The Counselor (2013)

I’ve said elsewhere on this blog that Ridley Scott is my favourite director. I didn’t think anything could make me doubt that opinion. And then I watched The Counselor.

The Counselor is a 2013 thriller directed by Ridley Scott and starring Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem and Cameron Diaz.

I went in to The Counselor wanting to like it. Sure, along the way, Ridley Scott has made some clunkers. Remember GI Jane? Hannibal? Thelma and Louise? Yikes, yikes, and yikes.

But sadly, The Counselor trumps them all for complete and utter shit. I didn’t like a single thing about it. The acting is atrocious, the dialogue is pretentious, the plot is needlessly convoluted and the film looks terrible. It actually reminded me of a Tony Scott film from the 80’s rather than a Ridley Scott movie. The film even opens with some curtains wafting in a breeze overlooking a Mexican vista. Fuck me, this film sucked in so many ways I’m having trouble even beginning to describe it.

Ridley Scott seems to desperately be trying to make a slick crime epic. Instead the whole thing resembles a fucking Lexus commercial. The first steaming pile it lays is a scene where Javier Bardem and Cameron Diaz are watching her pet cheetahs hunt prey in the Mexican desert. They’re both wearing designer safari suits, and they sit there sipping cocktails while she pretentiously waffles on about a sunset. The entire scene is beyond ridiculous. These two nitwits are supposed to be some kind of uber-cool, pseudo-celebrity crime boss hipsters. Instead, they come across as two complete fuckwits.

It’s hard to take anything about the film seriously. One such aspect is the fact that Javier Bardem’s character looks like The World’s Biggest Douchebag. His shirts alone make you expect him to crack out some castanets and start dancing the fucking Macarena. You’re supposed to feel bad for him when the cartel guys catch up with him and blow his brains out. Instead, I was laughing my ass off.

But getting back to the worst part about Cameron Diaz’s character - her look. She has a cheetah tattoo on her back, and fingernails that look like claws. Wow. Subtle.

Of course she is supposed to be some kind of evil genius. She attempts to steal some drugs from a Mexican drug cartel but fucks it up along the way. However, this doesn’t stop her from stealing the money she wants in some of the most ridiculously complicated ways and doing away with anyone and everyone that can connect her to the crime. In the final scene she says hunters have grace, beauty and purity of heart. The film then ends with her saying that she’s famished. Oh right, in case I missed it with the film relentlessly slamming me over the head with it, she’s the hunter. Oh right! *smacks self in forehead* Jesus wept, I basically just wasted two hours of my life so Cameron Diaz could fuck herself with a Ferrari (don’t ask).

But enough about that. Onto the film. The film is one of those idiotic cinematic forays that pretends to contain a lot of substance, but is really just a slathering of style ladled on like brick cement. That’s fine I guess if all you demand of your films is slick nonsense that falls from memory like a discarded popcorn container as you walk out the door, but from a film maker like Ridley Scott, and actors like Michael Fassbender and Brad Pitt, I’m sorry, I ask for a little more.

One example of the idiocy I’m referring to, is where Diaz hires a couple of thugs to steal from the Mexican drug cartel. In order to get the drug cartel’s vehicle to work, she has to obtain a special wire gizmo from a guy who for reasons that only serve the plot, likes to ride his motorcycle really fast along deserted roads at night. And again, for reasons that only serve the ensuing plot, he keeps this gizmo…in his helmet. So how do these numbskulls seek to obtain this gizmo? They drive miles ahead of him and spend ages setting up a wire that will decapitate him as he rides past. We even get a stupid scene where the lead thug goes to a car dealership to measure the exact model of motorbike to make sure he gets the height of the wire correct. Fucking fuck me with a barge pole, why not just ambush the guy, shoot him dead, and take the freakin wire thingy? But no, that would make way too much sense so instead the guy spends ages measuring up this Wile. E Coyote roadside contraption while the audience is simply asked to ignore the fact that what, are these guys fucking psychic? How did they know this guy would ride down this particular road at this particular time? No one in his film ever does anything logically. It gets annoying really fast.

A scene that takes this stupidity to brutal extremes is where the 'Counselor’ (Michael Fassbender) is trying to get his bride-to-be (Penelope Cruz) out of harm’s way after his silly drug deal has gone pear-shaped and people are starting to die left right and centre. What does he let her do? She Googles a fucking hotel to hide out in. Fassbender is repeatedly warned earlier in the film about how ruthless and smart and conniving the cartel guys can be. So Jesus Christ Almighty, he didn’t think the cartel guys might be able to trace a goddamn Google search?

Anyway…another ridiculous death scene masquerading as something slick and clever and cool is how Diaz does away with Brad Pitt’s character. It’s set up early in the film where Javier Bardem inexplicably (most of his dialogue is inexplicably out of place or just simply clumsy exposition) tells Michael Fassbender about a cartel killing device that slowly garotes you. A wire is looped around your head and then a motor slowly tightens the wire.

So because this piece of dialogue is inserted so ham fistedly into an early conversation you immediately know that this little device is going to turn up later in the film. Brad Pitt is hiding out in London and Cameron Diaz gets a randomly hired thug to jog past and slip the device over his neck. Sure enough it tightens around his neck and he dies in front of some shocked onlookers. The death scene itself is not bad, it’s just (like everything else in the film) needlessly complicated. Again, just ambush the guy and blow his fucking brains out.

The story is complete nonsense, the dialogue is fucking drivel and Michael Fassbender is wasted. He’s basically an idiot who gets what’s coming to him. It’s hard to feel any sympathy for him whatsoever. He was already a well off lawyer, so what does he do? He has the bright idea to suddenly get into the drug business. But does he organise some domestic club deal no harm no foul? No, that’s not this guy’s style. Instead, he jumps into bed with a Mexican drug cartel. Gee whiz, Counselor, that sounds like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?

Fuck me, this is a terrible film. But what’s more amazing to me than the fact it was directed by Ridley Scott, is that it was written by Cormac McCarthy. How not one, but two, incredibly talented people could fuck something up so tremendously is beyond me. Alas, here it is and its name is The Counselor.

Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)

I’ve watched this film twice now and my chess game still sucks. Maybe I’m bringing my queen out too early...

Searching for Bobby Fischer is a 1993 drama film directed by Steven Zaillian and starring Max Pomeranc, Joe Mantegna, Ben Kingsley and Laurence Fishburne.

The most interesting scene in Searching for Bobby Fischer for me is where 7 year old chess prodigy Josh’s (Max Pomeranc) chess teacher (Ben Kingsley) lines up a pawn, rook, knight, bishop and king in front of him and asks him to choose which piece he is. Josh replies that he is none of them, that they are just pieces.

It illustrates that Josh, more than any of the adults in the film, realises that chess is just a game. It’s a point the film makes several times, and unlike most of the emotional elements of the film which are bordering on maudlin, it’s nicely subtle. Ben Kingsley’s character pretentiously waffles on about chess being ‘art’, Josh’s father treats it like a sport and becomes obsessed with his son winning trophies, and Josh’s friend Vinnie (an underused Laurence Fishburne) uses it as a hustle in blitz games in New York’s Washington Square Park. The adults don’t get that Josh doesn’t really care about winning or losing, or art, or how he is perceived by, or perceives, his opponents. He just likes to play chess.

I like the relationship between Josh and his father (Joe Mantegna). After Josh starts seriously winning tournaments, his dad forbids him to play speed chess in the park with Vinnie because his teacher insists it’s instilling bad habits in his play style and will ruin his tournament success.

The best scene by far is where his dad also realises it’s just a game and takes Josh back to the park to play a game with Vinnie. Vinnie baulks at Josh’s first moves (he opens with a predictable tournament strategy) and tells him “play from your gut, like you used to”, so Josh does, and quickly checkmates him.

The scenes in the park are great. Young Josh discovers chess by watching Vinnie and his mates play speed chess for money and drugs. I particularly liked that when they first head over to watch the games and you see it from his mother’s perspective, the camera focuses on the money changing hands. Then we cut to Josh’s point of view, and he only sees the chess boards. The money and the hustling are irrelevant to him; he’s just fascinated by the game. It’s a great use of perspective.

