The Lost City of Z

Dir: James Gray

2017

****

I can't say I've been enamoured by James Gray's previous films but his 2017 adaption of David Grann's 2009 novel The Lost City of Z, the story of the famous British explorer Percy Fawcett, is a remarkably mature adventure story and a contemporary classic. Although not all the facts are given and explored, there is something extraordinarily realistic about the film, from the performances and attitudes to the era and circumstances. Percy Fawcett has been the inspiration behind many a fictional adventurer, Indiana Jones being the most obvious, and many a character has followed in his steps, such as Biggles (The Cruise of the Condor), Tintin (Tintin and the Broken Ear) and Arthur Conan Doyles' Professor Challenger, as seen in his classic novel The Lost World. The Lost City of Z is nothing like any of the adventures seen in these fictitious stories, although they are as equally exciting. Fawcett made several expeditions into the South American Jungle but only the more important ones are featured, including the first where he first met Corporal Henry Costin (who would become his aide-de-camp on several trips) and found evidence of an ancient civilization. A later trip that included James Murray (who accompanied Shackleton on the Nimrod expedition to be the first to reach the South Pole) who became gravely ill during the trip and caused much trouble for his fellow explorers, and Fawcett's last trip, that he would take with his eldest son, which is explored with a huge slice of speculation and mystery. The character study is quite impressive, I don't think the Amazon rain forest is even mentioned in the first twenty minutes, instead we see what makes Fawcett tick, his ambition and the relationship he has with his wife and with the army in which he serves. His famous ambition led many not to believe his initial claims that he had found evidence and that the so called 'savages' of the amazon had learned cultivation methods and sustained a civilized life, such was the ignorance and arrogance of even the most intelligent of Europeans at the time. This is all explored rather well in the film without usual clichés or stereotypical manner. The overall direction is beautiful, with rich yellow tints and blue-gray tones during the World War One scenes. It has 'epic' potential all over it but instead Gray makes the characters themselves the main focal point and not the landscape. I'm not sure Charlie Hunnam would have been my third or even thirty choice of actor after both Brad Pitt and Benedict Cumberbatch dropped out of the lead role but he turns out to be rather perfect as Fawcett. Robert Pattinson has proven his worth since Twilight and once again impresses as Henry Costin. Tom Holland joins the film fairly later on in the story but is good in his short but sweet performance and Sienna Miller is her perfect self as always, giving what could have been a fairly overlooked character a memorable tribute. The pace of the film is surprisingly steady, which works perfectly, and I didn't once feel uncomfortable during the whole 140 minute run time.  Certain characters are left out and certain events skipped over but the majority of the film is incredibly realistic. However, because the end of Fawcett's life is a complete mystery, Gray combines many different theories and comes up with what is a beautifully open visual eulogy, that works as a great tribute to Fawcett and pays respect to his family and reclaims the wonder and passion of what consumed him. The last scene is both subtle and stunning and says a million and one things in just one whisper. This switch from realism to fantasy made the film for me and reminded me of Breaking the Waves in many respects. It amazes me that Gray has gone from We Own the Night to this in just ten years. It's traditional but contemporary, an intelligent adventure full of intrigue, mystery and good old fashioned grit. 

