even they look bored. There's no writing here, no real plot, Bourne knew all he really needed to know at the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, he had it all sussed, there was no need to bring in a ridiculous story about his father and how he was recruited. There really isn't much I liked about the film if I'm being honest, it has two of my favourite rising stars in it, the brilliant Alicia Vikander and my boy Riz Ahmed - who are very convincing as an ambitious CIA agent and Mark Zuckerberg-like Social Media CEO respectively. I love Tommy Lee Jones and Vincent Cassel but both play tired characters, a double-crossing CIA director and a menacing assassin, neither bring anything new to their roles but then there is nothing new in how they are written. I was never a huge fan of the series but I imagine this must be the mother of all anti-climaxes for hard-core Bourne fans? I was looking forward to another Bourne following on from The Bourne Legacy but I've lost all interest now. The horse is dead, time to get of it and bury the poor thing.

Hope Springs

Dir: David Frankel

2012

***

I had very little enthusiasm for a David Frankel film that dealt with middle-age marriage guidance counselling but I watched because I love Meryl Streep, Steve Carell and Tommy Lee Jones - who I was intrigued to see in what I thought was a run of the mill light-hearted comedy romance. I was pleasantly surprised. Early clichés came thick and fast and I thought to myself 'Streep, what are you doing' but persevered, but soon I was wondering to myself 'Jones, what have you done', until a rather surprising turn of events calmed me down somewhat and I began to actually enjoy it. The first chunk of the film actually feeds the audiences unexpectedness, the clichés are intentional so the viewer is thrown off course and it is quite effective. Neither Meryl Streep nor Tommy Lee Jones break character even though they change dramatically, which is quite profound really and says a lot for their acting abilities and the film's script. There are one or two scenes that I think were thrown in for laughs that just didn't work and I'm pretty sure no one wants to see Meryl Streep giving oral sex, not now not ever, but it's doesn't quite get as bad as it could have. Steve Carell's casting is somewhat peculiar, he's very convincing as a marriage guidance counsellor but you kind of expect something else from him, given the comedy that he's famous for. The film is one big trick and a slight of hand but it's forgivable because a. It's nowhere near as bad as most of David Frankel's films and b. there is a really tender, believable and heart-warming love story going on. Streep is around 64 here and Jones was approximately 67 and both kiss passionately on screen. Call me an old romantic but I loved that, seeing an older couple kissing on screen isn't something you see ever, and for me that is real romance. I now it's Meryl Streep and I know it's Tommy Lee Jones but I was still totally convinced by their 40+ year relationship and I found the exploration of their marriage to be quite sad but very uplifting at the same time. The project was first announced back in 2010 and Jeff Bridges was in talks as the male lead. I can't see that working now I've seen Tommy Lee Jones in the role, after Bridges left James Gandolfini and Philip Seymour Hoffman were attached - which would have been great but a very different film, especially as Mike Nichols was the original director. I'm not sure it would have been the best swansong for either film maker but it turned out just fine.

