What I'm watching

#500/#51 The Sum of All Fears

Tensions are high between the Russians and the Americans when a new supposedly hardliner president comes to power in the USSR. When a lost Israeli nuclear bomb is also thrown into the mix by a third party trying to cause war between the factions, it is up to CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) to try and find who is responsible for what before somebody makes an irreversible decision.

Affleck is the weakest of all the actors to portray Jack Ryan. He’s not bad in the role, he just leaves the least impression after viewing. There wasn’t anything about him which makes him stand out from any generic action star in the way both Baldwin and Ford did. Maybe if he’d had another movie within which to grow the character he might have brought something to the part (like Ford managed) but as it is there is no great loss from this movie failing to revitalise the franchise.

Although this version of Ryan might be a bit of a dud, the story of Fears is probably the closest to recapturing the feel of Red October. Patriot Games was an action film and Clear and Present Danger was a political subterfuge but Fears is back to being a Cold War thriller. Like Danger though, it also does well in setting up a strong story only for it to not really deliver after the big “Oh Shit” moment. The action is still strong but it all gets a little silly after a point.

Ciaran Hinds and James Cromwell both do well as the Russian and American Presidents respectively. They both come across as likeable and strong people but they can also be clearly motivated by their emotions and events into making weighty decisions rashly. This made for a good sparing match when tensions are ramped up and really made it felt like it could go either way. Morgan Freeman was also good, filling much the same role as James Earl Jones in the previous movies, but didn’t really make that much of an impact on the story.

In the end I think the Sum of All Fears makes for a fairly enjoyable action flick but it’s not a particularity great Jack Ryan movie. I’m interested to see now if the second rebooting of the series later this year, with Chris Pine in the role, will be able to bring the franchise back or if it would be better just to let it die. 2/5

#485/#36 Red

Retired CIA spook Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is brought back in to the fold, when somebody sends a hit squad after him. Having to protect the woman (Mary-Louise Parker) he’s been forming a relationship with from harm, he calls back in all of his old contacts and together they set off to find out why they are all suddenly targets once again.

Red isn’t a particularly far reaching movie but it is very good at what it’s trying to be. It’s a tongue and cheek take on what it would be like if all the bad asses we saw in the 80’s action movies actually made it all the way to retirement and just how bored they would get. Where the expendables was all the old war horses still trying to be action stars, Red is what would happen afterwards. As a premise this is a really cool idea but the story as a whole lets it down a bit.

All of the characters were great. Willis is being his enjoyable Willis self while Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox and Helen Mirren all get to have a lot of fun with their specific parts. John Malkovich is a treat to watch being the conspiracy nut who tends to be correct and Parker rounds out the team well as the love interest and ‘normal’ person of the group. They all get some great comedic moments and there’s not a point where you become disinterested with the concept because of this high level of talent.

The execution let the film down a little though. There are a lot of convenient circumstances and a few things I don’t think actually stand up to scrutiny very well. I know it’s not wise to over think this type of film but there are enough little niggles working away in the back of my mind to keep it from feeling like a complete success.

It’s a fine film, and enjoyable to see all these actors having a fun time with the roles, but I just wish they had a slightly better plot within which to do it. I’ll definitely check out the upcoming second movie though. Perhaps the sequel will give them a better reason for banding together. 3/5

#417/#134 The Shawshank Redemption

(Rewatch)

Following the story of inmates Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) and Red (Morgan Freeman) during their time at Shawshank penitentiary.

What is there really left to say about this film? It’s number 1 on IMDB’s best movies list and consistently in the top 5 for nearly every other list I’ve come across. Clearly it’s doing something right!

Shawshank has some beautifully shot scenes. Big sweeping vistas of the prison and some great cinematography. Similarly the music is also top notch, adding to the established atmosphere of any scene. It also gave us one of the first examples of a Morgan Freeman voice over and we all know that’s just made of good things, but what I think makes it so high on all of the lists is the story and the characters.

As an audience, we relate to Andy’s false imprisonment. We would like to believe that we would take the same steps he does in order to try freeing ourselves. We also see both Red and Andy driven to their lowest points throughout the course of the movie, and then rejoice as they overcome them. It speaks to us on a fundamental human level, wanting to triumph over all obstacles and break any oppressive bonds.

It might not be my number one movie, or even necessarily in my top 10, but it is one of those movies which just makes you feel contented and satisfied by the time the credits roll. That’s more than enough for me. 5/5

#404/#121 Amistad

In 1839, after rising up and taking over the slave ship La Amistad, West African slaves are recaptured by American forces once they reach American shores. There they are put on trial for the murder of the Spanish crew and it quickly becomes a heated debate over whether the Africans were within their rights as people to defend themselves from those attempting to imprison them or if they, as slaves, were not.

