What I'm watching

#503/#54 Escape From New York

Decorated soldier turned criminal Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is given a chance at a pardon in exchange for rescuing the US President (Donald Pleasence) from within the now walled off island prison of Manhattan.

Watching Lockout recently made me think I should really get around to finally watching this cult classic. I was a touch wary however because I didn’t like Big Trouble in Little China at all and was unsure if another Kurt Russell/John Carpenter pairing would be my cup of tea. I shouldn’t have worried though because this movie is wonderfully 80’s and a ton of fun.

Plissken is the quintessential renegade badass and I don’t think it’s possible to not enjoy watching what he gets up to. He fits with his environment so well that the first moment you see him on screen you instantly know this is going to be somebody interesting to watch for the next 100 minutes. Russell plays him wonderfully as well, in a very low key manner. Others might have been inclined to go over the top, but Russell’s laid back attitude to the whole affair just screams ‘fuck you’ to every authority figure in this flick.

Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasence and Isaac Hayes all do well in these various authoritative roles as well. Van Cleef is probably the best of the group; working as the kind of ying to Snakes yang. He’s the road Snake could have gone down had he continued the way he had. They don’t like each other but there’s still a level of respect there despite their animosity. Pleasence makes a good cowardly president and Hayes, while not the deepest character, lends some presence to his role making him seem like a worthwhile adversary to Snake.

Other than this the rest of the movie is 80’s action at its finest and is what you would expect from a good ticking clock movie. The sets are also really good and the soundtrack is great. The opening credit music has got to be up there with the Terminator and Halloween for instantly resonating with the movie and locking itself forever within the recesses of your brain.

I’m definitely going to be rewatching this one again. Well worth checking out. 4.5/5

#502/#53 J. Edgar

A biopic covering the life of J Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), the creation of the FBI and Hoover’s fanatical drive to hunt down communists and criminals.

This one’s a little difficult to rate because it has a number of elements working for it but almost as many working against it. On the one hand it’s got a good cast all giving strong performances (with Armie Hammer, Noami Watts and DiCaprio himself doing particularly well), an interesting look at the man behind the FBI (which seems to be fairly unbiased in its portrayal) and some really good costumes/sets/locations/props making it feel like you’re back in whichever decade the story was in at that present moment.

On the other hand, instead of focusing on the pertinent points of Hoover’s life you kinda get all of it and are expected to gleam from it what you will. You would expect the film to narrow in on the historically salient aspects when they arise but those get about as much discussion as the seemingly inconsequential. The result, for me personally at least, was that the movie lacked purpose other than this guy lived in this time period and did a whole bunch of things. I suppose this is true of most biopics, but for whatever reason it just felt meandering in this one.

The rapid transitions between the past and the present were also rather jarring. Some (like the elevator sequence) work well but a lot of them didn’t give the audience any sort of cue we were now switching and it took a couple of seconds to acclimate. Not a huge thing but it happened often enough to become annoying. Additionally, the make-up was pretty terrible as well. That’s not something I really pay attention to normally but it was bad enough that it looked like Hammer was melting whilst in his old man get up. DiCaprio didn’t fair much better but at least his wasn’t distracting from the story.

The strong performances keep it at least interesting for the most part but the rambling and unfocused nature of the story made the runtime feel about a 1/2 hour longer than it is. Unless you’re a fan of the actors or really interested in Hoover’s entire life I’d skip this one. 2/5

#501/#52 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

In 1868, a mysterious sea monster has been apparently sinking ships all across the Pacific Ocean. Attempting to study the creature, French Professor Pierre Aronnax (Paul Lukas) and his assistant Conseil (Peter Lorre) join an American naval vessel charged with looking into the matter.  When the creature attacks however, they are amazed to find it is actually a technologically advanced submarine helmed by the strong-willed Captain Nemo (James Mason). Along with the naval ships only remaining crewman, Ned Land (Kirk Douglas), the pair are invited aboard to marvel at life beneath the waves but it quickly becomes apparent they are more prisoner than guest.

