Groovers Video Vault 6: Convoy

Arizona, noon, on the seventh of June when they highballed over the pass,
Bulldog Mac with a can on back, and a Jaguar hauling ass.
He’s ten on the floor strokin’ bore, seat cover startin’ to gain,
Now beaver you a truckin with the Rubber Duck and I’m about to pull the plug on your drain.

From the moment Kris Kristofferson says “there ain’t many of us left” we know this is going to be a movie about changing times and a end of a era, but what should we expect, it is a Sam Peckinpah movie. John Ford was a pioneer, a pioneer in spirit and at heart and a pioneer of movies. This ideal is reflected in his movies, whatever the story, the subtext of his great westerns involved the settlement and taming of the west. Sam Peckinpah came along at a different time an era of despair and an era and a loss of innocence. While Ford’s work is a metaphor for the birth of a new nation, Peckinpah represents an established nation facing a crisis of fair and a loss of direction. It is therefore fitting that he should make a film like Convoy, a contemporary film that explore all the ideas of his westerns, in a lot of ways it is a western. It is also fitting that it should be his last significant film, and incidentally his most profitable.

Three truckers: Martin Penwald aka Rubber Duck known as “The Duck” (Kris Kristofferson), Spider Mike (Franklyn Ajaye), Bobby aka Love Machine’ aka Pig Pen (Burt Young) Are lured into a speed trap by Sheriff Lyle Wallace (Ernest Borgnine) who gave them a false “Smokey report” using the CB handle ‘Cottonmouth’. Lyle considers himself independent (in other words corrupt) takes a bribe to let them off the speeding charge using the threat of locking them up awaiting trial and thus taking away their livelihood. After paying the fine the trio stop at a truck stop where Lyle tries to arrest Mike on a vagrancy charges (knowing that he has already extorted his remaining cash) . A fight breaks out between Lyle, two other cops and all the truckers in the place. Fleeing the scene along with Melissa (Ali MacGraw), a photographer looking for a lift after her car breaks down, the group head for the state line. By the time they cross the border into New Mexico the convoy has increased to fifty trucks. Before long a mile long Convoy is heading for Mexico, picking up support and attracting the attention of the police and the state governor.

There have reports suggesting EMI who own had purchased the rights to the song that inspired the movie intended to make a light, comic action chase movie like Smokey and the Bandit that had just grossed over $60million. Although elements of this remained Sam Peckinpah had other ideas and crafted something more substantial, political and most importantly similar in style and substance to his westerns. It is true that the movie looses its way from time to time but on the whole it is a solid movie that is misunderstood and unfairly criticised. Made at time before internet it is a film surrounded by myth. One constantly mentioned point is that it is based on a song. That isn’t entirely true. The original version of the song does not include the plot or the characters from the film. A new version was written based on the screenplay, this is the one used in the film and played on the radio. It is true that actor and friend of the director James Coburn worked as second-unit director, it has been suggested this was favour to help him get his directors union card, however he didn’t actually direct anything after Convoy. It also isn’t clear how much of the film he actually directed when Peckinpah was “unwell” (unwell being a euphemism for his much publicised problems of the time).

Set at a time of rising fuel prices and the introduction of the 55mph speed limit, shortly after the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam war, the film and the truckers in it represent the last bastion of American individuality and freedom in a increasingly state controlled country (and world). This is made clear in certain key scenes but is only suggested not resolved. This give viewers the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most people will take different things from the themes depending on what they bring to it. WARNING PLOT SPOILER COMING UP: For many The Duck’s apparent death and his ultimate survival/resurrection could just be a cop out by a filmmaker wanting a happy ending or afraid to kill his hero character. I see it more as glimmer of hope in a troubled time for the characters and what they represent. A message of hope for a nation and for the world as a whole, how far have we come from the despair of Vanishing Point (1971)? The cowboy spirit of the truck drivers has not been lost or broken, despite the hardship that the Duck and other drivers face in changing times. Furthermore the Duck’ survives because of his moral code and by surviving he defeats Lyle’s amoral code. The cowboy/truck driver being the hero and the corrupt authority figure reflects its own problems in society, but as already mentioned it was only a handful of years after the Watergate Scandal.