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon

Dir: Roy William Neill

1943

***

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon is the fourth of fourteen in the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes film series and already certain cracks were starting to show within the franchise. The series is warmly regarded and I also love it but there are serious issues with the story, continuity and the overall fact that hardly any of it is the actual work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon incorporates an idea featured in the short story 'The Adventure of the Dancing Men' but apart from the famous dancing men code, it's absolutely nothing like it. Made in the early forties, The Secret Weapon sees Holmes contributing to the war effort, as only Holmes can. The initial scene sees Holmes travel to Switzerland to help smuggle out a brilliant Scientist who has agreed to help the British with a revolutionary bomb sight he has developed. Holmes adopts the guise of an elderly German bookseller (taken from Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock short The Adventure of the Empty House, which was famously parodied in 1963's The Pink Panther), tricks the Nazis and makes it back to London. There is a spy element to the story that isn't really present in the Sherlock Holmes books, it works in the beginning but soon gets tired and a little silly. When the Scientist goes missing, Holmes follows the clues to his whereabouts and discovers that his old foe Professor Moriarty is also searching for the bomb sight that he plans on selling to the Nazis. Now Professor Moriarty is lots of things but i can't say I ever saw him as a Nazi sympathizer. Like many fictional characters of the era, they were developed to take sides, which I understand but I don't think it really worked. Fascinating looking back at it now though but those continuity errors really do let it down. For starters, Professor Moriarty died in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes which was only made four years previous and was only two films before in the series. To confuse things further, Professor Moriarty is played by Lionel Atwill, who played Dr Mortimer in 1939's The Hound of the Baskervilles, the first film of the series. While Basil Rathbone was on fine form, I'm afraid the same can't be said of Nigel Bruce, although his Dr. Watson has a particularly poor script this time round. The climax is pretty ridiculous, which almost undoes the suspense of the code cracking story line. I'm rather fond of the series and I'm being kind with my rating but all in all, these films were rushed, there wasn't enough care taken with them and it really shows and they haven't dated well.

Winning

Dir: James Goldstone

1969

*****

Quentin Tarantino was once asked what his favourite race car film was and he replied that it certainly wasn't 1969's Winning, adding "I'd rather saw my fingers off than sit through that again". I'd be happy to send him the saw but then the film has a beautiful subtlety about it that isn't in Tarantino's remit. There have been a few notable racing car movies over the years, the 60s and 70s producing the best in my opinion, back when technology hadn't taken over and the driver really was the one in control, you won on skill and perseverance. However, of all the types of racing, I've always found Indy Speedway racing the least exciting. The cars are cool and everything but essentially they just go round and round and round. James Goldstone makes cars going round and round exciting and full of suspense, when it really is neither of those things. The 'off the pitch' drama featured in most sports movies isn't generally that great, it can make or break a film in that genre, but Winning strikes that happy balance. I'm guessing Tarantino didn't like the film because essentially it's a love story, rather than a racing film but personally I think it works as both. The direction is stunning with some of the race sequences bettering other racing classics. The film's final scene is also brilliant and a huge influence on many films that came out the following decade. Paul Newman is brilliant in the lead role as Frank Capua and a lot of what makes the film great is down to his performance. He is supported by the great Robert Wagner and by Joanne Woodward but keeping it together and still looking cool when you have the over the top and excitable young Richard Thomas yapping at your heals couldn't have been easy for him. Unfortunately, Richard Thomas's performance is something of a fly in the ointment, it doesn't ruin anything and he clearly learned lessons from Newman that helped him later in his career but he is incredibly annoying during intense and serious moments of the film. Overall, the film is as good as other classics in the genre but thanks to a couple of key scenes, I regard it as my favourite. I see a lot of the 1970s in the film and can see it being a clear influence on many of my favourites made soon after. James Goldstone is an underrated director and this is one of Paul Newman's most overlooked performances of his career.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Dir: Stanley Kramer