Having never read the book I can’t comment on how well they keep to the story, but Disney’s live action version is a fairly enjoyable watch. It’s quite slow in a number of places, which does really drag down the whole feel of the film, but the locations and set pieces are grandiose and impressive. The look of Nemo’s ship, the Nautilus, and the battle with the giant squid during a thunderstorm are truly iconic and particularly well done. The underwater elements, while really dragged out, must also have been notable to a 1950’s audience.

From the cast, Lukas was probably the least interesting, having to work as the audience surrogate, but he does well enough as the go between for Nemo and his fellow captives. Lorre gives a good comedic performance as the loyal but put upon assistant and works particularly well when interacting with Douglas’ character Ned. Douglas himself however, is what keeps the longer boring sections from becoming unbearable. He just brings a lust for life to the character and it’s hard not to smile along with him as he gets from one antic to the next.

Nemo is also enjoyable but in a totally different way. He has some depth to him, which is revealed as the story progresses and Mason portrays perfectly, but he’s at his best when he’s acting like a James Bond villain. He genuinely doesn’t give a damn about anyone on land and it really comes across when he’s interacting with Ned. They hate each other and it’s fun to see them spar. Mason allows you to see glimpses of the good man that was once beneath the veneer but now he has clearly gone off the deep end.

There are certainly a great deal of other live action Disney movies which are a lot lower than this early contribution to the genre but at the same time I don’t think I’d be rushing to rewatch it any time soon. Pleasant, with a good cast, but nothing special nowadays. 3/5

#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

#499/#50 Clear and Present Danger

When appointed the CIA’s acting Deputy Director, Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) has to deal with an apparent set of back channel dealings conducting an illegal covert war on the drug lords of Colombia.

This is where Ford works the best as Jack Ryan. This feels like it’s a couple of years on from the events of Red October, given the ages of his children, so a more matured and knowledgeable Ryan fits more appropriately into the narrative. It’s also more political thriller with action elements than the primarily straight action movie Patriot Games was.

The first three quarters of this movie really works. The political intrigue mixed in with the military guerilla tactic on the drug lord’s operations keeps the intrigue high while occasionally injecting some action into the mix. It also shows the shady side of politics and some of the hard lines and ramifications which come from keeping up a good appearance at any cost through dirty dealings.

It’s a pity it can’t quite maintain this momentum for the entire runtime, opting for an enjoyable, but ultimately kinda silly, action set piece and then a rather odd moral stand in the conclusion. It shattered the image the movie had been creating up until that point making it ring untrue and distance itself from the real feel of the rest of the film. It’ might be because I’m midway through House of Cards at the minute but Ryan’s boyscout black and white mentality to the political system just made him look naive. I didn’t root for him when he makes his big speech on right and wrong at the end, I just thought he was a bit of an idiot.

It’s still an enjoyable film for the most part, and it’s a definite step up from Patriot Games, but it does trip on those last few steps towards the finish line. 2.5/5

#498/#49 Patriot Games

While on holiday in the UK, CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) prevents an IRA attempt on a royal’s life, killing one of the attackers in the process. This paints a target on his back as the attacker’s brother Sean (Sean Bean) starts coming after Ryan and his family.

Patriot Games might be the weakest of the Jack Ryan films. It’s got a solid opening, with the IRA attack, and a climatic ending at Ryan’s house, but the entire middle section, and majority of this movie, is remarkably dull. It could be a case of the political climate at the time making the threat seem more credible but 20 years on it doesn’t hold up well. There is a distinct lack of tension.