Beyond any meaning or subtext that may or not be there, there are two things that make the film really work. The cast and the trucks. The cast is headed by Kris Kristofferson as Rubber Duck, he was at the height of his fame as an actor having made some great films: Cisco Pike and Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (also with Sam Peckinpah) Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (directed by Martin Scorseese) as well as the rubbish but popular A Star is Born. Ali MacGraw had not made a film since The Getaway (also directed by Pecckinpah) six years earlier (following her divorce from Robert Evans and marriage to Steve McQueen) but was still a bankable star. Burt Young was recognisable after the success of Rocky. The film stealing performance comes from Ernest Borgnine as Lyle Wallace, the corrupt sheriff and The Ducks nemesis. The other stars, the trucks led by the Duck’s 1977 Mack RS-712 LST (Bulldog Mack with a can on back) are a representation of the pioneer spirit “From the covered wagons and trains to the 18-wheelers that keep this country alive”. They cut there way through the landscape the way the cavalry did in John Ford westerns creating emotive imagery, and they look cool!

A few final thoughts on the movie: Re-watching the movie for my Video Vault series brings back a lot of memories. I first saw the film when I was about six years old and watched it constantly as a kid, possibly more that any other movie (until I came across The Terminator and Alien at the age of twelve, but that’s another story). Growing up in England it is this movie as much as Fandango (the movie that lends it name to my blog) that made encouraged me undertake a road trip around Americas south-west. I may not watch the movie as often as I did before, but I still love it. You can’t talk about Convoy without mentioning Sam Peckinpah’s other movies. It isn’t as hard hitting as Straw Dogs (1971) or as sublime as The Wild Bunch (1969) and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) but just like Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) and The Getaway (1972) it shouldn’t be dismissed. Many people reading this may have seen the movie and forgotten it, others will not have seen it. I recommend regardless of your relationship or preconceptions you give it a chance and watch it.

Read Full Post »

Japan-O-Rama: The Princess Blade

For my second entry into Paragraph Film Reviews’ Japan-O-Rama series I am looking at Toshiya Fujita’s 2003 movie The Princess Blade, original Japanese title Shura Yukihime or 修羅雪姫.

The Princess Blade (2003), directed by: Shinsuke Sato and loosely based on the manga comic Lady Snowblood by Kazuo Koike (already filed as Lady Snow blood (1973) directed by Toshiya Fujita). Set in dystopian near future Japan once more by a monarchy. Yuki (Yumiko Shaku), The Princess Blade of the title is the last surviving royal of the House of Takemikazuchi. Living in isolation from the world, they are led by Byakurai (Kyûsaku Shimada) and use their skills developed as Mikado guards to become the most deadly assassins for hire. They are hired by the government to stop a group of oppressed rebels who plan to overthrow them. When Yuki discovers that Byakurai killed her mother, and her own life is now in danger she flees and encounters Takashi (Hideaki Itô) part of a rebel movement. This gives her an interesting glimpse of the idea of a normal life and prospective on her former life as well as an opportunity for revenge.

The story is scraped back to the bare bones producing a trim 93 minute movie. The only problem with this is the lack of depth and investment in the characters. This is overcome bay the casting of a charismatic and alluring leading lady who brings both strength and vulnerability to the role. The revenge story is a mainstay of the genre as is the concepts that it explores such as the distraction she finds along the way as well as the pitfalls of revenge. But like the swordfights we see onscreen, revenge is only the surface of the movie the real story exists within the subtext. The crux of the story is about power; what people will do to gain power and how they abuse it when they get it. We see this in Yuki, Byakurai, the rebels and the government.

The fight choreography comes curtsy of Chinese actor/director/stunt director Donnie Yen. Yen’s contribution is a prime example of the Chinese influence of Japanese action cinema with more ostentatious and extravagant fights and swordfights coupled with traditional blood and violence Japanese samurai movies. It is this juxtaposition of old and new ideas that makes the film such an interesting watch. The same can be said of the look of the film with the swordfights of a samurai movie between people wearing modern clothing. Large parts of the movie take place away from modern technology then we see guns and cars. The look of the film subtly spectacular. Predating Casshern (2004) and the green screen revolution that it hailed the locations are real world and almost familiar looking. The movies colour pallet is limited and subdued with a dull blue/grey tinge at times, the brighter scenes have a under bleached look. All this helps emphasize the flashes of colour (often red blood) when we seen them. Along with movies like Ryûhei Kitamura’s Versus (2000) they almost make their own subgenre that western directors have never been able to recapture.