Buster

Dir: David Green

1988

**

David Green's Buster, the story of Buster Edwards, one of the infamous Great Train Robbers of 1963 who stole £2.6 million from a Royal Mail train heading to London from Glasgow in the early hours of 8th August at the now famous Bridego Railway Bridge, leaving Jack Mills (the Train's driver) for dead, is a rather upbeat romance as well as a vehicle for singer Phil Collins to sell a few records. It's staggering when you look back at it, the way Buster was seen as a lovable rouge, while the guy who played him sang a string of would be pop hits. The fact is, Buster Edwards was a nasty piece of work. No one is entirely sure who beat Jack Mills, who was unable to return to work due to his injuries, but essentially they were all involved and there is still nothing innocent in stealing millions of pounds of other people's money. This film paints Buster as some sort of working class hero, and people honestly saw him as one, just as they did the Kray brothers and Ronnie Biggs. My Mum remembers buying flowers from him outside Waterloo station, although she didn't know who he was at the time, she often wondered why people would have their photo taken with him and noticed how popular he seemed to be. There is a great story that the 25 year old actor Dexter Fletcher stole flowers from his stall in 1991 to give then girlfriend Julia Sawalha whom he was then staring alongside with in the brilliant kids TV show Press Gang. Buster, a long time petty thief before the train robbery, reported him to police after recognizing him on TV. Lovable rouge indeed. I actually liked the film at the time but I think I was too young to appreciate just how deplorably amoral the whole thing is. Its depiction is nothing like the real life or character of Buster Edwards, it's a ridiculously romanticized version of him and a poor exploration of real events. Phil Collins is good at playing a 'geezer' because he is one, and Julie Walters is perfect in the part written, whether she's anything like the real June Edwards is anyone's guess. The action sequences aren't really that exciting when you consider the infamy of the crime and it is far from a typical gangster film that one might expect. It's not without its charm but overall it is poorly conceived. Of course now that Buster is dead, more revelations have become known and the circumstances of his death (he was found hanged and so full of alcohol it is suggested he wouldn't have been able to do it himself) and the beating of Jack Mills have come into question. When you break it down, it is more like Lorenzo St. DuBois's Springtime for Hitler rather than a reliable biopic, and with worse music.

Trolls

Dir: Walt Dohrn, Mike Mitchell

2016

***

I remember when Trolls had a second wind in the 1990s, although technically it was their fifth wind, having enjoyed bubbles of popularity since their 1959 invention. I understood the appeal and still think the origins of the toy to be rather special. Back in 1959, Danish Fisherman Thomas Dam had no money to buy his daughter a Christmas present, so he carved a wooden Troll doll for her. The local children were so envious of the doll that Dam soon found himself running his own doll factory under the brilliant company name of Dam Things. I had one at school, you had to, it was the law of the playground for around five minutes or so and the law of the playground has to be upheld or ridicule would be fierce and forthcoming. They're not something I have warm nostalgic feelings for, and a film adaptation (as it were) was not something I had an enthusiasm for. For me, Trolls The Movie was just another example of the demise of creativity in the word of cinema and it is. It's a toy commercial, not a new concept, pretty much every cartoon I enjoyed as a child was made as a way to sell a toy but I can't help but feel more effort was put into them, I see them as somehow superior, when in all honesty they really weren't. Anyway, I stayed with family one weekend and after my two lovely nieces woke me at some ungodly hour I agreed to sit and watch Trolls with them. It was either that or another tea party with Barbie and Ken, but I was overruled, we watched Trolls instead and to my amazement I didn't hate it. Putting aside the fact that I enjoy every minute spent with my nieces, the film was very funny. I found myself laughing at all of the same jokes that they laughed at because it tapped into that one thing that kids and adults both love: silliness. So many kid's animations these days are far too serious, they either have a lazy plot involving a popstars/X-factor style audition or involve rather adult themes of love, marriage and problems with in-laws. So a film whereby the lead characters fart glitter and poop cupcakes appealed to me greatly. I wouldn't say the Trolls of the film where particularly reminiscent of the toys I grew up with but I can only say that this is a good thing. I hope they do sell lots of toys based on this film, they deserve to. It's not particularly preachy but there is a good message in the end. I liked the detail, how the Trolls and other animals were clearly made of suede and I liked that they used known songs. I would usually argue that using existing and popular songs was lazy, in many respects it is, but it helps the film along greatly, you can get into it right away and with so many doubts surrounding the film it probably had no choice. I thought the voice cast were really good too, Anna Kendrick has the right voice and can sing, Justine Timberlake is proving himself to be quite the voice artist and I'm amazed I have found a film that features Russell Brand, James Corden and Zooey Deschanel that I didn't hate. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is instantly recognizable and Christine Baranski's character even looks like her. John Cleese and Jeffrey Tambor are both lovely in their supporting roles. The plot is right out of Fraggle Rock, although much of that was from folktales anyway but I saw a lot of Jim Henson in the characters and humour, which I really liked. Sometimes when a film borrows enough from others it works, Trolls isn't original but it gets away with it and this is because it provides its own silliness. Never overlook the power of silly!