I wish the film had included more of the speed chess in the park scenes (it’s obvious a lot were cut for pacing) because they are not only the best part of the film, it would have helped to explain why people keep telling Josh’s parents to not let him play in the park. There are actually very few scenes of him actually doing that.

I also like how strong little Josh is throughout the film. I usually find kids in movies annoying, but Max Pomeranc plays real—life chess whiz Josh Waitzkin with a dignity far beyond his years. I like that when his teacher tells him that in order to be the best player he must learn to hate his opponents. Josh just shrugs and says “but I don’t.” His teacher then insists that his idol, Bobby Fischer, hated his opponents. Josh tells him “well I’m not him.”

Unfortunately the film jettisons the subtlety a few times. Probably the worst instance is where Josh’s dad moves the chess trophies from the mantelpiece into Josh’s bedroom (the film makes a point earlier of showing his father gloating over the trophies with Josh nowhere in sight). This scene would have worked far better without any dialogue. But no, because we audiences are morons we get a tearful line from Joe Mantegna, “these are yours now, son.”

We also get a ridiculous scene where father and son stand in the rain having an emotional conversation after Josh deliberately loses a game because he’s terrified that if he becomes a chess champion everyone will hate him. The impact of the scene is diminished somewhat because they stand under a torrential downpour when, moments earlier, they were safely inside a building. It’s sledgehammer subtlety that just doesn’t work.

The film is at its best when it’s not dishing up the emotional manipulation with a soup ladle, and thankfully the underlying theme that young Josh is more emotionally mature than most of the adults pushing and pulling him in various directions is done with some subtext, and so becomes the film’s strongest point.

The best moment in this regard is during the final game where Josh faces off against his nemesis – another chess-whizz kid – in a tournament grand final. Josh, seeing 12 moves ahead and knowing he’s won, offers his opponent a hand shake (signalling a draw) and his eager father and teacher watching on through a video monitor both reel at first asking “what the hell is he doing?” Josh knows he has won the game, so he doesn’t feel the need to ‘hate’ his opponent by humiliating him.

It could have been a little less ‘coming to terms with things’, but all in all Searching for Bobby Fischer is a strong film with some decent performances. Two hours well spent.

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

The Terminator films have all been products of their time. Terminator: Genisys is no exception.

Terminator: Genisys is a 2015 sci-fi/action film directed by Alan Taylor and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Emilia Clarke, and Jai Courtney.

Terminator: Genisys moves away from the post-Cold War nuclear paranoia that permeated the first two films and expands on a notion first explored in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines – that the very technology we are becoming so reliant on will one day be our downfall. In Terminator 3 this was the internet (there ended up being no 'system core' to blow up - Skynet used the internet to infiltrate every computer on the planet).

Fast-forward to 2015 and they've updated this plot point to be that Skynet will take over 'the cloud' (ie our tablets and smart phones) when Cyberdyne Systems launches Genisys - a new platform that will link everybody's devices. There's even a handy 'countdown' clock to the Genisys launch to inject some tension into the film. Somebody studied their Film-making 101.

The first two Terminator films are brilliant. In my mind, they are near-perfect examples of action-cinema. Terminator 3 had its flaws, but it more than made up for them with exciting and brilliantly-executed action sequences, solid performances, and a poignant and memorable ending.

Terminator: Genisys is also not without problems, but overall it’s a pretty solid film. What I like most is that it’s not a ‘reboot’. I think they realised after the staggeringly poor box office returns for Terminator: Salvation, that a reboot was a colossal mistake. So what we get here is a weird sort of sequel/alternate reality type thing where we see a couple of key scenes from the first film recreated shot-for-shot, but with a typically Terminator-esque mind-bendingly convoluted twist: because that future/past/whatever has already happened, both Skynet and John Connor know how it plays/played out and so both have attempted to subvert it for their own advantage.

What I disliked was that this film tries to eliminate one of the very best aspects of the first three films (particularly the idea set up in Terminator 3) that "Judgement Day" is inevitable. This slightly depressing idea made the ending of Terminator 3 so damned awesome. The numbing realisation that dawns on John Connor and Clare Danes as they find themselves trapped in the underground bunker: the world is doomed to end in nuclear annihilation no matter what they do to try and stop Skynet. It is what they do after the holocaust that is important.

And for the sake of an understandable storyline this film also does away with the notion that Skynet is something intangible. That humankind never really got the chance to figure out how Skynet had subverted machines to its evil influence before they were thrust into a fight for their very survival, and investigating what happened was rendered pointless (think back to Kyle explaining the future to Sarah in the first film). In this film Skynet is again something that can be ‘blown up’ as long as you can get your hands on enough TNT. This makes for a solid action film but it makes this film, and to a lesser extent Terminator 3 and even Terminator 2, far less thought-provoking than James Cameron’s original masterpiece, which remains the best of these films.

Another thing I disliked was that this film retrofits Kyle Reese (played in the original Terminator by Michael Biehn) into a cookie-cutter, muscled up action hero. Don’t get me wrong, Jai Courtney is fine in the role, but why is it that every action leading man these days needs to be a steroided-up, gym-sculpted beefcake? The fact that Michael Biehn was an ordinary-looking, human (read: fallible and vulnerable) man gave the first film the desperate, urgent quality that made it so great. He seemed so powerless against the relentless hostility of the Terminator stalking Sarah Connor. It gave their flight a gravity and urgency that transcended the genre and made the first film so memorable. It also made his climactic fight with the Terminator, and ultimate sacrifice, so heart-breaking. He knew he didn't stand a chance against it, but he took it on anyway to protect Sarah Connor.

This film doesn’t really bother with having Kyle Reese or Sarah Connor actually fight the evil Terminators. A lot of the fighting is Arnie fighting a younger, CGI version of himself. And while Arnie is no stranger to staring himself down (see The Sixth Day), I would have preferred some more human vs Terminator action. Of course there’s the requisite ‘other Terminator’ thrown into the mix for good measure (a Terminator 2-esque shape-shifting Terminator), and another villain, which brings me to the major thing I disliked about this film...

They make John Connor a bad guy.

Yeah, they try and inject some kind of anti-hero bullshit into it, but they basically turn a complicated, mysterious, super-cool figure from the other films into a total freakin douchebag.

They introduce a silly plot line about John Connor being infiltrated by Skynet and turned into a new kind of Terminator (some convoluted nonsense about infiltrating him on a 'genetic' level) and as such he kind of becomes a villain who doesn't think of himself as villainous because he believes what he's doing is right. Whatever. It veers dangerously towards the 'robot-that-doesn't-realise-he's-a-robot' crap from Terminator: Salvation. It didn't work in that film, and it doesn't work here.

There’s really not much to say about Arnie’s performance – he’s basically the same heroic-evil-robot-turned-heroic-saviour-robot that he was in Terminator 2 and 3. In fact he said in numerous interviews that the role was a piece of cake for him. The characterisation veers pretty hard into self-referential eye-rolling absurdity a few times with his “I am old, not obsolete” dialogue, and I giggled a couple of times when the big lug tries to get his emotion on, but after so much awesomeness contributed to cinema over the years I can forgive Arnie just about anything.

I also laughed at another bit. In the lead up to this film’s release I’d been wondering how they would explain the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is 30 years older than when he first appeared in the Terminator. They pretty much palm this off with a silly explanation that although the robot endoskeleton is metal, the flesh on top is real and thus, ages normally. Okay. But wouldn't this then open up a monumental plot hole across the entire franchise – that nothing ‘real’ can survive the time travel process? Wouldn’t this mean that all that ‘real’ flesh would be burned away and the Terminators would arrive in our time, sans-Arnie-shell? Ah, whatever. What I’m more eager and still waiting for is an explanation as to why an American designed and built evil supercomputer decided to make its Terminators speak with thick Eastern European accents.

Anyway. A welcome addition to the franchise for me is Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor. I’d only seen her in Game of Thrones where all she really had to do was look pretty and recite dramatic dialogue. Terminator: Genisys gives her a chance to flex her acting muscles a bit, and she does so surprisingly well. She has the physique to pull off the action scenes, and the acting skill to inject some pathos into what could have been laughable scenes where she has to get emotional about the thought of losing a robot. Maybe I was blinded by the fact that she’s one of the hottest women on the face of the planet. That certainly didn’t hurt my appreciation of her performance.