The film does lose its way from time to time particularly towards the end, but this can be forgiven for all the good we get along the way. The casting is superb throughout as are their performances particularly Yumiko Shaku whose expressive face say so much more than her words, possibly more than the script demanded. The action is good and will keep fans of the genre satisfied but that is kind of where it ends, the film offers nothing particularly new or original, or even exceptional that could attract a new audience to the genre.

Read Full Post »

Oblivion

The trailer for Oblivion makes it look like a routine Sci-Fi movie set on an sparsely populated earth in a post war dystopian future. This in itself is largely true, but the movie is far better than expected. Even allowing for this I didn’t intend to write about the movie but felt compelled to by the sniffy reviews and mixed word of mouth.

Approximately sixty years in the future Jack (Tom Cruise) and his wife Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are the last two humans on earth. The rest of humanity has relocated to Titan after the world was devastated in war with an alien race. The pair have been left behind to maintain the equipment used to harvesting the planet’s natural resources. After five years, they only have two weeks left, while Victoria is keen move to Titan, Jack can’t help feeling something is wrong.

The first thing that stands out about the movie is the way it looks. Just like director Joseph Kosinski’s other movie TRON: Legacy, Oblivion looks stunning. Unlike TRON: Legacy that is set in a computerised world, this movie utilises desolate real world sets in America and Iceland sublimated by CGI. The technology we see is very clean looking and very white and reminiscent of Ipods. The are also countless nods to other Sci-Fi movies, most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey. The plot however owes more to WALL·E, Silent Running, Moon and Saturn 3. Although Morgan Freeman is given second billing behind Tom Cruise, a lot of the film features just Cruise and Andrea Riseborough supported by Melissa Leo who appears only as a disembodied voice and an image on a video screen. They are later joined by Olga Kurylenko whose previous performances range from flat and misjudged in Quantum of Solace to mute but breathtaking and brilliant in Centurion. The whole cast is strong but the standout is Andrea Riseborough.

Co-written, by the director Joseph Kosinski based on his own (unpublished) graphic novel of the same name, the movie isn’t a remake, reboot or sequel (and it isn’t in 3D) and it is all the better for it. The plot is a little thin and has the odd hole, but the overall it works and more than satisfies the conventions of storytelling and the genre. There are no holes so big or points so ponderous to alienate the viewer and take them away from the narrative. The characters are easy to empathise with helping the viewer be immersed in the story. There are numerous twists and turns in the plot, some you will see coming, others you won’t but none that you be confused by. Its this combination complexity and simplicity that makes the movie work so effortlessly. The end is either perfectly executed or a contrived cop-out depending on your point of view.

How much you like the movie may depend on how much you like the genre but ultimately there is enough going on to keep all but the most jaded entertained. The bar has been set higher than expected for Will Smith and M. Night Shyamalan’s seemingly similarly themed After Earth due out in the summer.

Read Full Post »

Japan-O-Rama: Azumi (2003)

Have you ever read a long dull film review where the reviewer thought they were more important than the movie they are writing about. To make matters worse they drone on making so many “interesting” points you get bogged down and by the you get to the end you have no idea if the movie any good or not. So why not condense reviews to a simple concise paragraph? Over the past four years Paul at Paragraph Film Reviews has perfected the art. Now, Inspired by his pending trip to Japan, he has decided to immerse himself in Japanese culture, namely Japanese movies. He has asked other bloggers to join in here is my first attempt:

Set in seventieth century Feudal Japan and based on the Japanese manga series of the same name created by Yu Koyama, Azumi is the story of an orphaned girl who is raised along with nine other children by a master Samurai. After years of training they have to face one final test before going on their first mission. The test is nothing short of brutal. Their mission is to kill three warlords preventing a civil war that will be devastating for the country. The main reason the film works is the lead character Azumi (played by the impossibly cute Aya Ueto), as proved by Quentin Tarantino in Kill Bill and Ang Lee in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, you can’t go far wrong when you give a beautiful woman a sword and drop her into the middle of the male dominated action genre. Directed Ryûhei Kitamura who made his name in the totally bonkers (but brilliant) Versus, this possibly his most accessible movie.

You can see all the Japan-O-Rama posts HERE.