Northern Soul

Dir: Elaine Constantine

2014

*****

Photographer and filmmaker Elaine Constantine has a well-documented interest in youth culture, her big break coming after being noticed for her contributions to Face magazine when she had her first solo show at the Marion de Beaupre's Gallerie 213 in Paris entitled Tea Dance - an exhibition that documented the Tea dance culture of Northern England. Her work has since been exhibited around the globe and she's had much success working for many top name brands, but it was Northern Soul that was her real labour of love. She struggled for fifteen years to go get the film made, all the major funding bodies rejected her, none of the key film festivals or institutional production partners in the UK were interested (which really surprises me) and in the end it was funded by a mix of private investors and largely by Constantine herself. Blood, sweat and tears (and lots of personal investment) clearly went into the production of the film and I believe it was blood, sweat and tears (and money) well spent. The film looks as glorious as you'd hope from a photographer of Constantine's stature, the use of colour aside, every frame is perfect, the composition is refreshingly refreshing and although it is set in 1974 - and really looks it - there is something rather contemporary about it. Maybe it’s because it feels so authentic. Many films based back in 70 England look the part, or at least look like they look the part but very few of them really look how it really looked, many of them get it wrong, mix too much of the 60s and even some of the 80s with the reality of the 70s. Constantine knows her stuff, she experienced it and had an endless catalogue of images to work from and authenticity was everything. This meticulous attention to detail doesn't just apply to the visuals though, the heart of the film's story is as real as it was too many inspiring teenagers of the era. Many films that deal with youth culture seem to delve into the darker sides but I found Northern Soul to feature real scenarios, the whole thing felt extremely believable, like it could have been a remastered copy of a 70s film, a documentary even. The big dance hall scenes are brilliant and the actual dancing is spectacular and spectacularly filmed. It made me sad that I wasn't around for it and had me tapping me toes to music that I don't even like that much. It's an incredibly infectious film, captivating from the start with some great performances as well as the typical cameos you'd expect, although I think these were largely unnecessary. It is by far one of the best English films of the decade and one of the best for some time. It's a great exploration of a very British chapter of lost history, lost no more.

Magic Town

Dir: William A. Wellman

1947

***

William A. Wellman's 1947 Magic Town was a flop at the box office and lost a record amount of money for RKO Radio Pictures, not because it's bad, but more so because of its content. 1947 was a big year for noir thrillers, directors such as Delmer Daves, Bincent Sherman and Elia Kazan were churning out two films a year and it had strong competition from films such as The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer. Films were about crimes of passion, there were fantasy dramas and screwball comedies were doing well. A film about public opinion polling, based on the Middletown studies (sociological case studies of the City of Muncie in Indiana) of the late 20s, just didn't appeal to the majority of the country (if only it had been a question during the Middletown studies!). The fact of the matter is, it was seen as a bit boring, which is very unfair, if anything you could say the film sounded far too interesting, as the audience were after a bit of escapism on an evening out to the pictures. Magic Town is clever and beautifully written, with a script to die for. It's quick-witted, intelligently ironic and stacked full of charm. I would argue that it was one of James Stewart's better and most underrated performances and Ned Sparks is brilliant as his dead-pan, deep voices side-kick Ike who somehow manages to keep a giant cigar in his mouth and speak clearly for the duration of the film. Stewart plays an ex-basketball player who now owns a consumer survey company and thinks he has found a winning formula to perform the perfect survey. Thanks to an old buddy, he finds a small town that is almost a complete miniature of the country in terms of demographic, however, a rival company are due to release what they suggest is a definitive study, so it is a race against time to publish their findings. They arrive in the town of Grandview and pose as insurance salesmen. They slowly manage to gain the townsfolk's trust and they integrate themselves into town life. When Stewart's character falls for a newspaper writer Mary (Jane Wyman) he loses focus on his main objective and lets it slip what his intentions are and soon who he really is and what he's up to is revealed to the town and is front page news. Mary, believing she has got revenge, suddenly realizes that both have lost out, as the townsfolk look to profit from the revelation of their town and soon the data collected is next to useless. However, the couple soon realize that their love for each other is worth more and Stewart comes to the conclusion that town life is the life for him. It's sweet and innocent but the reaction of the town following the revelation that they are "the public opinion capital of the US" is quite revealing of the era. In the story, the media eventually lose interest in the town when the data published suggests the majority of its inhabitants would like to see a female President, which is seen as so utterly ridiculous the whole situation is laughed off. It may be true, I don't know, but it is a sad reflection of the film, if not the time, which makes the whole thing slightly less attractive than it had been up to that point. Overall all though, it's an overlooked film, full of charm and worth much more credit than it has been given.