As much as I enjoyed this film far more than I thought I would, I can’t say I’m overly keen for another installment (this film, predictably, ends with a ‘sequel-possible’ post-credits teaser). Honestly, Arnie can hit the gym as much as he wants, he’s pushing 70 so I don’t know how much more ass-kicking mayhem he has in him (although Stallone is still churning out Rocky films so who knows). Terminator: Genisys is a welcome return to form after the ambitious misfire that was Terminator: Salvation, but it might be time to let the franchise retire gracefully with an "Hasta la Vista, baby". (Come on, I had to go there...)

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Trying to follow the plot of this film is like walking into a movie halfway through and trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Jupiter Ascending is a 2015 sci fi film directed by the Wachowskis and starring Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum and Eddie Redmayne.

The story of Jupiter Ascending is so hard to follow I actually literally checked the display a few times to make sure I hadn’t accidentally skipped a chapter. Even the exposition-heavy voiceover fails to make the plot any less incomprehensible. And I use the term ‘plot’ pretty loosely. It was directed by the Wachowski brothers, who are now (through the miracle of modern medicine) the Wachowski brother and sister. But this film is kind of what I imagine the Matrix might have been if someone like Michael Bay had directed it. A toxic overdose of style that masks any trace of substance that might have tried to waft on through. Obscene amounts of money spent on CGI effects with a ludicrous story shoehorned in between action scenes. And that action tries valiantly to mask plot holes so massive you could jump through them without touching the sides.

Take the first action sequence with the main actors, Mila Kunis, playing the heroine, Jupiter Jones (a character name that would make Stan Lee smirk with amusement) and Channing Tatum. He’s the loyal hero (his name, Caine Wise, sounds like a brand of dog food). Anyway he’s tasked with protecting her from the bad guys. They are outnumbered and outgunned, so naturally you’d think they’d opt for low-key (think Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor), but what does he do? He activates his gravity-defying rocket boots, scoops her up into his arms like Superman, and launches out of a high-rise building high above Chicago. Naturally this alerts every bad guy within a six mile radius so we get some ridiculous action scene with people jetting around skyscrapers and ping pinging lasers at each other. Why not just walk downstairs and hail a cab?

Another scene that is miraculous in its stupidity is when the bad guys try to kill Caine by jettisoning him into space. Only they launch him out into space with a whole bunch of inflatable oxygen suits. What the holy fuck? That's like trying to drown a guy by dropping him into the ocean with a scuba tank.

Of course Channing Tatum spends half the film with his shirt off. I suppose when a producer pays to have an actor spend four months in the gym before filming they expect some return on investment from the ‘squealing teenage girl’ demographic. I don’t mind me a bit of hunky man flesh, but only when it’s attached to a halfway decent actor. Take Jason Statham. He could spend every movie wearing nothing but a rhinestone-encrusted jock strap and it’d be fine, because he’s fun to watch. Channing Tatum has all the charisma of a damp sponge. Plus there’s his make-up. He looks like Mr Tumnus from The Chronicles of Narnia on steroids:

Another nonsensical plot point is when Titus (Douglas Booth) asks Jupiter to marry him (I'd explain why, but my brain might implode). When she gets cold feet he tells her not to think of it as a marriage in human terms, but rather like a mutually-beneficial ‘contract’. Fair enough. So then why give her a giant fucking engagement ring? If you want her to think of it as a contract, oh I don’t know, maybe just get her to sign a piece of paper?

While we're talking about the plot, the big reveal halfway through is that humankind is being ‘harvested’ to create some sort of anti-ageing wonder drug for the ruling classes of the universe. Unlike a similar reveal in The Matrix, which came as a shocking and disturbing twist, the reveal here has no weight whatsoever. It’s all a bit ‘so…what else has been happening?’

If it’s not the plot that’s annoying, the dialogue is not much better.  It consists of gems like this exchange between Channing Tumnus and Jupiter:

Caine: "I'm more dog than man."
Jupiter: "I like dogs."

Just about the only thing in the film that’s not annoying is the villain, Balem Abrasax (okay so the name sucks) played by Eddie Redmayne. Redmayne mostly whispers his lines in a sort of snake-like way for most of the movie, and that’s entertaining in its own right, but he then occasionally launches into this weird, breathless screaming. This sounds annoying but trust me, his bonkers performance pole-vaults so far over the top that it actually manages to transcend the shittiness and becomes its own gleeful diversion. It’s far and away the best performance (which admittedly isn’t a difficult feat) because he’s the only one that seems to realise he’s in a preposterous film. He actually seems to be having fun with it, whereas everyone else has a bad case of Serious Face.

Regular readers of this blog will know how much I hate lazy exposition, but bizarrely in the case of Jupiter Ascending I actually didn’t mind because without it I had no fucking idea what the hell was happening. I was actually relieved by the predictableness (yeah yeah I know that’s not a word) of the characters pausing after every action scene to explain what just happened. They spend half the film explaining who certain characters are, where and what the place is, and how certain things in this universe work etc (like princess-smelling bees?? Jerry Maguire-kid didn’t include that one when he taught me that bees and dogs can smell fear).

Don’t get me wrong though, even with half the script devoted entirely to exposition the film is still unbelievably baffling. With a better film I’d suggest that this could be alleviated by making it longer, but in this case, I’m more than happy to leave shit unexplained. I don’t think I could take a director’s cut, I’d probably end up hanging myself.

The Wachowskis have a lot of talent, but if the result of them being given a massive budget and free reign results in crap like this I’d prefer they have their ideas vetted more. That said, the ideas themselves are quite brilliant, they just fall short in the execution. For instance the film is blatantly anti-capitalist but this theme is conveyed so ham-fistedly (villains incessantly yabbering on about the virtues of capitalism) it comes off as almost farcical. The movie also takes the very Philip K Dick-esque idea of ‘time as a precious resource’ but then gives that idea all the depth of a wading pool. It’s a watered-down mimosa to Bladerunner’s shot of rye with a beer chaser.

All the shittiness aside, I actually liked the film's conclusion, even though it was amazing that I was actually still paying attention at this point. The idea offered up is that, flying in the face of all the characters’ repeated assertions throughout the film, there is indeed something more precious than time. If you can’t guess what that is, I guess you'll just have to endure the film.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

I swear by now Andy Serkis has just permanently glued motion capture dots to his face.

The Adventures of Tintin is a 2011 animated film directed by Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg and starring Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis and Daniel Craig.

That this film is enjoyable and exciting from start to finish is a great example of what happens when an adaptation is made by film makers who are dedicated fans of the original work. That this film received such an abundance of negative criticism upon its release is what happens when that film is then watched by people who are idiots.

When I first read about the Spielberg adaptation of Tintin it was planned as a live action film. I immediately recalled the abysmal live action film from the 80’s. Enough said.

But after I heard that Peter Jackson had become involved, with the full weight of Weta Workshop behind him, and that the film was to be CGI-motion-capture, I became excited. Jackson was the perfect film maker for this – his Lord of the Rings adaptation proved he is skilled at both keeping loyal fans happy, and bringing in new ones.

And unlike Tolkien’s wordy, old-English, Anglo-mythology (which must have been extremely challenging to adapt visually), Herge’s visual style of drawing would have essentially constituted a ready-made storyboard.

One of my favourite scenes is early on – where Snowy chases the kidnapped Tintin (Jamie Bell) across town. It’s a great example of the freedom a pure CGI film allows – the camera ducks and weaves through traffic, passes through gaps far too narrow for any human cameraman to pass through, and races along behind Snowy as he leaps over cars, people, and fences. It’s an amazing piece of action.

While the film is mostly an adaptation of The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham’s Treasure, it also takes sections from The Crab with the Golden Claws, which was necessary to do justice to introducing the character of Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis).

My other favourite scenes are the ‘flashbacks’ Haddock has to his ancestor doing battle with the pirate Red Rackham. The high seas confrontation is the best tall ship battle I’ve ever seen put to film. It’s fantastic in every sense of the word.