Read Full Post »

“A break from reality” – Spring Breakers

Desperate for “a break from reality” four young college students (Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson, Rachel Korine) hold up a diner to fund their spring break trip to Florida. Once there, they party with other like minded kids until they hook up with Alien (James Franco), a drug dealer, rapper and wanabee “Gang-stA”. From there, things descend from hedonism to nihilism.

There is technique used by DJ‘s (I know nothing about the subject other than hearing it, I don’t know if there is a name for the practice) where they play the hook of a song during another song. When done well it is both subtle and obvious at the same time. This gives the audience a idea of what is coming next or later, but a DJ may play with the audience playing just a snippet of a song that never comes. There is a similar practice in film editing where a part of a future scene is cut in. There is nothing unique or original about its use in Spring Breakers, however I can’t remember it ever being used so much or so well in a movie.

The film has achieved a certain notoriety due to the casting of former Disney starlets Hudgens and Gomez, when put into context of the actions of former Disney starlets real life in recent years, this is little more than a marketing gimmick. That said as I watched the movie I was never sure if I was watching something exploitative or something profoundly satirical.

Despite the attractive young bodies on display and the often stunning photography there is something unattractive and almost dirty about the movie. This is a reflection of the characters and their actions, despite their assurances that they are having fun, there is little evidence that they are actually happy or having any fun. Following their arrival in Florida I can’t think of any scenes where the girls have a conversation with anyone other than each other and Alien. Their existence is empty and banal, I did question a few times if it was real. The film exists in a sort of a dream-state that never feels quite real, we keep hearing the repeated phrase “a break from reality”, are we watching reality or the delusions and dreams of a group of board teenagers?

The plot is paper thin and overly simplistic, the dialogue is often incoherent but it gets away with it largely because these things appear to be intentional. Despite reports to the contrary, it is actually a well made film mating it an easy watch and as such it can be forgiven a lot. The pace works well with each act ending before it outstays its welcome. The film is at its best when James Franco is in it, although the female quartet are given top billing, it is Franco that makes it work. The directors wife, Rachel Korine is given the least to do, Selena Gomez is given what looks like it is going to be the most interesting character but it is ultimately underused and under developed. The characters played by Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Benson are largely interchangeable. Ultimately the characters are little more than caricatures, this again appears intentional and is possibly essential for the feel of the movie. And that is where the movie exists, it is a feeling, a dream like poem, a dream without narrative whose finer details fade as you wake, “a break from reality”.

Not as hollow and meaningless as some would have you believe but not as edgy or subversive as the filmmakers would like you to think. It may be one of those films where viewers will take out of it what they bring to it. Those who want to be shocked or outraged will find plenty to be shocked and outraged about; those who want to be titillated will certainly find what they are looking for; and those wanting a deeper meaning or subtext will find even if it isn’t there. Not a film that is easy to recommend but one where it is worth seeing to form your own opinion and see what all the fuss is about.

Read Full Post »

Groovers Video Vault 5: Point Break

For the first time in what seems like ages I have had time to sit down and watch a movie at home. I thought I would combine it with a long overdue entry into my “Groovers Video Vault” series. If you scroll down you will see my last article where I suggested Kathryn Bigelow should direct the next Bond movie, and furthermore she should make it a dumb action movie. One of the commenter’s suggested “Bigelow just doesn’t work well in that area. She’s tried it several times before and ultimately failed with most of it” he goes on to suggest that the closest she came was Point Break but suggested that it was “just decent, nothing great”. I’m glad to report that I stand by my original assessment that not only does Bigelow do dumb action, but she does the best dumb action. Point Break, is dumb but it the best made and most fun dumb ever, in other words, it is great.

On his first day in the LA field office, rookie FBI Agent and former star college quarterback Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) is partnered with veteran maverick agent Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey). The pair are hunting a gang of bank robbers known as the Ex-Presidents (they were masks of former Presidents Reagan, Carter, Nixon and Johnson during robberies) who have robbed thirty banks in three years without the authorities coming close to catching them. Following Pappas’ theory that the Ex-Presidents are surfers Utah goes undercover finding a way in through troubled surfer girl Tyler (Lori Petty).