Ford is a likeable and charismatic actor and this is what I think makes his version of Ryan work. He doesn’t fit the role all that well really (too old, never seeming out of his depth, not retaining the light comedy to his character from the previous film, etc) but he’s still enjoyable because he’s a competent actor and his personal likeability carries over. Ford is entertaining but his version of Jack Ryan is fairly indistinguishable from other roles of his such as in Air Force One, Firewall and even, to some extent, The Fugitive. It’s not bad, just a little lacking after Baldwin’s performance. He does however, have the best chemistry of all the Ryans with Ryan’s wife Cathy (Anne Archer). The two of them make for a solid paring.

Bean’s not really giving a memorable performance either. It’s one of his earlier roles, and as such he’s not given much in the way of dialogue. His determination to get the man who killed his brother creates a villain for the story but it also makes the character rather one dimensional as this is the only thing we ever learn about him. This comes more from the writing and story though, rather than from anything Bean did. Still it’s pretty bland.

Nothing about Patriot Games makes it stand out among the 100’s of other mid-90’s thriller movies and were it not tied to a famous fictional character I don’t think it would be remember today otherwise. It’s not a bad film but it’s entirely mediocre and not something I think I’ll be remembering a couple of weeks from now. 1.5/5

#497/#48 The Hunt for Red October

(Rewatch)

When a Russian submarine with a new type of silent propulsion drive goes missing in 1984, and the entire Russian fleet goes out looking for it, the American’s quickly presume one of the Russian’s submarine captains has gone mad and is heading for them. CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) believes however, that the captain, Ramius (Sean Connery), is actually attempting to defect with the stolen sub. Hoping for the best, but planning for the worst, the government gives Ryan three days to try and prove this theory, otherwise they will be forced to destroy Ramius and his ship.

Red October is easily the best of the Jack Ryan films. It’s got a complex and compelling plot about espionage shadow games, two interesting main characters, a great supporting cast and a couple of intense submarine action sequences. It’s pretty much everything you want from a Cold War thriller. It hits the right balance of dialogue and action/tension to keep you invested in the plot and wondering if this encounter will finally be the one which gets Ramius caught. 

Ramius has got to be one of Connery’s better roles. Even in his most dire movies Connery is still entertaining, but when he’s committed to a role he can really make it connect with the audience. As Ramius he actually doesn’t talk a great deal but you get all of the weight and emotions of his character through his body language and presence. This interacts with his XO Vasiley (Sam Neill) are particularly telling. He hasn’t made this decision lightly, but now that he has set his course there is no way he can be deviated from it.

I also think Baldwin is the best screen version of Ryan we’ve had to date. He feels every bit like the reluctant hero who only ever planned on working in the background but won’t refuse the call when needed. He just fits as an smart and capable, yet equally out of his depth, analyst. He also manages to be funny without taking away from the magnitude of the situation. Harrison Ford is a great actor but he was too old for the part, for one thing, and never felt like he was overwhelmed by what was happening to him. It’s a personal preference, but Baldwin just fit the bill better for me.

I’d honestly forgotten how good this movie was, and if nothing else comes from working through the Jack Ryan movies, I’m glad at least it got me to rewatch this thoroughly entertaining movie. 5/5

#496/#47 Iron Man 3

Still recovering from the events of the Avengers, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is attempting to deal with his panic attacks and a general sense of dread. As this is happening a new terrorist group, lead by the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), is attacking American civilians and instillations. Calling him out, Tony makes himself a target and is then thoroughly decimated. Left with no working tech, and only his wits to carry on with, this poses the question: what makes Tony the Iron Man? The suit or the man?

Continuing on from the Avengers was always going to be a tough act to follow but if any of the superhero franchises were going to do it, it was going to be Iron Man. Iron Man 3 has a couple of ropey moments here and there but for the most part it pulls it off well. Downey Jr is still fitting into the role like he was born to play it while the supporting cast of Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle actually get something to do for a change. Kingsley and Guy Pearce also provide worthwhile villains and it’s nice to see a baddy who’s not just someone in another Iron Man suit finally.

Some of the better aspects we get to explore in this film are that we get to see Tony Stark back to his most basic and having to cobble together makeshift weaponry on the fly, a la the cave sequence from the first movie. It’s interesting in this respect to see that Tony’s greatest asset is still his mind and that the suits augment him but they don’t have to define him.