Wiener-Dog

Dir: Todd Solondz

2016

**

I've found myself somewhat predisposed to Todd Solondz's films, or at least I thought so until 2016's Wiener-Dog came along. Without wanting to sound like I liked it before it was cool, I have had many heated discussions defending his 1998 film Happiness and explaining why I thought 2004's Palindromes was a positive alternative to mainstream movies at that time. Both are now regarded as classics but they really weren't at the time believe me. In many respects, I thought Solondz had made his case and moved on with regards to the themes of rape, molestation and general abuse in Middle America, I didn't think he was done exploring the dark underbelly of American suburbia but I thought he'd started looking at it from another angle, like he did in 2012's Dark Horse. Dark Horse was well received, made a profit but was largely forgotten and wasn't really discussed. I can't help but think the lack of controversy that Solondz was so used to has had something of an effect on him. He remarked at the time about how the Creative Artists Agency appreciated his script (the first time for any of his films) and later realized it was because "there's no rape, there's no child molestation, there's no masturbation, and I thought, omg, why didn't I think of this years ago?".

I felt no progression with Wiener-Dog, he was clearly repeating himself and covering old ground. One of the sequences was even a continuation of one of his previous films (Storytelling), which would have been a lot nicer for fans, had the original actors returned to play their older selves. The film is really a collection of short stories, all joined by one little dog, the Wiener-Dog (a dachshund, also known as a Sausage dog) of the title, who befriends different owners after either being given away, running away, kidnapped or re-homed. It is like the darkest episode of The Littlest Hobo, the one that never made it to TV, written on the day the scriptwriters lost their jobs or something. None of the stories really go anywhere, there really isn't much to them. The long pauses that I used to love in Solondz's film just don't seem to work here, it is as if everyone is consciously trying to be as 'Solondz' as they possibly can, making much of the film seem forced in a way. As much as I appreciate his on-going contempt of contemporary 'art house' films, I feel he is guilty of a lot of which he clearly detests. I'm not sure what this film is for and more importantly, who this film is for. The last sequence is fantastically droll in the way it lifts the film, to then drop it further down the subdued and banal hole it has been lurking in the whole time. At least cinematographer Ed Lachman got to stretch his creative legs for few seconds but I'm not sure why you'd hire such a genius and then give him nothing to do. I hated the ending, even though it is the sort of ending I should have loved. There are only so many of the same magic shows you can watch before you want to see a new trick and I wanted to saw myself in half after watching it. The cast is great; Ellen Burstyn, Kieran Culkin, Julie Delpy, Danny DeVito, Greta Gerwig, Tracy Letts and Zosia Mamet are all fine with what they are given, with maybe Delpy, Burstyn and Mamet doing a better job than everyone else. It's fine if you want more of the same, and I do sort of, but there has to be something new, otherwise Solondz is going to start parodying himself and in Wiener-Dog he becomes dangerously close.