I knew little to nothing about this film before watching but it turns out this is a really well acted and interesting story about a small scale incident with large reaching implications. It’s also a Steven Spielberg film so odds are it’s going to be pretty high quality stuff.

There are some really great performances from both Matthew McConaughey and Anthony Hopkins, the latter getting to make a really stirring speech to the Supreme Court, but the movie belongs to Djimon Hounsou as the main West African Cinque. Speaking very little English throughout the film, all of his performance comes from his body language and expressions. He has a presence in this that just overshadows everyone else in the movie. It is easily his best role.

The only actor I don’t think was pulling his weight was, surprisingly, Morgan Freeman. The inclusion of his character to the narrative was apparent for the film but any competent actor could have filled the role. There was nothing added by having it be Freeman. It’s in no way a bad performance, just a misuse of a great actor.

I watch a lot of films but it’s only the really good ones that I get engrossed in and this movie does just that. It’s not one I’ll probably go back to but I do feel better for having watched it. 4.5/5

#385/#102 Batman Begins

(Rewatch)

When billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) witnesses the death of his parents as a child, he begins a journey that sends him to the ends of the earth in search of training so that he can ultimately return to Gotham City and take up the mantle of the Batman.

This film came at just the right time to keep the Batman movie franchise going. The terrible memories of Batman and Robin were still fairly fresh in the minds of the movie going public so Warner Brothers decided to take a chance, giving this franchise to Christopher Nolan and allowing him to go in an unproven direction. This has paid out wonderfully for everyone involved. Nolan getting to do more kickass films (including getting Inception green-lit as one of the eventual benefits), the studio raking in the cash and the public getting a batman series worth watching.

Batman Begins gave us something we hadn’t really gotten before. It gave us a superhero movie rooted in the real world and it provided the first worthwhile film version of Batman’s origins. All previous attempts either only mentioned his parents deaths in passing or showed some brief flashbacks. This film shows us the origins, the training and the resolve Wayne had to obtain before becoming the dark knight, making it a strong movie and an even stronger first part of an eventual trilogy. 

One of the strongest elements of this movie was the casting with Bale handling the duel roles of Wayne and Batman fantastically, truly showing how one became the other over time. Silly Batman voice but you can see what he was trying to do with it. Additionally, Micheal Caine and Morgan Freeman both add an element of humour to these fairly dark films and Gary Oldman (while a little lacking this time around) does establish himself to be a larger part of the next. Liam Neeson also handles his role well, portraying a believable mentor figure and yet an equally calculated villain. The only weak link overall, I think was Katie Holmes as Rachel. There’s nothing wrong with her performance but her role could have been filled by any competent actress and nothing would be missed.

This is going long so I’ll just say the direction, the effects, the stunts, the action, the sets, the cinematography and the music are all equally as engaging as the actors in this picture and that they all come together to make a fantastic overall product. This film is only marred by the fact that its sequel shines so brightly that it pales in comparison. 4.5/5

#44 Invictus

A biopic film surrounding the events of the 1995 South African victory in the rugby World Cup and the lead up to it surrounding the abolishment of the apartheid and the appointment of Nelson Mandela as the president.

For whatever reason I’ve remained largely ignorant to the life of Nelson Mandela. I was aware of the name, that it was fairly synonymous with non-violent means of resistance, and that he had spent a large chunk of his life in jail but not a great deal about the reasons behind it and the culture that bred such responses. In this respect, I am sure I came into this film differently to the vast majority of those that viewed it.

Firstly it’s a Clint Eastwood directed film and as such that generally means its going to be good film. While it doesn’t wow in the same way Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby did, it is still a fairly solid film displaying the message it was intended to deliver.

Morgan Freeman provided a good portrayal of Mandela and mimics his voice rather well but due to the grandeur of both Mandela and Freeman as individuals it’s hard to see Freeman being Mandela in the same way he can adopt fictional characters. There is never really a point when he stops being Freeman and is only Mandela. It’s not a bad thing it’s just something you need to accept while viewing.

Matt Damon does a good enough South African accent to my ears but then I don’t think i’ve ever actually heard someone in real life use one. In terms of performance, he works well enough and actually looks like he could be a real rugby player. 

Good film but it seems like a little bit of a step down for Eastwood this time around. 3/5.

Edit: Ok, that’s kinda freaky. I was reading up on Mandela after I watched this/wrote this and discovered Mandela was released on the 11th of February 1990. I literally couldn’t decide which film I wanted to watch tonight to I put all the choices into a random choice generator and it chose Invictus O.O What are the freakin’ odds?