 

There is a moment that comes to all surfers when they wipe-out and as they surface a big wave crashes down on them with such ferocity that they are pushed back under water. The power of the wave counters the bodies natural buoyancy and they don’t know witch way is up. I’m glad to report when this happened to me, I worked it out and came found my way to the surface before running out of air. This is the situation Utah finds himself in and it is this central relationship between his character and Bodie (Patrick Swayze) the leader of the Ex-Presidents that forms the heart of Point Break. This relationship is far more important than his interactions with Pappas and Tyler or even the relationships between the members of the Ex-Presidents. The overriding theme of the movie is Utah getting too deep and too close to Bodie to be blinded to his guilt, but look deeper and you will see from early on that it is Bodhi that sees something in Utah that he is attracted to something in his character. The only character who sees this is Tyler. 

As you would expect of a Kathryn Bigelow it has a Visual Style that sets it apart from other movies of the genre. This is helped by the locations used, forgoing recognisable LA imagery and sticking with coastal  towns making it that little bit different to the norm. Littered with quotable lines and fun references it actually has a far better script than it is ever given credit for. The casting is perfected Matthew Broderick, Johnny Depp, Val Kilmer and Charlie Sheen were all considered for Johnny Utah, but Keanu Reeves totally nails it, as Ben Harp (John C. McGinley) describes the character as “a real blue flame special – Young, dumb and full of come” as much as Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, it is the movie that galvanised Reeves’ image. As an action star famed for doing his own stunts Patrick Swayze was the perfect choice for Bodhi. He takes it a stage further giving depth to the character and having the crazed look in his eyes that few actors (Mel Gibson and Jack Nicholson?) can pull off. Gary Busey, himself the star of one of the greatest surf movies ever, manages to provide both gravitas and comic relief

But all this is secondary, it’s the action that the movie is all about. The surf photography is good as is the skydiving. The best scene, and one that has been imitated may times happens back on terra firma. The foot chase through back streets (and peoples houses) is perfectly executed and comes as a surprise when you are expecting a car chase. Equally well handled is the raid on the other gangs house and the bank robberies. It is also worth remembering that all the action is integral to the plot of the movie, this gives it a stable grounding that helps us invest in the action the same way we do in the characters.

As fun now as it was when I saw it two decades ago, action movies don’t come much better than this. For those that see Point Break as a guilty pleasure, come out and declare your love for it, you may just find you are not alone. Those who haven’t seen it, take a look, it is a true classic of the genre.

Read Full Post »

Skyfall

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Alfred,Lord Tennyson. quoted by M

(I have attempted to limit spoilers to things seen in trailer)

M16 have lost a computer hard drive containing the true identities of NATO agents undercover in terrorist organisations. James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Eve (Naomie Harris) are in pursuit until Bond is shot and presumed dead. Held responsible for losing the drive, M (Judi Dench) is under political pressure when things take a dramatic turn for the worse. Bond returns, a shadow of his former self and sets about tracking down the person responsible, it soon becomes clear the answers lie close to home for M.

Die Another Day marked the 40th anniversary of the Bond movie series. Packed with nods to earlier movies some of which worked better than others but the film was terrible. I’m happy to report that isn’t the case here. For every nod to the past (The Goldfinger Aston Martin DB5) there is a reminder that this is a new modern Bond that exists closer to the real world than ever before (Q (Ben Whishaw) telling Bond they don’t go in for gadgets like exploding pens anymore). It is also a more serious film than we have come to expect, concerned with threats to national security not mad men bent on world domination. Another notable thing about Skyfall is how much of it is set in the UK. Although largely set oversees, Ian Fleming’s novels did spend a significant amount of time in England. The movies dispensed with this in favour of ever more exotic locations. Aside from the golf match at Royal St George’s in Goldfinger there is little of significance set in the UK. The travelogue of exotic settings helped cement Bonds image but in the ever shrinking world populated by increasingly well travelled people it takes more than that to impress viewers.

Bond movies live and die on the strength of their villains, the best villains are often the ones that are a reflection of Bond having a similar skill set but less honourable motivations. Christopher Lee’s Scaramanga rescued the otherwise poor The Man with the Golden Gun. Goldeneye took things up a notch by making the villain former 006 Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean). So how does Javier Bardem stack up? Anyone who has seen him as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men would know he was born to play a Bond villain. There are elements of his character and appearance that are typical archetypes of a Bond Villain, but there are also some new things thrown in. The most notable of the henchmen in Patrice (Ola Rapace) who doesn’t say much but shares some great action scenes with Bond.