One departure from the books I thought was really necessary was the decision to not have Snowy vocalise his thoughts the way he does in the books. In the film he is a real dog, but the way he’s written it’s obvious what he’s thinking anyway.

The film manages to seamlessly mix comedy and action. The comedy is both dry and slapstick, and the action ranges from light hearted (the pickpocket scenes) to way over the top, but it never strays into absurdity. It’s like a CGI version of the set pieces from an Indiana Jones film.

The set pieces themselves are just incredible. The highlight for me is the scene where Tintin and Haddock (and Snowy of course) escape the freight ship in a small rowboat and then end up in the biplane. It’s a perfect example of what I was just saying – comedy and action seamlessly mixed. From Haddock drunkenly setting the boat on fire to Tintin bringing the plane down with a well aimed shot, and their subsequent hijack of the plane and flight through the storm, to the final tense/comedic bit where Tintin is almost pulled into the propeller but saved by a desperate Snowy, the whole scene is magnificently executed. Motion capture has come a long way and the animators here should be very proud of their work indeed.

And unlike some of Peter Jackson’s longer adventures, the intrigue and exposition between the action set pieces never drags (I’m thinking of the sleep-inducing Merry and Pippin/Treebeard sequences from Lord of the Rings).

Most of the character voice acting is spot on, with the exception of Daniel Craig. I really like him as an actor, he has screen presence up the yin yang but here his voice is just too recognisable or something. You immediately picture James Bond’s voice coming out of a middle aged guy with a cane. It just doesn’t work.

But that’s a small gripe in what is otherwise one of the best animated films I’ve ever seen. Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg have awesome jobs – they get unlimited funds to basically play with toys on a massive scale. I certainly hope that despite the negative criticism they do decide to team up again and that there’s more Adventures of Tintin on the way. Two hours well spent.

Prey (2007)

This movie made me wonder what I'd find more horrifying: being stalked by a pack of man-eating lions, or being stuck in a car with a whining teenage girl.

Prey is a 2007 film directed by Darrell Roodt and starring Peter Weller and Bridget Moynahan.

When the opening scene of Prey showed, in graphic detail, actual documentary footage of a bunch of female lions dragging a zebra to the ground and going for the kill, I hoped I was in store for something truly horrifying, and perhaps more importantly, bold and original.

What I got was a corny family Drama (that's not a typo, this is drama with a capital D…) with some man eating lions and meany tribesmen thrown in (the latter almost as an afterthought).

The Newman family (Peter 'Robocop' Weller, Bridget Moynahan and two snotty brats) are in Africa. While Tom (Weller) is there for work, the wife and kids decide to take a relaxing safari to see some wild animals and great scenery. Unfortunately, their dipshit guide decides to go "off the beaten track", and winds up mauled by a lion when he and the annoying son go for a whizz. This of course leaves Mommy and the kids stranded, surrounded by wild lions, who see nothing more than a meal wrapped in a Jeep. After no success with the local bushmen, Daddy decides to venture off into the scrub (with a lunatic the locals avoid) to track down the family himself, and this leads to....yadda yadda you get the idea (even non-jaded filmgoers will have no trouble predicting the outcome of this film).

With such a good premise you'd think it'd be hard to screw it up. But somehow, director and co-writer Darrell Roodt, and writer Beau Bauman manage to do just that.

You see, Mommy isn’t really Mom, she's "Step Mom", and that’s where the Drama comes in. The 14 year old girl resents her, and decides that hey, this is as good a time as any to discuss some issues with her. Are you yawning yet? Don't worry, you soon will be.

The lion attacks are less than impressive. We get the obligatory "Monster-POV" shots, some CGI blood spatters and zero suspense. Then, when Step Mommy braves the outside to retrieve the car keys from the dead guide, you think, well, they're safe now. Just turn the Jeep around and go back the way you came. Lions are pretty cluey but their intelligence stops short of being able to, you know, open car doors.

But no, of course this doesn't happen because it makes too much sense. Step Mommy panics, floors it, and drives like a blind monkey straight into a ditch, leaving them stranded again in a even worse predicament than before.

I start clock-watching during horror movies when the main characters do things that are so idiotic your sympathy for them flies out the nearest window. Step Mommy's suicidal drive is a case in point. It reeks of lazy writing, and this movie is full of it.

The later scenes with the African tribesmen attempt to inject a bit of tension into a failing movie, but even a tangent can't save this film.

Prey could have been very cool. The premise is not that original but in horror films, there's some predictability that works. This film doesn’t. For a film about a family trapped by inhospitable desert and hunted by wild animals, there's a distinct lack of tension. Every time there can be a rampant cliché, there is. And the ending had me stop just short of throwing my remote at the screen. If you're brave enough to watch it through, you'll see what I mean.

Obviously some effort went into the production which was not wasted. The real lions featured here are magnificent creatures, and they are obviously well-trained. Bridget Moynahan turns in a fairly solid performance despite the lacklustre script. The cinematography by Michael Brierly is actually not bad, despite a sepia-tone in an effort to create a sun drenched look.

But sadly the movie is just pretty awful. The lion attack scene in the historical adventure flick Mountains of the Moon crams more tension into about 30 seconds of screen time than this movie does in all its 90 minutes.

If I'm ever trapped with these idiots I think I'll bail out of the Jeep and take my chances with the lions.

Ghoulies (1984)

I knew I was in trouble when I looked up Ghoulies on a website and the first keyword that came up was 'toilet'.

Ghoulies is a 1984 horror comedy directed by Luca Bercovici and starring Peter Liapis and Lisa Pelikan.

Ordinarily any film that features a pair of demonic midgets would be guaranteed to scary the holy shit out of me, but this film just left me wanting to bang my head against something solid. 

Ghoulies is a pretty poor excuse for any kind of film, much less a horror. I mean, for one thing, the ghoulies are peripheral characters at best. Some blonde sorcerer guy is the actual movie monster of the film. What a colossal let down. I was expecting a cheap version of Gremlins, or some decent gore, or at the very least a nice pair of naked breasts to look at, but this movie had none of that.

This is supposed to be a horror-comedy. I think the first thing you should do if you're going to put the word 'comedy' anywhere near a film, is make it funny. It's about as funny as a case of gastro. Before the ghoulies appeared in the film I found myself examining the DVD case wondering if somehow some other film had ended up in the box by mistake. But no. The movie's just shit.

And to make matters worse, the ghoulies are cute, not slimy and gross. I wanted to trap one and take him home as a pet. 

And at the end of the day, it's just plain boring. I was begging to be scared, or shocked, or even mildly entertained, but as the minutes ticked by I realized that hope was forlorn.

I must admit I did enjoy the freaky clown though. Best acting in the entire film, and I always find clowns freaky. But any movie that makes me start absently humming "I gotta wear shades" can never be counted among my favourites. I'm referring of course to the stoner idiot who never takes his off. People that wear sunglasses indoors should be shot.

The sorcerer boy is Jonathan (Peter Liapis). He and his girlfriend Rebecca (Lisa Pelikan) have just moved into his late father's mansion, which Jonathan has inherited. It seems Daddy was a Satanist who liked to perform magic rituals in the basement, so naturally Jonathan has picked up this little genetic anomaly, and he begins to do it himself. No sooner has he barked a few spells he's conjured some puppets and Daddy's even back from the dead too. Oh, and he also conjures two midgets, as you do.

Anyway, a bunch of Jonathan and Rebecca's friends die in the ensuing chaos before he has a show down with his sorcerer Dad and saves the day. Verdict: watch Gremlins instead.

Note: this is an updated version of a review I posted for Ghoulies on Best-Horror-Movies.com. The original can be seen here: http://www.best-horror-movies.com/review?name=ghoulies-1985-review 

The Postman (1997)

Kevin Costner swaps Waterworld for dry land, drapes himself in the American flag, and fails spectacularly to save humanity.

The Postman is a 1997 epically boring film starring Kevin Costner, Olivia Williams, and Larenz Tate.

I’m not entirely sure what killed Kevin Costner’s career. But the Postman certainly couldn’t have helped. In a nutshell – it’s a terrible film.