1963

*****

Stanley Kramer's 1963 film was the first to truly pair comedy with what is known as the epic. I absolutely adore it, it's one of the films that made me into the cinephile I am today and it is without a doubt in my top ten favourite films of all time, maybe even in the top five! I must have watched it over a hundred times, I never get tired of it and I can remember every line, every facial expression and every single detail and I probably quote it on a daily basis. The collective cast is ridiculously good. It includes Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, Buddy Hackett, Ethel Merman, Terry-Thomas, Phil Silvers, Spencer Tracy, Edie Adams, Dorothy Provine, Mickey Rooney, Jimmy Durante, Peter Falk, Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson, Dick Shawn, Don Knotts, Jim Backus, Barrie Chase, William Demarest, Paul Ford, Jack Benny, Ben Blue, Marvin Kaplan, Carl Reiner, Arnold Stang, Jerry Lewis, Buster Keaton and The Three Stooges, to name but a few. That is probably the greatest cast ever put together. To think it nearly had Jackie Gleason, Bob Hope, Groucho Marx, Stan Laurel (who declined, stating that he would never perform again following the death of his comedy partner Oliver Hardy in 1957), Red Skelton (he asked for too much money), Lucille Ball, Martha Raye, Joan Davis, Imogene Coca and Jack Benny in it too is amazing, though as much as I love them, I'm glad that Terry-Thomas replaced Peter Sellers, Jerry Lewis replaced Jack Paar and Marvin Kaplan got the role over Jackie Mason. It tells the story of a group of unconnected characters who are all driving through Highway 74 close to Palm Springs one sunny morning. Suddenly, each car is overtaken by a speeding black Ford Fairlane that is being chased by a police car, it loses control and crashes through the roadside barrier, and lands down a steep hill in spectacular fashion. The drivers, Melville Crump (Sid Caesar), Lennie Pike (Jonathan Winters), Dingy Bell (Mickey Rooney), his passenger Benjy Benjamin and J. Russell Finch (Milton Berle) all stop and head down the hill to see if they can help. They find that the driver has survived after being thrown from the wreck. The driver Smiler Grogan (Jimmy Durante), tells the men on his death bed that he's a criminal, on the run and that there is $350,000 of stolen money buried in Santa Rosita State Park near the Mexican border under a "Big W". He dies before the police arrive and the men go about their business without mentioning it to the officers. Later down the road the men stop and discuss a plan of action but bickering between them, Crump's wife Monica (Edie Adams), Finch's wife Emmeline (Dorothy Provine) and his mother in law Mrs. Marcus (Ethel Merman) soon turns the situation into a free-for-all and the group clamber over each other to try and get to the money, which is over two-hundred miles away. The group separate and each acquires the assistance of third parties, all who are promised a share of the treasure. The group steal cars, crash cars and even sink cars, they fly airplanes, destroy garages and even get themselves locked in hardware stores, all under the watchful eye of Captain T. G. Culpeper (Spencer Tracy) who has been on the Smiler Grogan case for many years, waiting to take the money for himself. It's full of mad-cap adventure and manic comedy, the actors all received two scripts each, one for the dialogue and one for physical comedy. The most common release is 160 minutes long after Stanley Kramer's original cut was edited from 210, to 192 for the premiere and much of the footage was lost. A recent restoration has saved much of the original film and it now lasts 197 minutes, just 13 minutes shy of what was intended. There are many different versions out there, some better than others and some almost unwatchable. It claimed it was the first film to be shot using 'One-projector' Cinerama but it wasn't quite the case, although how it was shot led to issues when transferring it to different formats. It could be said that such an epic way of filming was unnecessary for a comedy film but I would disagree, considering the scope of action and the amazing backdrops the film had. The legendary William Rose wrote the screenplay and pitched it to Kramer in 1960. The original idea was set in Scotland but was quickly moved to America. 'So Many Thieves', 'Something a Little Less Serious', 'Where, but in America?', 'One Damn Thing After Another' and simply 'Mad World' were all considered as titles before Rose and Kramer added additional Mads as the project progressed. Kramer considered adding a fifth Mad in the title but thought it would be redundant so didn't, something he said he later regretted. The title sequence is the work of the great Saul Bass and the best example of his work I would argue and the brilliant soundtrack is one of Ernest Gold's most beautiful, I hear it all the time. The money it cost to make makes the $350,000 treasure in the film look like small change but it certainly made it back and then some. It was a huge success and has gain a massive global following, influencing everything from movies, TV and music. The stunts are insane, it is amazing to think that many of the actors performed them themselves but you can see quite clearly on screen when they got hurt. Everyone plays their part and each actor, main or cameo, is amazing. I adore everything about it and I would say that it has the best ending to a film ever in the history of cinema. A truly golden comedy.