To craft a beautiful looking film isn’t new for Bond, whatever you may think of Quantum of Solace, there is no denying that director Marc Forster and director of photography Roberto Schaefer’s film was stunning to look at. Skyfall improves on this, to make a desert landscape or an old DC-3 plane flying over it look good is one thing, but the drab underground interiors of Skyfall look as good as the bleak Scottish landscapes. It isn’t just the way the movie looks that sets it apart the, director Sam Mendes and writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan have achieved the near impossible, a modern day reinvention of Bond set in the present day but that feels live a Fleming story from the 60’s.

A staple of the Bond movies, is the so called Bond girls, they often fall on both sides of right and wrong and often straddle the fine line. Skyfall has just two such woman, Eve (Naomie Harris) a field agent working with Bond, who I expect to see again in future films. Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) who Bond comes across in the course of his investigation. But the greatest amount of screen time is given to Judi Dench’s M, the pair share a history and respect that along with comments on Bonds age suggests a lot has happened since Quantum of Solace. This is a Bond that would fit in well sometime after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service a damaged forty-something Bond that picks up after the last of the Ian Fleming novels. And that’s the interesting thing in three movies Craig has gone from newly promoted 00 to older more jaded version of the character than we expected. In short Craig has a greater character arc than all his predecessors put together. The cast is rounded of by a perfectly cast Albert Finney who lends a link to Bond’s rarely discussed past and Ralph Fiennes as Gareth Mallory, Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, again a character we will most likely see again.

Well paced with the right blend of action and intrigue, is it the best Bond film ever? I am actually not sure, it has gone so far from what we have come to expect of Bond that I hesitate to call it the best Bond film of all time, but it is certainly one of the best films to feature Bond. Best of all it suggests the new beginning and a new direction will continue in future films. Craig is signed on for another two films but who will direct them? The franchise has a history of bringing back successful directors to direct multiple movies, Sam Mendes is one director really should come back to continue what he has done with Skyfall.

Read Full Post »

Groovers Video Vault 4: Licence to Kill (1989)

As we anticipate the release of Skyfall in less than two weeks I thought I would take a look at some of my older James Bond Movies for my ongoing Groovers Video Vault series. I’m not sure why I started with Licence to Kill but I am glad I did.

On route to his wedding Felix Leiter (David Hedison) gets word that south American drug lord Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi) has left the safety of the (fictional central American state) Republic of Isthmus to retrieve his runaway girlfriend (Talisa Soto). Leiter along and his best man James Bond (Timothy Dalton) capture Sanchez before arriving fashionably late for the wedding. Sanchez promptly escapes and takes revenge on Leiter and his new bride. Refusing the order from M (Robert Brown) to fly to Istanbul on a mission, Bond escapes and recruits pilot and friend of Leiter, Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell) to seek help him seek revenge.

Having directed Roger Moore’s last three Bond movies that were frankly rubbish, John Glen was a brave choice to take Bond in a new direction with a new leading man.  But, he did a good job with The Living Daylights, so bringing him back for a fifth and final time made a lot of sense.  Continuing from Timothy Dalton’s first outing as Bond in The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill dispenses with the increasingly silly character portrayed by Roger Moore and returns Bond closer to the character from Ian Fleming’s novels. This however is no step back in time to the in time to Sean Connery’s Bond this is a modern (for the late 80’s when it was made) Bond who finds himself not saving the world from preposterous criminal organisation but in the middle of Reagan’s “War on Drugs”. This was the obvious but ultimately the right choice for a cold war character in a new post cold war era. This Bond isn’t a mischievous charmer with a glint in his eye, he is a cold hard cynical killer, still carrying the emotional scars of the past.

The opening sequence features a mid air stunt where Bond hooks a cable around a the tail of a light aircraft attached to a Coast Guard helicopter. Clearly an inspiration for Bond fan Christopher Nolan who copied the scene on a larger scale for his opening scene to The Dark Knight Rises. Sanchez makes a public offer to anyone listening to anyone who springs him from custody, something that was copies in the recent version of the movie S.W.A.T. (2003). The real credit to the film isn’t just the influence it had on other films, but the impression that they got it right. Reviews from the time were mixed but Dalton and his Bond is beginning to receive the respect he deserves. Delays from a legal dispute ultimately cost Dalton his place as Bond, when the franchise did return with GoldenEye in 1995 he was replaced by Pierce Brosnan. While Goldeneye was a solid film, it did return to an extravagant world domination plot. This continued in the downward spiral that led to the invisible car, ice palace and Madonna of Die Another Day (2002). Were the movies just a product of there time or was the Dalton direction the one they should have continued on? We will never know but Daniel Craig’s Bond of Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008) is closer to Dalton’s interoperation than any of his other predecessors suggesting to me that in the Dalton movies they got it right!