For starters, it goes forever. Seriously. Some films seem long. The Postman seems like it’s never going to end. Like you’re going to get stuck in some Groundhog Day-like time warp where whenever you turn on a television, anywhere, the Postman will still be on.

It truly is woeful. The plot is mostly incomprehensible and the few times it makes any kind of sense you realise how incredibly silly it is.

It’s 2013 and a nuclear war or whatever has wiped out civilisation as we knew it. Costner plays a drifter, basically his character from Waterworld but on land who gets captured by a group of survivors but he escapes and takes refuge in a jeep where he finds the skeleton of a mailman and a mail bag. He decides to deliver the letters and this somehow leads him to decide he needs to save humanity and restore order to the universe. Or some shit like that. Seriously. I didn’t make that up. That really is the plot.

In order to be a successful action movie hero, I think it’s probably necessary to have a fairly massive ego. But Kevin Costner’s must be planetary in size. Like, cosmic.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind him as an actor. I think I just prefer him in films he hasn't directed himself. But after his huge success with Dances with Wolves (which is a very good film) he seemed to get locked into this ‘directing himself as the hero’ spiral where every movie he did had to feature him saving humanity. First came Waterworld (which is not an awful film. It’s bad, it’s just not as bad as people think it is), and then hot on the heels of that came this steaming pile.

Usually I can find some merit even in the most God-awful movies. But there’s literally nothing to like about the Postman. The ‘post-apocalyptic’ world is so badly done it seems like nothing has changed except people ride horses instead of drive cars. The acting is all over the place. The story (such as it is) falls to pieces like a matchstick house the second you give it any kind of serious thought, there’s plot holes the size of canyons, the music is hopelessly mismatched to the scenes it scores, and the script is like one of those ambling stories you’d write in high school for an assignment where you had to write a certain number of words but got stuck at like, 300. So you’d just make up stupid tangents and repeat things over and over again until you got to 1000 words. It’s drivel. It’s clichéd, and so over the top that it might have worked as satire if it’s hand wasn’t firmly over its heart the entire time.

I really want to stop but I can’t. This film is sort of what I imagine the result would be if some redneck American Republicans got together, got loaded on bourbon, and started fantasizing about what would happen if ‘we was runnin things’. For one thing, people in Costner's growing band of Merry Postmen keep going on about the ‘Reformed Congress of the United States’, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

In directing this film, Costner committed a cardinal sin – he tried to appeal to absolutely everyone. We’ve got humour (albeit laboured), a romantic subplot, and loads of emotionally manipulative scenes that I think are supposed to induce clapping and cheering, but instead I found myself dry reaching and wondering how long this stupid film had to go. I wanted to be able to laugh at these scenes, in a so-bad-it’s-good way, but I just couldn’t. In trying to appeal to all and offend no-one, the film just winds up being incredibly unappealing in every way.

It's staggering to think how bad this film is when compared to Costner’s directorial debut Dances with Wolves.  The Postman was a shitty idea and it’s made worse by being poorly executed.

Three hours of my life (wait…I think it might actually still be going) that I really, really wish I could get back.

Iron Eagle (1986)

Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds and a bunch of precocious teenagers rescue Tim Thomerson from certain death at the hands of Poirot!

Iron Eagle is a 1986 film directed by Sidney J Furie and starring Jason Gedrick and Louis Gossett Jr.

Even for an action movie made smack bang in the middle of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Iron Eagle pushes the boundaries of ridiculousness. It shamelessly rides on the coat tails of the far superior Top Gun, it shits all over a fictional Middle Eastern country, the action scenes are haphazardly staged and filmed (seriously, don’t attempt a drinking game where you take a shot every time there’s a continuity error – you’ll die of alcohol poisoning), and the story is far-fetched in the extreme.

Yet I can’t help but love the shit out of this movie. I think it’s quite possibly the greatest thing on the face of the Earth.

Strangely, the most well-filmed action sequence is one of the least important but most ridiculous. It’s right at the start, where they establish what a good pilot Doug Masters (Jason Gedrick) is by having him race a dirt bike in his Cessna. Yes, that’s not a typo. Plane vs motorbike. It’s actually a really good sequence, featuring a light aircraft being flown at insanely low altitude through canyons. It’s so well filmed it doesn’t jazz with the later flying sequences featuring jet fighters. They are so different it’s almost as if one director filmed this sequence, then read the rest of the script and ran away.

What I love most about this film is that despite the idiocy of the script it tries valiantly to be sincere. Doug’s father (the always awesome Tim Thomerson) has been shot down and taken prisoner. So we get these hopelessly emotional scenes at the start where Doug pleads with some generic Army guy that the suits in Washington are doing nothing to save his good old Dad from the clutches of a generic Middle Eastern dictator (played by none other than David ‘Poirot’ Suchet), a guy who is obviously based on Ghaddafi (or however you spell it).

What makes these silly scenes so much funnier is that right after one of them, Doug decides to attend his high school prom so we get some woeful scene featuring Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds busting some moves on the dance floor (the film is also casually racist – only the black guy knows how to dance).

So of course because the Government is powerless to intervene, Doug and his loyal band of teenage army brats must take matters into their own hands. They are assisted by the always reliable Louis Gossett Jr, playing Chappy, a retired army pilot whose motivation for wanting to help seems to boil down to some teary, badly-written scene where he reminisces about some kid he saw killed in Vietnam…or something. Those damn rice paddies have a lot to answer for.

This leads to a montage where we see the kids breaking into various air force bases and classified documents rooms to get some blueprints and maps and also somehow manage to steal two fully armed F-16 fighter jets. They make it seem as easy as chucking some packets of gum down your pants and waddling out of the corner store. There’s even a scene where two of them, dressed in some kind of weird Village People disguises, distract some guards at the base by throwing fire crackers into a 44 gallon drum. And no, they aren’t killed in a hail of machine gun fire, it’s played for a gag.

The whole ‘planning stage’ of the rescue operation is pretty much played for laughs. They kick about in a clubhouse, play tricks on hapless army guys, do silly voices and then all of a sudden the film shifts back into serious mode as Doug and Chappy take to the skies.

Oh I need to backtrack to one of my other favourite things about this film. You see, Doug is only a good pilot as long as he has 80’s rock music blasting on his Walkman. Again, that’s not a typo and no, I’m not kidding. He can’t fire missiles straight unless he has his music on. It’s possibly the greatest way I’ve ever seen songs shoehorned into an action film.

And speaking of tapes… Chappy’s made these ‘motivational’ tapes for Doug to listen to on the flight over. What is hilarious is that he seems to have made one for every possible eventuality. There’s one in the event of his death. There’s one for if they make it. One for if they don’t. One for when he’s rescued his dad. I just picture Doug fumbling with them in the cockpit, squinting at the labels Chappy’s put on them *click* IF YOU GET SHOT DOWN “uhhh dammit wrong tape!” They all pretty much say the same thing anyway: Don’t worry, it’ll be all right, have faith in yourself, kid. Chappy’s like a cross between Mr Miyagi and Yoda.

And getting back to continuity errors, one of my favourites comes toward the end when Doug decides to blow up one of Poirot’s oil refineries. You see him fly over what is quite obviously a water plant. And for some reason this makes Poirot agree to let Tim Thomerson go, to meet Doug on a tarmac. Of course Poirot thinks he’s setting a trap because Doug will obviously have to land in order to pick up his dad, but never fear as this gives Doug a chance to use his secret weapon: some ridiculous bomb called the “Hades” which puts up some kind of wall of fire between him and bad guys so he can take off.

The film just keeps piling on the stupidity. We see the bad guys rip tarps off some anti-aircraft guns. It’s edited and scored like an “uh oh” moment, but Doug then blows the guns up before they have a chance to do anything.

Ah heck, I love this film. I love its blatant geographical and continuity errors (look out for Doug’s dad’s plane at the start – missiles loaded under its wings appear and disappear at random). I love its shameless pro-Americanism (at one point Lamar even remarks that the bad guys don’t stand a chance because ‘Ronny Ray-Gun’ is in charge). I love the silly attempts at emotion and Chappy’s self-help tapes. And I love that the bad guy is a British guy playing a Middle Eastern guy speaking with a Latin accent. Jesus I miss the 80's.