It’s also probably the most humorous of the franchise despite being the darkest. I’m sure that has something to do with the new direction of Shane Black, of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang fame, coming on for this movie. For the most parts it works, but there are a couple times when there’s a bit of a whiplash between a dramatic and a comedic tone.

What might be an issue for some however, and what seems to be the most divisive aspect of the movie, is something which happens around the midpoint of the film. I won’t spoil it here but some people will accept it, and roll with this new development, while for others it will break the movie beyond repair. I went with it so it wasn’t an issue for me, but I can equally see why some people would be pissed. It’s really going to come down to your personal reaction.

I wouldn’t call Iron Man 3 a slam dunk, but I would say it’s one of the better third movie in a superhero franchise. Most of the time this is where everything goes to shit but IM 3 is a fairly strong movie in its own right and a solid capping point if they decided to stop here. It’s better than IM2 but it doesn’t outshine the original film for me and it doesn’t touch on the Avengers. If nothing else it will be interesting to see where they go with the characters from here. 4/5

#495/#46 The Sting

During the great depression, two con-artists boost a mob courier by accident an one ends up dead for his trouble. Hooker (Robert Redford), the remaining grifter, then reaches out to a mutual friend (Paul Newman) of his dead parter who specialises in elaborate big pay-off cons in order to get revenge on the mob boss (Robert Shaw) in the only way he can.

This has got to be the granddaddy of all con movies. You can see so many of its influences in modern heist movies and with good reason. This film is captivating from start to finish. The set design and costumes draw you into this 1930’s world but the characters, the comedy and the con all keep you invested. 

Redford and Newman proved in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid that they made a good team so pairing them back up in this film, along with the same director, could only mean good things. The two have such a natural chemistry together that it’s just fun watching them interact in the smallest ways. As well as them though, Shaw also gives a great performance as the ruthless mob boss and the pair’s mark. There’s a real menace to his role and you can’t wait to see how they finally take this guy for all he’s worth.

The con itself is largely straightforward, but there are a couple of twists in there to keep the audience on their toes as well. I imagine it is because it is so influential now, and has affected so many films, but the final twist was actually kind of obvious. It still works but having been exposed to so many of this type of film it’s not that hard to see coming. The movie still managed to go a couple places I wasn’t expecting though, so there is a little mystery still left in the tale even now.

If you’re a fan of the con movie, the Ocean’s 11 remake especially, then I would say check this out if you get the chance. Top notch older film. 4.5/5

#494/#45 John Q

(Rewatch)

When pushed to his limits trying to provide for his sick son, John Archibald (Denzel Washington) has to take matters into his own hands by securing several hostages at the hospital in order to get his son a new heart.

This is another film I watched for the first time when I was quite young but something about it just stuck with me. Washington is very powerful in this role. He’s one of those actors who tends to be good no matter what he’s in but he’s especially on his game for this movie. Kimberley Elise plays his wife, and mother of the dying son, and she also commits to this whole heartedly.

There’s nothing about the sequences in the hospital, between Washington and the hostages, or the lead up to the discovery of the heart problems which I would consider lets the picture down in any way, but if there is one poorer section of this film then it’s the way the hostage situation is dealt with by the police. Robert Duvall plays the hostage negotiator and Ray Liotta the chief of police and it’s really not interesting. They’re both very reactionary and they don’t create the tension and/or friendship from the back and forth between the hostage taker and the negotiator you would expect to see. Everything interesting takes place within the hospital making those on the outside feel largely superfluous.

This aside, the rest of the movie is well worth your time. Some say it’s a little heavy handed with its message about the American health care situation (and in some instances it can be) but for that situation for a father pushed to the edge trying to look after his boy I think it hits the right balance of emotions. I’d happily rewatch it again and you should check it out if you haven’t before now. 4/5