The first Bond film with an original title and not one taken from a Fleming story, it does have references to the books as well as the movies that went before it. David Hedison reprised his role of Felix Leiter having played the part in Roger Moore’s first Bond film Live and Let Die. The story of Leiter being fed to the sharks and the line “He disagreed with something that ate him” came from the Book of Live and Let Die but had not been used in the film. The character Milton Krest is lifted from the short story The Hildebrand Rarity as is his boat the Wavekrest, but a lot of his character attributes including physical abuse of his wife are transferred to the character Franz Sanchez. Although lacking the grandeur and extravagance of The Spy Who Loved Me or Thunderball the underwater scenes have become a classic and iconic part of Bond movies and are used sparingly but handled well here. Q (Desmond Llewelyn) pops up with his usual array of useful gadgets but not very far fetched by Bond standards. This really is a grounded Bond movie in comparison to what followed.

As has become the tradition since Golfinger there are two Bong Girls. The movie benefits from them being very different both in personality and look. Although more common now, Ex-Army pilot and CIA informant Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell) was the first Bond girl since Major Anya Amasova aka Agent XXX (Barbara Bach) in The Spy Who Loved Me who could hold her own alongside Bond. The modernisation of the Bond girl is sometimes an awkward one, with her short hair she is often portrayed as a tomboy and as useful as she is to Bond she nags and begs him to let her come along rather than him seeing that he needs her. Lupe Lamora (Talisa Soto) is more conventional, the villains woman who wants to get away and falls for Bond in the process. She is the catalyst for the story and was clearly chosen for her looks and not her acting ability. That leads onto the main villain/antagonist; Latin America drug lord Franz Sanchez played with cold perfection by Robert Davi. A perfect opponent for this more modern Bond, a ruthless businessman who is ultimately defeated by his by his own character flaws. His main henchman is played with relish by a young (22) Benicio Del Toro.

As mentioned on its release the movie received mixed reviews, Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun-Times being one of the few major critics to give a positive review. I think what Ebert saw and others missed was that Licence to Kill is a solid movie as they were so fixated on how it compared to what went before it. As Pierce Brosnan took us back to the bad old days of Roger Moore Dalton’s Bond looked increasingly out of place but now as a companion pierce to the Daniel Craig movies it may just find its place in Bond history.

Read Full Post »

Killing Them Softly

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was one of my favourite films of 2007 so when I heard that director and star Andrew Dominik and Brad Pitt were re-teaming I was in. The original crime novel Cogan’s Trade by George V. Higgins was first published in 1974, the film has been updated to the modern day and is set against a backdrop of the financial crisis and the transition from Bush to Obama. 

A low level mobster (Vincent Curatola) hires Frankie and Russell, a pair of small time crooks (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) to hold up a mob run card game. As planned initial suspicion falls on Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta) who is know to have previously staged a hold up. In an effort to restore order, mob enforcer/hit man Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is sent in to clear things up.

On first viewing the dialogue may sound like Tarantino without his vigour or humour (there is comedy but it is very dark). The music, especially during the slow-motion killings could be seen as a rip-off of Scorsese’s Goodfellas. The television reports of the 2008 election and financial crisis seem heavy-handed. But there is far more to it. With all the glamour and romanticism stripped from the genre we are left with a downbeat tale that is a perfect metaphor for the time. At the centre of the story is Brad Pitt’s Jackie Cogan, a hitman who despite being good at what he does has a problem. He is hates it when his victims beg for mercy and is especially squeamish about killing people he has previously met. This is where fellow hitman Mickey (James Gandolfini) comes in, his problems provides both prospective and comic relief. Richard Jenkins plays a mob equivalent of middle management, a sort of buffer between Pitt and unseen bosses. They talk about their inability to make a decision and how in finding a solution what is seen to be done is more important than what is actually done,. Cogan’s goal isn’t revenge, it is getting the poker games back in operation, it is returning to the status quo. This is when I suddenly realise the whole movie is a metaphor and as such couldn’t help watching it differently. The other stark thing about this movie is the lack of woman. The most notable female character is a prostitute who appears in one scene, but this is a man’s world, a world of low rent, low life crooks.