Gladiator (2000)

Russell Crowe tries to change his name to 'Gladiator', Richard Harris makes Joaquin Phoenix mad, and Germans never got the 'don't kill the messenger' memo.

Gladiator is a 2000 epic directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix and Djimon Hounsou.

The best part of owning the ‘Extended Edition’ blu ray of Gladiator for me is the introduction by Ridley Scott. I find it hilarious. I don’t think he could sound less enthusiastic about it. The entire speech just screams ‘Universal made me do this’. And Universal, as if as some kind of weird punishment, makes this introduction impossible to avoid. It automatically plays every time you watch the film.

The fact the extended edition always begins with the director telling you that he got it right the first time ends up being remarkably apt, because he did. None of the extra scenes really add much to the film. It certainly isn’t ruined by the added 17 minutes or so, but the theatrical cut is a great example of it being unnecessary to fix something that isn’t broken.

Anyway, whatever version you prefer, Gladiator is an excellent film.

The opening battle sequence, where Maximus’ (Crowe) army confronts the Germanic warriors, is expertly staged and superbly filmed and scored. Beginning any ‘epic’ with the massive set piece battle has become somewhat of a cliché these days, but it began here, and it hasn’t really been topped. I love the lead up to the action. From Maximus quietly watching the sparrow launch itself off a branch amidst the smoke of the burning oil, to the way his dog runs alongside his horse as he gallops through the lines of his men, to the ‘message’ the Germans deliver in the form of the Roman messenger being returned minus his head, I love everything about it.

One of the things I like most about this film is the fact it pretty much lacks subtlety of any kind. Almost everything about Gladiator is overt. Ridley Scott directs the film as spectacle in the image of the old greats like Ben Hur and Spartacus and The Fall of the Roman Empire. The visuals of ancient Rome, despite being a bit turn-of-the-century clunky CGI, are really impressive. Scott's trademark attention to period detail is on fine display.

And I like that Russell Crowe gives Maximus some depth. He begins the film the honourable, revered general leading his men into battle, then becomes the bitter vengeful slave and finally the balls-to-the-wall “are you not entertained?” gladiator.

I do like one of the film’s only moments of subtlety though – it’s Maximus' quiet conversation with Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) at the beginning, where he describes his home in Spain. Crowe is excellent in this scene - he is by turns stoic and longing.

The other performance I like is Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus. Phoenix is a very impressive actor. His Commodus is evil in the best way – he’s unpredictable. He’s one of those people you’d feel really uncomfortable being alone with. You could never relax because he always looks like he’s just about to unhinge and start ranting and snapping like a rabid animal. He plays some scenes like a hurt sheep, but there’s always the menace of the wolf lurking just beneath the surface. He actually benefits from one of the scenes added to the extended edition – where he confronts a marble bust of his dead father and begins hacking at it with a sword. He's both pathetic and incredibly threatening.

All the performances are pretty spot on. I particularly like Maximus’ friend, Cicero (Tommy Flanagan). He’s that quietly loyal-to-the-bitter-end sidekick to the main hero that I always enjoy in films like this.

Anyway, this film will go down in movie history as accomplishing two things – firstly, it made Russell Crowe a star. And secondly, it made swords and sandals epics cool again. Both of which were more than welcome with me. Two and a half hours well spent.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Sean Penn talks to himself because Brad Pitt is his dad and he’s messed up because his little brother just died…okay….wait a sec, now there’s galaxies exploding and some dinosaurs…did I just lean on the remote or something?

The Tree of Life is a 2011 film directed by Terrence Malick and starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn.

I first saw this film on a date with my then-girlfriend. About half way through she asked me “what is this movie about?” I meant to reply, “I don’t know,” but I had a Freudian-slip and instead said, “I don’t care.”

And that pretty much sums up my reaction to this film.

The best scenes by far are the ones involving Brad Pitt’s character, “Mr O’Brien”, interacting with his three sons. These are without doubt the scenes that make the most sense. I like that Mr O’Brien is never portrayed as an ogre. He is very hard on his boys but you understand why. He wants them to grow up strong, and not abandon their dreams like he did. You also get the feeling that this is just how he was raised he has no other notions of what a man or a father should be.

This brings me to the central theme of the film which is Nature vs Grace. Mr O’Brien represents Nature, while their soft, welcoming mother, played by Jessica Chastain, represents Grace. At the beginning of the film we’re told Nature or Grace is a choice, however as the film goes on we realise it’s not that simple (nothing about this film is simple…but I’ll get to that in a bit). Eldest son Jack (Hunter McCracken, later played as an adult by Sean Penn) says toward the end of the film that influences from his mother and father “wrestle inside him” and always will.

I think my initial mistake was trying to figure this film out. Once my brain recovered from the ensuing meltdown I decided to watch it again but treat it like a painting. I just sort of looked at it, and didn’t really try to make much sense of what was happening before my eyes. I enjoyed it much more this way.

That said I don’t actually enjoy this film that much. The biggest issue for me is that by making the film so incredibly obscure, Terrence Malick manages to make all the characters strangely distant. I just wasn’t invested in any of them. There’s the trademark Malick voice overs, but it has nowhere near the emotional impact of say, the soldiers meditating on life and death in The Thin Red Line. It really doesn’t have much impact at all.

I’ve heard this film referred to as ‘pretentious’, but I don’t think it is. I just think that without any kind of real narrative, it just sort of fails to achieve what it seems to set out to do. It’s actually a lot more like a really long music video than a film.

The visual stuff is all very cool and some of it is downright beautiful. But my favourite moment is actually a very small scene where Jessica Chastain is walking along a street with her sons and as she pauses for a moment, a butterfly lands on her outstretched hand. There's something really amazing and spontaneous about it. That single visual gave me a much more profound sense of Grace than any other single moment in the film.

Still, as I mentioned before, my reaction again this time around was just to sort of shrug and think “well, it looked nice, but I still just don’t care.” Terrence Malick reminds me a lot of Stanley Kubrick. If I was going to compare this film to any other, it would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both are oddly meditative, visually stunning, and really, really strange.

Up in the Air (2009)

George Clooney does some really awkward dance moves, the creepy stalker chick from Two and Half Men marries the disabled war veteran who beat up Robert Downey Jr in Due Date, and lots of hardworking Americans get canned.

Up in the Air is a 2009 movie directed by Jason Reitman and starring George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Jason Bateman.

Despite being a George Clooney fan I avoided this film for a long time because I thought it was the type of movie I despise – the sort of film The Simpsons makes fun of; films about “people coming to terms with things.”

I knew the general gist – Clooney plays a man whose job (a corporate asshole hired by employers to fire people) keeps him travelling. He lives out of a suitcase, barely sees his sisters and has no attachments besides a mutually beneficial loyalty to his boss (a wonderfully sleazy Jason Bateman). I figured it was about Clooney’s character finally ‘finding his feet’ and the woman of his dreams yadda yadda.

And for the most part that’s what this film is. It’s predictable, sometimes corny, rarely laugh-out-loud funny, but watchable due to Clooney and Vera Farmiga, who plays Alex; a woman seemingly as vacuous as Clooney with whom he begins a casual relationship.

But then it redeems itself at the end when it has Clooney doing the ‘coming to terms with things’ moment – showing up on Alex's doorstep. It’s set up like a happy ever after moment but instead he’s greeted with the cold reality that she is married with kids and has been lying to him.
I especially like the way she essentially ‘fires’ him in the same passive aggressive way he’s been firing people throughout the film.

The film has a really obvious metaphor that I would normally pretentiously sneer at, but this time it actually made me laugh (maybe it was the sleep medication I was on – which clearly wasn’t working). After spruiking idiotic self-help seminars on how to ‘empty the backpack’ of your life – free yourself from the baggage of friends, family, and possessions – Clooney’s character is forced to carry around a cheesy cardboard cut-out of his sister and her fiancé that juts out of his carefully packed carry on suitcase (she’s asked him to take lame tourist selfies with it at various landmarks he visits on his travels). The metaphor is as subtle as a knee to the groin, but director Jason Reitman somehow makes it work. I guess growing up with Ivan Reitman as your dad would instil a certain deftness at juggling sentimentality and comedy.

