What I'm watching

#457/#8 Cloud Atlas

A look at the lives of various people all throughout human existence, both past and future, and their interactions with one another through reincarnation and shared experiences.

I’m a little confused by this film. Not so much by the plot; because when you understand it’s a series of short stories, all of which have parallel themes and actors which tangentially interact with each other, it’s not really that far removed from how Love Actually worked, but I’m confused by the visceral love it or hate it reaction people have had to the film.

I thought it was enjoyable enough for what it is but I haven’t given it a second thought since finishing it. I’m at a loss as to what all the fuss is about. I liked all of the sections well enough (the 1930’s Scotland one with Ben Wishaw and the Neo Seoul one with Doona Bae being my favourites while the one where Halle Berry was a reporter and the far future one with tribesman Tom Hanks I enjoyed the least). Each of the stories have their moments, it’s well acted but nothing really that noteworthy, the effects are well done and the editing is excellent but that’s about it. Unless I’ve missed some fundamental element to the movie, I simply don’t get the ire/adulation.

Both the use of the same actors in different roles/time lines and the makeup effects were interesting choices to show how each section was unique while still the same but, again, other than adding some interesting flavour to the mix I don’t see why it’s such a talking point. Nothing seemed particularly racist given pretty much every race was playing another race at some point in the film and the novelty of trying to find the same 9 or 10 actors (which also isn’t as hard as people were making it out to be) in the different sections neither added or subtracted anything from the movie’s overall feel.

Yup, confusion is definitely the word for Cloud Atlas and people’s reactions to it. For me it was an okay movie which I enjoyed at the time but I get the feeling I will forget pretty quickly. This clearly seems to be one of those films you need to see for yourself however, in order to gauge your own reaction. 3/5

#444/#163 Apollo 13

(Rewatch)

Something goes terribly wrong during the Apollo 13 spacecraft mission and NASA is left trying to figure out how to get the three astronauts home on the crippled spacecraft.

This movie is remarkably gripping, taking its time to set up all of the characters well before it even gets near the mission. We become invested in these men through their interactions with their families and friends so that when the sword of Damocles finally does come crashing down it’s a big deal. From there on out you’re on the edge of your seat as one thing after another just keeps cropping up. There is minimal to no action but the tension remains high throughout, purely on the strength of the drama unfolding. It didn’t matter that I had seen the film before, or already knew the outcome of the real-life events, I was still enraptured from start to finish.

Everyone involved in this movie brings their A game. Tom Hanks is great in the lead role as always, while Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton and Gary Sinise all back him up brilliantly. Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan also provide great performances bringing in the chaos of the control room and the despondency of the families waiting to see if their husbands/fathers/lovers are going to come home alright.

Apollo 13 is one of those powerful pieces of cinema which you don’t watch all that often but when you do you’re reminded every single time why you remember it so fondly. It’s film making at its finest. 5/5

#421/#138 Cast Away

(Rewatch)

When FexEd employee Chuck Noland’s (Tom Hanks) plane goes down somewhere in the South Pacific, Chuck must attempt to survive on an uninhabited island with the few items washed up on shore.

This is another one of those films which just highlights how good of an actor Tom Hanks is. He is on screen by himself for the majority of this film, talking to a volleyball, and it is still engaging to watch. So engaging that (SPOILER) when that volleyball “dies” you care. He gets you empathising with a rubber ball for God’s sake! (END OF SPOILER) Multitudes of other actors could not have pulled that off competently or managed to keep the audience’s attention for the entire run time but he does.

The locations and the cinematography of this movie are also to be applauded. It’s just a beautifully shot film emphasising both the grandeur and the loneliness of the island Chuck finds himself trapped on.

Not a film which requires a multitude of rewatches but a solidly engaging film all the same. 4/5

#418/#135 The Terminal

(Rewatch)

When his country diplomatically ceases to exist while he is in the air, Krakozihan Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) becomes confined to the JFK international airport until the matter can be resolved. Unable to leave the airport for New York or fly home, Viktor must learn English, how to make money in order to eat, and maybe even woo a lady (Catherine Zeta Jones).

You wouldn’t think the premise would lend itself to a whole movie but this film is surprisingly enjoyable the whole way through. Hanks isn’t exactly breaking new ground with his likeable nice guy role but why mess with a classic when he does it so well? It’s really easy to empathise with Viktor and it’s interesting to watch how he attempts to deal with living in the airport. Stanley Tucci also provides a good turn, as the bureaucratic airport manager trying to foil Viktor and a strong secondary character roster fills out the rest of the movie. Jones is the only one really out of place. She’s fine in her role but the love interest side-plot seems superfluous and tacked on.

It’s cliche in a couple of places, and its ending is a little twee, but overall the terminal is an enjoyable watch. I don’t see it making much of an impact on anyone’s life but it’s a feel good film I can’t see many people taking umbrage with. 4/5

#416/#133 The Green Mile

(Rewatch)

Relaying a pivotal story from his life, Paul (Tom Hanks) recounts his time as the head correctional officer of death row during the great depression and his interactions with the mystical giant inmate, John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan).

This movie had been on my list of films to rewatch for a while now but I suspect, like a lot of folks, it jumped to the top of the queue after the death of Michael Clarke Duncan. It was easily his breakthrough performance and I would also say his best. I always liked him as an actor and it’s a shame he had to die so early in life.

The Green Mile fills the same head space as The Shawshank Redemption for me. I don’t know if it’s because they’re both based on Stephen King stories, have the same director or that they’re both period pieces, but they seem to have a similarly stylised feel and tone to them which just engages the audience. You also can’t fault a single actor in either of them. You like who you’re supposed to like, you hate who you’re supposed to hate: Everyone fills their roles perfectly.