With a runtime of just 97 minutes the movie is short by modern standards, but is perfect for the genre movie it is on the surface. If reports that the first cut was double the length are true it shows the maturity of Andrew Dominik as a filmmaker. With his previous movie clocking in at 160 minutes, it would have been easy to do the same again, that would have been a mistake.

An effective and affecting crime movie, the social and political commentary have earned the movie its greatest praise and largest criticism. An interesting movie on one level and an enjoyable one on another, it isn’t for everyone and those who don‘t like it will really hate it. Give it a chance, I can’t guarantee you will like it but its worth the risk and even if you don’t like it Brad Pitt’s great performance is fantastic.

Read Full Post »

Judging Dredd

Dredd 3D V Judge Dredd “I’ll Be the Judge of that”

Judge Dredd first appeared in the British science fiction comic book 2000 AD in 1977. In 1995 he made his first screen appearance in the movie Judge Dredd starring Sylvester Stallone. This was the first mistake, in casting a megastar Dredd spent most of the movie without his helmet, Dredd’s face has never been seen in the comic book. They could have got away with this given a great script, unfortunately they didn’t have one. The story wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t very Dredd and it played things too funny and camp. Again they may have gotten away with this, but Rob Schneider as a sidekick was the movies final proverbial nail. Diane Lane, Armand Assante and Max von Sydow provide good support but this is a drop in the ocean in comparison to all the films problems. So how does this new version compare? Surprisingly well.

Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is assigned to train and evaluate Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a rookie judge who may not be cut out for the job but is being given a chance because of her unprecedented psychic abilities. The pair attend a triple homicide at “Peach Trees” a 200-story slum tower block (essentially a small town/city within a single tower block) controlled by ruthless drug lord Ma-Ma (Lena Headey). When they become trapped in the building the judges suddenly have more to contend with than just the assessment as they have to fight for survival.

The beauty and dare I say it the brilliance of the movie is its simplicity. Sylvester Stallone’s Judge Dredd went through an epic story with a large but ultimately uncharacteristic character arc. The development of the character as portrayed by Karl Urban is tiny and only exists as a reaction to Anderson whose character is constantly developing and evolving throughout the movie. Judge Dredd had a budget of around $90million (around $135million adjusted for inflation) the new movie was made for a more modest $45 million. With financial constraints come artistic solutions. Dredd does this by confining the plot to a single tower block, think more The Raid (2011) than Die Hard (1988), and like these two movies it is set over a single day (and night). As a day in the life tale, the events are more significant to Anderson than to Dredd who is portrayed as an established character. The casting is good, with Karl Urban (or at least his chin) making a convincing Dredd. Olivia Thirlby and Lena Headey are also good. The rest of the cast is as disposable and insignificant as you would expect in a movie like this. Written by Alex Garland who is a self-confessed fan of the comic book and has ideas in place for a trilogy based on existing 2000 AD Dredd stories. As well as a striking look the production and costume design make for a more believable movie universe that the first film. Only enough information about the city and the judges is explained for the plot to make sense leaving the viewer wanting to know more.

It has its problems, the 3D is jus as pointless as you would expect it to be. The film is really well shot with artistic style and flair, but the 3D hampers rather than improves this. Looking down the 200-story tower block does not give the same sense of acrophobia that we got from the Burj Khalifa scenes in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. The “Slo-Mo” drug and the effect it causes are overused within the plot without the appeal of it as a recreational narcotic been explored. The action scenes are well choreographed and films but lack originality or finesse.

So back to the original question, how does it compare to the 1995 version? It is better in every way. Knowing just how seriously to take itself and focussing on being fun not funny it isn’t a classic but it is an enjoyable movie full of good ideas and with an unexpected visual flair. I don’t expect everyone to like it, I actually know a lot of people who will hate it. I would recommended it to any fan of action movies or comic book movies but they may be better served waiting for the DVD where they don’t have to suffer the 3D. You’re probably thinking “I knew you’d say that!”

Read Full Post »