What I liked most about the film was that Clooney’s character essentially doesn’t change. His character arc is a full 360 – he ends the film the way he began; groundless and happy to be. The film essentially employs the rationale that made Seinfeld so great – the philosophy that good comedy should have ‘no hugging and no learning’. Works for me. Two sleep-deprived hours well spent.

The Hitcher (1986)

A young man gets framed for some gruesome murders all because his stupid brother can’t answer his goddamn phone, and after all these years I still have no idea what the ‘C’ stands for in C. Thomas Howell.

The Hitcher is a 1986 thriller directed by Robert Harmon and starring Rutger Hauer, C. Thomas Howell and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

There is a clue to what this movie's all about in a scene at the very beginning where Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) asks John Ryder (Rutger Hauer) "what do you want?" as Ryder holds a flick knife blade to his eye. Ryder replies "I want you to stop me."

Robert Harmon directed this thriller written by Eric Red (who penned the 2007 remake). It is simple and effective. Mark Isham's score is subdued and creepy, perfectly suited to the amazingly eerie Death Valley settings brilliantly shot by John Seale. Interestingly, Harmon made a film very similar to this (though nowhere near as effective) starring Jim Caviezel, Highwaymen, in 2002.

Jim is driving a Cadillac cross country USA. It's not his car, it's a 'driveaway', but that doesn't really matter. What matters is Jim doesn't have a great deal of common sense. It's rainy. It's dark. It's the middle of fucking nowhere, and he stops to pick up a hitchhiker.

Rutger Hauer enters the car with the cold air of barely contained menace. When, after some strange and eerie small talk, he casually tells Jim that he severed the extremities of a VW driver a couple miles back and he's going to do the same thing to Jim, you believe he is capable of doing just that.

After Jim manages to push him out of the vehicle, we see him slowly get to his feet against the slowly-rising sun. This is Ryder's game; getting picked up on desolate highways, killing whoever gave him a ride, then getting out and doing it all over again to the next unwitting driver.

But Jim ruins it. He pushes Ryder out before he can finish the job. So, Ryder comes up with a new game. And Jim is the unwilling player.

Ryder watches the car disappear along the highway. He's marked Jim. Jim is a dead man. Or at least that's what we're supposed to think. But Ryder doesn't want to kill. In fact, he gets a perfect opportunity to a few minutes later in the film. Yet he doesn't take it. Instead, he toys with him, and sets him up to take the fall for a few random killings. He's 'grooming' Jim, trying to force him to grow the balls to do what he must: stop Ryder.

The film stretches plausibility a number of times in the ensuing cat-and-mouse game Ryder and Jim play out against the backdrop of the lonely highways of outback USA. No-one is a match for Ryder - the highway patrol, the sheriff, the... um, other sheriff, his deputies, even a helicopter can't dent him. He brings it down with a couple well aimed rounds. He also manages to appear and disappear like a ghost, even through locked doorways and past fully conscious people. And this would all suck, if it wasn't for the great performances by the two leads.

Hauer is perfect as Ryder. His eyes have just the right amount of unhinged crazy. And I like the little touches - like Ryder wearing a wedding ring. It's such a subtle detail I didn't notice until watching the film again recently. I wondered if it was a trophy, or some detail of his past - some indication of a loss that drove him insane.

And C. Thomas Howell is great as the kid who got more than he bargained for. You really feel for him in a couple of scenes as Ryder thwarts all his attempts to contact the authorities and explain what's going on.

Jennifer Jason Leigh makes a brief appearance as Nash, the love interest who takes to Jim and tries to help him. I find it hilarious that she is very quick to abandon her normal life and become a felon. In one scene she's a small town diner waitress dreaming of 'one day' going to California. The next, she's hanging out of a car window shooting at cops.

Anyway, at it's core this is a two-man drama. It's this one-on-one aspect I really like about The Hitcher. Yes, we know how it's going to play out. But the fun is watching Ryder taunt, and Jim squirm. And then it's fun to see the tables turned. Though Ryder hardly squirms - he knows this is how it would go down.

The final scenes are haunting, mainly due to the sparse score and John Seale's fantastic photography. I like how Ryder seems to almost welcome death in the film's last moments. It's just the two of them, on a lonely stretch of highway. Jim has a shotgun levelled at him, but Ryder makes no move to get out of the way. We get the feeling this is just the way it had to be. By his own admission, Ryder is "tired." He wants this to be over. And in Jim, Ryder has found the perfect adversary. The only one who could ride this out with him to the grisly end. Ryder's orchestrated chaos has played out right down to this very moment. Game over.

Note: this is an updated version of a review I posted for The Hitcher on Best-Horror-Movies.com. The original can be seen here:
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/review?name=the-hitcher-1986-review

Rocky IV (1985)

Americans = Good. Commies = Bad. Got it. Now I just need the rest of my life to be this black and white.

Rocky IV is a 1985 movie directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone, and starring Dolph Lundgren, Carl Weathers and Brigitte Nielsen.
        
I normally don’t bother with plot descriptions in my write ups, but because the plot of Rocky IV can be summed up in ten syllables I figured what the hell.

Apollo dies. Rocky avenges him.

This was my favourite of the Rocky movies when I was a kid. Watching it now, I can safely say it still is, but for very different reasons. When I was a kid the aforementioned revenge plot (which back then seemed a lot more complex to my sugar-addled young mind) and the David vs Goliath showdown between Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) and Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) was thrilling. Now, it’s laughably over the top and all the more enjoyable because of it. As a kid, the subtle-as-a-sledgehammer Cold War allegory was completely lost on me. Now, it’s loads of fun to watch these actors try to make this moronic stuff seem sincere. As a kid, the incredibly cheesy moments between Stallone and his son gave me goose bumps. Now, they make me laugh so hard I nearly pass out.

What staggers me now is how oblivious I was as a kid to the homoeroticism in Rocky movies. It’s fantastic. After Drago pummels Apollo Creed to death we get a brilliant scene where Rocky drives his car (in the rain of course) and reminisces about his friendship with Creed. We are treated to a montage of scenes from the previous films of them sparring in the ring, frolicking in the surf wearing short shorts and dancing together in front of a mirror while so oiled up it’s a wonder they don’t slide across the floor.

And I love that the American/Commie references take a nose dive into absurdity more than once. My favourite is the requisite ‘training montage’ that Rocky movies are famous for. In this one, we see the Iron-Curtain himself, Dolph Lundgren training in a state of the art gym, aided by machines and steroids. Everything about his training is artificial and robotic, and thus FALSE YOU PINKO COMMIE BASTARDS. Whereas Rocky trains in the snowy wilderness, lifting massive tree trunks and slogging through the snow like a sled dog, because he is a REAL ALL AMERICAN MAN.

But what the hell is with comedic relief robots in 80’s films? I think people just got so excited about technology advancing they just wanted to stick robots in everything.

There's one strange moment at Paulie’s house when the robot interrupts Apollo telling Rocky that he's coming out of retirement. It sort of appears from nowhere, plays some music, chatters incessantly and then, hilariously, it disappears and the scene continues as if nothing has happened. This film doesn’t just throw reality out the window. It dropkicks it out and screams ‘Fuck off!’ after it.

And while we’re talking about reality or lack thereof, the climactic boxing matches in the Rocky movies are always hilariously ridiculous, but the one in this film outdoes all that came before it and nothing has topped it since. Not only does Drago basically use Rocky’s head like a speedbag, but a couple of times they actually seem to start doing wrestling moves. I love the over-emphasised punching sound effects too. It sounds like a guy smacking a wet bag of potatoes with a shovel.

And then of course to top it all off we get Rocky’s inspirational speech at the end. It really is tremendous. This writing launches so far into terrible that it comes full circle and becomes absolutely fucking brilliant. And just when you think it can’t possibly get any more ludicrous there’s a scene where the crowd slowly starts applauding and getting to their feet. Even the stalwart Russian leader guy who is basically Gorbachev without the birth mark seems to shed a tear. Jesus wept, either shoot me now or give me a US visa so I can emigrate. 100 minutes extremely well spent indeed.