The Green Mile’s also a long film but it never feels overly long while watching it. The story and characters are absorbing enough that when the end comes you feel a sense of closure from taking the journey with them and arriving at the conclusion. It’s one of those truly engrossing films. 5/5

#403/#120 Angels and Demons

(Rewatch)

When the Vatican is threatened during their conclave and four of their Cardinals kidnapped, supposedly by their ancient and mysterious enemy the Illuminati, they call in symbologist Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in hopes of unraveling the clues left behind before each of the Cardinals can be killed at a designated times.

I’m in much the same mind about this film as I am the film version of the Da Vinci Code. It’s not as good as the book was but I don’t understand the critical panning. It’s not like they veered wildly away from the storyline already presented. It’s another enjoyable historical-adventure yarn.

Hanks is, once again, good in his returning role making Langdon a little more assertive this time but equally still just as much an out of place professor. Ewan McGregor also works rather well as the idealistic Camerlengo working both with and against Landgon at times, while Ayelet Zurer and Stellan Skarsgard fill their roles well but don’t really bring anything major to the table.

I feel this film has a better overall pace that the Da Vinci code does, while also retaining the former films great cinematography and musical score. Its characters and villains however, are a little more plain and not as interesting to watch. Both films are largely similar but better at different aspects of the whole picture.

In the end, it’s still a fun watch but nothing that’s going to make you stand up and take notice. It’s fluff in the same way the books are, and sometimes that’s just fine. 3.5/5

#395/#112 The Da Vinci Code

(Rewatch)

When the curator of the Louvre is killed within his museum, it sets in motion a chain of events which sees symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) on the hunt for the holy grail while pursued by the French police, the Catholic church and a mysterious albino monk (Paul Bettany).

I quite enjoy this film. It got a lot of bad press at the time of its release, and it’s obviously not as gripping as the book, but I think it works fairly well as a historic mystery/adventure yarn. The plot is a fairly novel take on an old story and it’s an interesting look into the ‘what if…?’s of Christianity. It’s all utter bollocks (despite what the books foreword may say), but one of the many wonders of film is that it doesn’t have to be about the factual and the humdrum. It can be about utter bollocks and still be an entertaining watch.

Hanks is a fairly good Langdon, but then when isn’t he good in a role? He’s not who I would have envisioned in the part but he does well to show an interested scholar pushed into these proceeding by circumstance rather than by design. Indiana Jones is awesome but there is no way you believe that guy sits at home marking essays or publishing papers; with Langdon you can. He’s feels like a real academic and Hanks is perfect for the nice guy, bookish type who can step up when needed. From the rest of the cast, Ian McKellen is great in his role as Teabing. He drops off a little towards the end but all the scenes in his house are really well done. Bettany as the monk Silas is also a really solid pick. Finally, Tautou as Sophie also works well. Nothing all that major for her to do but a good female lead and sounding board for Langdon all the same.

It’s also a rather nicely shot film. There are only really a few sporadic action scenes throughout the film so it has to make up for it was some really pretty cinematography. Similarly, the effect for the flashbacks and back story of the grail are weaved in very nicely. The only thing I can find fault with was that all of the puzzles and clues seemed rushed. The National Treasure and Indiana Jones films were good at pushing forward with the plot while still making it seem like our heroes had to take some time to work things out. In the Da Vinci Code it’s as if they have a cheat sheet they’re reading from. All the answers come just a bit too easily.

It’s not high art nor a real brain teaser, and I may have a bit of a soft spot for the history-based adventurer genre, but it’s still an entertaining popcorn mystery adventure with a solid cast that’s easy to sit down to. Don’t take it too seriously and you’ll have a good time. 3.5/5

#350/#67 Dragnet

An 80’s semi-spoof of the original 50’s tv show sees veteran police Sgt Joe Friday (Dan Akyroyd) and his new free-wheeling partner Pep Streebek (Tom Hanks) trying to track down a group known only as P.A.G.A.N. as they commit a number of crimes around L.A.

This is one goofy film and it’s so very 80’s that it becomes funny again just by how ludicrous the whole thing is. Hanks is hamming it up big time at that point in his career when all he was doing were comedy films. It’s still an entertaining watch but that doesn’t stop it from still being really cheesy. Akyroyd is good in his role getting a fast-talking, conservative, no nonsense 50’s guy down pat and Harry Morgan works quite well as the always put upon Captain of the pair.

Not much more to it than that. The story’s daft and the whole thing feels like a bunch of different episodes of the show were smushed together but it meets what you’re expecting coming into the film so you can’t ask for a great deal more than that. 2.5/5

#148 Catch Me If You Can

(Rewatch)

Set in the 1960’s, we follow the 10 year span of 16 year old con-artist Frank Abagnale Jr (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he pretends to be an airline pilot, a doctor and a lawyer all across America while FBI agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks) is hot on his trail.

I love this film. There are films which you just know as you’re watching them that you are going to go back to and watch over and over again throughout the years. I knew that about this film the first time I saw it and it just gets better with each viewing.

It’s a period piece with cool suits, good comedy, attractive women and a great plot based on a true life story. It’s directed by Steven Spielberg and stars DiCaprio, Hanks, Christopher Walken, Martin Sheen, Amy Adams and, if that wasn’t good enough, it references James Bond/Goldfinger. Perfect film is perfect.

The music as well is just great. I find I space out a little whenever the title section of a movie is playing if it’s not directly connected to the plot but there is no way that could happen with the art style and music score which accompanies this film.

I love it. It’s just a great film and everyone should see it. 5/5

Also look out for Elizabeth Banks and Ellen Pompeo in early roles as two of the women DiCaprio seduces.