Something a Little Less Serious: A Tribute to 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World'

Dir: Ronnie Johnson

1991

****

Ronnie Johnson's hour long documentary made in 1991 is obviously a must-see for the hard-core fans of Stanley Kramer's 1963 comedy epic It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and in many respects, it has now become something special in-itself, something worth repeat viewing when perhaps you need a quick 'Mad' fix but don't have 160+ minutes to spare. Made almost thirty years after Mad World, many of the much loved actors had passed and now all these years later many of the interviewees have now joined them under the big W in the sky, so there is a sadness watching it, but also a huge amount of happiness too. The documentary starts off with some original film footage with Chuck Riley's smooth narration explaining how successful the film was and basically telling the audience everything they already know. The interviews then begin with many of the actors saying how wonderful everything was, how much fun they had, how popular it was, how Kramer approached them etc and everything is very 'made for TV'. The format of the documentary explores each actor and suddenly the interviewees slowly come to life. Milton Berle says how muti-talented Mickey Rooney is, how great he is at remembering his lines, stay on-script, he can sing, dance, tell jokes, do physical comedy......."and he's also very good at marrying beautiful women". And so it begins. Legendary stuntman Carey Loftin has no problem with wading in and telling the audience of all the shenanigans that went on off camera, mainly because it was he that was responsible for them. In Bounder!: The Biography of Terry-Thomas, Graham McCann writes about how T-T, like most of the cast of the film, was in awe of the great Spencer Tracy but got tired of the rest of the cast who would compete to entertain and impress him. One incident in particular that he found ghastly, was watching Mickey Rooney and Buddy Hackett wearing food on their faces, which in turn lead to a food fight with the rest of the cast and crew. He said how he and Spencer quietly bonded while raising eyebrows at one another. The foot fight is mentioned by Loftin but the fun he had with T-T is also spoken of and behind the scenes photos are shown to prove it. Secrets behind some of the film's best loved scenes are revealed, Milton Berle, Sid Ceaser and Buddy Hackett play up to the camera, Jerry Lewis dissects the comedy and everyone tells just how funny, dangerous and wonderful it was to work on the film. Highlights of the short film are Buddy Hackett's story/impersonation of Peter Falk and Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson, Jerry Lewis losing his fee within hours to Phil Silvers who turned the back stage of the film into a mini casino and Sid Ceaser, Edie Adams and Stanley Kramer explaining Milton Berle's legendary camera hogging and how he always manages to be the last person on screen. There is a lot of schmaltz and Mickey Rooney's input is next to pointless and nothing is revealed and everyone is praised but there are many gems within and some I wasn't aware of, and I consider myself an obsessive.