American Sniper (2014)

Bradley Cooper buffs up and single-handedly defeats the terrorists all while raising a family and…wait a gosh-darned minute here… I don’t think that baby’s real!!

American Sniper is a 2014 war film directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller.

Clint Eastwood’s films are very much like the old school, all-American cars that feature in a lot of them. They are reliable. They are big, bold, and dependable. There are no surprises. What you see is what you get. He is the Gran Torino of Hollywood directors. And I’d hazard a guess he’s not a Democrat.

An almost deific reverence for the US military permeates a lot of the films he has directed in the last decade. From the noble Marines in Flags of Our Fathers, to grizzled Korean War veteran Walt in Gran Torino, and now to a decorated Navy SEAL in American Sniper, it’s obvious Eastwood holds the American armed services in high regard. This is by no means a bad thing, it’s just that it makes for some very black and white films. There’s not a lot of grey in Eastwood’s American Sniper. It’s once again the heroic Americans against the evil terrorists. American Sniper is not a brilliant film. Like the cars I alluded to earlier, it’s dependable. It’s extremely well made. But there are no surprises. The battle scenes, while very well staged, filmed, and acted, are pretty much Whack-A-Terrorist. The villains, although apparently based on real people, are pretty stock standard Evil Terrorist Scum. The main bad guy even wears all black just so we're a hundred per cent clear this is a guy we're supposed to hate. And the Iraqi people in this film who are not the ‘bad guys’ even wear white in several scenes. Clint, dude, we get it. It’s nice to see that old age has made you no more subtle than when you were waving a 44 Magnum in people’s faces, but enough already.

The fact that Chris Kyle, the US Navy SEAL sniper this film is based on, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, is no surprise. The first human being he kills, seeing it close up through a high powered scope, is a small child. This is one of the film’s best scenes. The kid is running towards a Marine convoy carrying a grenade, so Kyle (Bradley Cooper) has no choice but to shoot him. This is the first scene it became apparent to me that Bradley Cooper has well and truly transcended being The Hangover guy, and can actually act. Eastwood lingers both on Cooper’s eyes, and his vision of the dead child through the scope. You can see all of Kyle’s training, patriotism, love of and need to protect his beloved America has come down to this single moment – the mind-numbing realisation that his job involves having to kill kids. 

This leads into another great scene later on, where a small boy retrieves a grenade launcher from a guy Kyle has just killed. I loved the agony on Cooper’s face as he realises he may have to do it again. He’s quietly begging the kid not to pick it up. And then when the kid finally drops it and runs off, he is so relieved he almost throws up. Again, it’s all in Cooper’s eyes. His mind was already stretched like a rubber band. If he’d had to pull the trigger on a little kid again, it would have snapped. It’s a really impressive performance.

A scene early on sets the tone for the entire film. It’s a flashback to Kyle’s childhood, where his little brother gets bullied and beaten up at school. Around the dinner table later, his father tells the boys that there are three kinds of people in the world. Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. It becomes obvious at that moment that Kyle took it upon himself to be the sheepdog. Becoming a sniper, able to protect other soldiers, was a natural fit for him. He even remarks later, when being counselled for PTSD, that it’s not the thought of people he killed that keeps him up at night. It’s the thought of the people he failed to protect.

The film reminded me a little bit of The Hurt Locker in the scenes where Kyle returns home and his wife (Sienna Miller) struggles to get him to communicate or stay home. He’s glad to be home, but at the same time it preys on his mind that while he is at home, he can’t be the sheepdog to his men anymore. I like the irony that he doesn’t realise he needs to be a sheepdog for his family as well.

Speaking of irony, I found the calls home really off-putting. Kyle has a satellite phone, and he repeatedly calls his wife back in the US. The problem is, he chooses really inappropriate times to do it. Like just as he’s about to snipe someone, and another time right as his convoy is heading into enemy territory. I kept thinking; why not just wait til you’re back at base? This leads to the strange irony of a scene where he says his wife needs to be ‘protected’ from hearing about his ‘work’, but then during these phone calls forces her to listen to him coming under fire. And he not once but twice leaves her uncertain as to whether or not he’s still alive by either dropping the phone or the signal crapping out. I’m surprised he was met with a hug when he returned home. I’d have expected a slap upside the head.

American Sniper is not a bad film. I think films like Lone Survivor and The Hurt Locker dealt with similar subject matter in much more effective ways, but it’s still a nicely executed war film with a strong central performance. And its proof that Eastwood still wields enormous talent from what must now be a pretty ergonomic director’s chair, even if he still has all the subtlety of a hydrogen bomb. Two and a bit hours well spent.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

The shocking story of the theft and subsequent destruction of Morris Frye's prize 1961 Ferrari GT California.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a 1986 comedy directed by John Hughes and starring Matthew Broderick, Mia Sara, and Alan Ruck.

I have a pathological inability to watch this film if I’m not on a day off from work. It just doesn’t seem right.

Although this is not my favourite John Hughes film, it’s right up there with his best and I love so much about it it’s going to be hard not to endlessly gush in this write up. But I’ll do my best.

It’s in the capable hands of a writer/director who knows how to strike a good balance between comedy and pathos. Though it veers towards Utterly Ridiculous on several occasions, Hughes steers it back before it strays too far into that territory. He also, thankfully, didn’t make this a stoner comedy and didn’t have the main characters indulge in any teen sex, drugs and rock and roll bullshit that would have made the film tedious and dated it beyond any hope of it becoming the cult classic it is today. Ferris (Broderick), Sloane (Sara), and Cameron (Ruck) ditch school to go to a museum, for fuck’s sake. These are not delinquents we’re dealing with here.

Firstly, I love what rubes Ferris’ parents are. The opening scene where we see them coddling him in bed contains the film’s first hilarious moments. What I love about this scene is its inherent silliness; it’s obvious Ferris is faking illness, but his parents gulp down every syllable of the lie and do so in the cheesiest way possible. It really is joyful to watch.

Alan Ruck is terrific as Ferris’ best friend Cameron. I love his sterile house and his hypochondria. I love his meltdown in his car when he’s trying to convince himself to say ‘No’ to Ferris. And like so much of this movie, it’s filmed superbly. I like the way the camera remains in the car and we just see Cameron jumping up and down in frustration through the back window. It’s one of my favourite scenes. 

And I love the scenes juxtaposing Ferris hanging out at home with the class he’s missing. The close ups of bored students struggling to stay awake and the monotonous drone of the teacher’s voice is great. But I especially love the end of the scene – we see Ferris dancing stupidly under a giant poster for ‘Simple Minds’.

The film has countless other great moments. I love that Ferris is actually a bit of an asshole. I love Jennifer Grey as his sister. My favourite bit with her is a throwaway moment that has me in hysterics every time I watch it. She’s at school, ticked off that Ferris gets away with everything when a guy walks past her rattling a can collecting donations for the ‘Save Ferris’ fund. I love the look of derision she gives him and the way she smacks the can out of his hand. It’s stupid slapstick but I love it.

I love the comic timing in the film – again, it’s filmed superbly. Like the way he steals the cab from under his Dad’s nose outside the restaurant. It’s a great piece of physical comedy. And soon afterwards, the double take his Dad does when he sees Ferris, Sloane and Cameron in the cab next to him. When he turns back for a second look, it’s just Sloane sitting there in dark sunglasses. It’s a moment that’s difficult to describe but it works brilliantly. Again, I think it’s just the incredible silliness of the scene that I find hilarious.

I’ll mention the ‘dance number’ only because, typically for me the scene everyone loves is actually the one scene in this film that I don’t like. Ferris jumps up on a parade float and lip syncs.  It’s just too absurd. It comes out of nowhere and just seems out of place.

Thankfully, there’s way too much I enjoy in this film to care much about that small pothole.  I think my favourite scene is where they go to the museum. I love the music throughout and the way they hold hands with the group of school kids. The whole scene has a really cool vibe to it and really makes you care about the characters. As I said before, these are not a bunch of silly twits ditching school to sit around smoking weed. They take the day off because sometimes life’s too short to sit in a classroom listening to someone drone on about Reagan-era economics.

100 minutes of a day off well spent.