Ice Age: Collision Course

Dir: Mike Thurmeier

2016

*

In some respects I'm astonished that the Ice Age series has lasted this long, its decline in quality is clear and it was never that good in the first place. One might think that they must be doing something right, but I would argue that they're not, the fact of the matter is that Ice Age just got in there early. Many great animations have come out since, we're decent enough, but failed to make what was seen as enough profit to warrant a sequel. Ice Age arrived in 2002, before the huge influx of 3D animation and established itself due to lack choice. A couple of films in and it's a brand, kids will watch anything, parents don't care and cinemas only show kids films these days so Blue Sky Studios can't lose. Ice Age: Collision Course received negative reviews across the board, absolutely no one liked it and all agreed that it was the worst Ice Age film thus far but it still made something like a $300 million + profit and another film is on the way. It has become a licence to print money, without the need for great writing. Huge credit to the special effects people and the animators, what they do is amazing and each film in that aspect is an improvement on the last, it is just that their hard work is incredibly let down by the fact that the stories are always so painfully bad. I hate the melodrama that seems to feature so predominantly in kid's animated features. In this instance, Manny (the huge Woolly Mammoth voice by Ray Romano) has issues watching his daughter grow into a women, settle down and marry. He also has son-in-law issues. Why would kids be interested in that sort of story-line? The stereotype and clichés are now part and parcel of these types of kid’s film and I wonder how much damage it is having (assuming kids actually take any of this stuff in and aren't just still gawping at the screen). I would also suggest Neil deGrasse Tyson's cameo as concerning to kids’ education, given the ridiculous science fiction featured in the story and before you suggest I'm over thinking it, I still know adults who think there are boy cows with udders thanks to 80s cartoons. The film actually feels like three or four shorter stories pieced together, a combination of three or four of those terrible straight to DVD shorts that the animation studios often peddle around Christmas. I would guess that every voice actor probably has around fifty lines each maximum, which I'm sure kept costs low. It's still easy money though for everyone involved. The voice of Sid's new girlfriend seems to be different depending on territory, which seems to be something of a trend these days, although I don't quite understand the point. Francine the Sloth is voiced by Jessie J in the UK (a singer whose popularity was fleeting and kind of over) rather than the original version that had Melissa Rauch in the role. This is an example of the studio not knowing their audience. Jessie J doesn't have a voice you'd especially recognize and it certainly isn't desirable. Melissa Rauch's voice is immediately recognizable, and the producers should know that The Big Bang is popular around the world and we Brits know who she is. I usually like Ice Age purely for the Scrat sequences but these were also quite poor and badly conceived. Why they turned a little joke that featured in one of the past films and made a story out of it just proves that they've run out of ideas/passion or both. It's now (and has been for a while to be honest) all about the money.

King Kong Escapes

Dir: Ishirō Honda

1967

****

Ishirō Honda's King Kong Escapes is a cult classic, certainly one of Kong's most enjoyable film outings thus far as well as an awesome monster film in general. It doesn't really have much to do with 1962's King Kong vs Godzilla but it certainly seems like the same Kong and it has the same feel to it and of course the same film makers behind the camera. Godzilla is obviously absent this time round as he was enjoying his own franchise of films but Kong gets to flex his fighting skills by fighting a giant robot version of himself called Mechani-Kong. He also has a kerfuffle with Gorosaurus (also performed by Yū Sekida) who would go on to enjoy a larger role in the following year's Destroy All Monsters, although most of his scenes in the later film was unused stock footage from King Kong Escapes. The story is half monster story and half James Bond plot, it's a sort of remake of the animated series, which was partly based on the 1933 original, with added mad scientist. The villainous Dr. Who, who isn't that Dr. Who but is more of a Dr. No (confused yet?) has built a giant mechanical Kong in order to mine the highly radioactive 'Element X' from a glacier somewhere in the North Pole. I think the theory behind it is that Kong is the strongest beast on earth but the radio-activeness might be a problem if a living creature were to go near it. Why Dr. Who didn't just build a giant drill is anyone's guess but King Kong vs Drill would have been a bit dull I suppose. When Mechani-Kong malfunctions due to the radiation of 'Element X' (doh!), Who decides to capture the original Kong and attach a mind control device to his ear, which will of course mean that Kong will obey his every command, because science. The story and many of the film's characters are 'borrowed' from other films of the era, particularly from the spy genre. However, no other film in the late 60s was quite as bizarre as this. The bad acting, puzzling plot and melodrama are all part of why the film has become such a cult hit and watching Kong going nuts when he can't get through a door or past a building is still hilarious are several viewings. It's the model work that I love the most though. Everything from the tiny little tanks to the flying helicopter, every model is detailed but not to the point where it isn't obvious that they are what they are. The facial expression on both King Kong and Mechani-Kong are priceless and the fight between them is far more impressive and aggressive than Kong versus Godzilla. Its faults are part of its enduring charm, it remains one of the better monster movies of the many that were made by Toho and is another great addition to the King Kong legend.