What I'm watching

#507/#58 The Maltese Falcon

A noir thriller which sees detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) drawn into the hunt for a lost expensive statue, the Maltese Falcon, when his partner is killed on a job for a mysterious dame (Mary Astor).

One of the earliest and quintessential film noirs, the Maltese Falcon is not short on style. The blocking and cinematography of all of the scenes are wonderfully done and really help to get across the unease of the events transpiring. Simple things like having Peter Lorre’s character Joel Cairo fondling the top of his walking cane while talking to Spade are nice subtle ways of implying intimation and creating unrest in the audience. 

On top of this the story is so full of twists and turns that it’s easier just assuming everyone is lying at all times rather than trying to gleam any sort of truth from them. This adds to the mystery and the atmosphere of the whole thing but it does mean the viewer can’t really follow along with, or try to solve the mystery until Spade spells everything out at the end. This is an older mystery thing and can be a little annoying for those more used to trying to solve the case with the detectives (i.e. most crime dramas now) but it’s just one of those small annoyances you either accept or you don’t.

This was also the role which propelled Bogart into the limelight and it’s clear to see why. His morally ambiguous portrayal of Spade made for a sort of early anti-hero. He didn’t give a damn about anyone of the people in this and it was clear the entire time he was equally manipulating them as they were him. He’s fun to watch and a character with some depth to him. The only thing off about it was the fact that he and Mary Astor had no chemistry; making certain events at the end seem out of place. Astor in general wasn’t particularly good.

The story’s a little standard now but as a genre and career spawner, Maltese Falcon deserves its iconic status. It’s doubtful I’d return to the film but it’s definitely up there with some of the top tier film noirs I’ve personally seen. 4/5

#506/#57 The Five-Year Engagement

Couple Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) become engaged right as Violet is accepted to a post-doctorate position at the University of Michigan. This means they need to uproot their lives in LA right when Tom was about to become head chef in a top restaurant. Deciding to delay the wedding until they are settled in Michigan the pair leave, not knowing events will keep transpiring to put off their wedding.

Overly long, or at least the illusion of length, is the main thing which springs to mind when thinking about the Five Year Engagement. The movie starts off fine but by about halfway through the Michigan section it just begins to drag and it never really picks back up again. It’s got a couple of funny bits sprinkled throughout, but never enough to merit the long drawn out sections making up the majority of the film’s second half. The tone is also all over the map. Sometimes it’s a light hearted romp, others it gets a bit surreal before taking a left turn and becoming a serious drama suddenly. A dramady is one thing, but this movie just doesn’t stay consistent from one scene to the next

The film’s not all bad though. Segel and Blunt have a really believable chemistry, which keeps their romantic scenes pleasant and the beginning and conclusion of the movie quite nice. The supporting cast are also fairly effective and where most of the comedy stems from. Alison Brie and Chris Pratt, as the couple’s sister/best friend work well, while Rhys Ifans and Mindy Kaling, as Violet’s boss and co-worker, also get another couple of funny lines in.

I think this is going to be one of those movies women like more than men do, which is sad because it looked like it could have been one of those rare romantic comedy which speaks to both genders. Sadly, it’s not funny enough to be a good comedy but if you get invested in the characters and the story it might be considered an okay romantic movie. Didn’t do a whole lot for me personally, but nothing to make me hate it either. 2.5/5

#505/#56 Star Trek: Into Darkness

When a rouge Starfleet operative (Benedict Cumberbatch) takes out the top brass and escapes; Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the crew of the Enterprise must track him into Klingon territory. All might not be as it seems however, and soon they find themselves in a fight for their lives.

Having generally liked the 2009 Star Trek film, but also having no particularly strong emotions for it or the original series, I was interested to see how the follow up did without really putting any expectations on it. I think Into Darkness did a remarkably good job at maintaining the tone it set with the reboot while also upping the ante the way a good sequel should. 

You’ve got to give it to the visual effects, set design and the sound people for this film firstly, because sections of this movie are just beautiful and really put me at ease for what JJ Abrams is going to be injecting into the Star Wars universe soon. The space battles look epic, the ship interiors look futuristic while still functional and the score was grandiose when needed and complementary when an emotional scene required it. Great stuff all around.

From the cast I thought Pine and Cumberbatch were the clear stand outs in this instalment with Quninto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty all getting an increased role this time around as well. Even John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov got at least one moment within which to shine. Alice Eve as Carol Marcus was the only one who really felt more like a plot point than a character.

Pine, who I’ve generally thought was kinda so-so in everything I’ve seen him in, was wonderful as Kirk this time around. He really brought an emotional element to the role, especially when dealing with Bruce Greenwood’s Pine character and with Spock, which you didn’t get in the 2009 movie. Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I’ve always thought Cumberbatch was good actor but getting to see him as a villain this time around was a real treat. Some of the lines he gets to give and some of the actions he takes are wonderful to watch. Nero, from the original, was so forgettable that it was great to see Cumberbatch come in and just own this movie.

I’d definitely say this was a worthy follow up, and probably even surpasses, the 2009 reboot. Other than a bit of a lackluster final conclusion, some homage fatigue and a few logic failings here and there this movie is top notch. Can’t wait for Star Wars Episode 7 and Star Trek 3 now. 4.5/5

#504/#55 Escape From LA

16 years on from the events of Escape from New York, Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is once again captured and offered leniency for his crimes if he retrieves a stolen device and the president’s daughter from the ruins of Los Angeles.

Very much a retread of the original film, Escape from LA is enjoyable as a goofy action flick but it’s not as good at capturing the gritty 80’s feel of the first movie. This is mainly because it came out in the mid-nineties but it feels like it was still trying to go for the tone of the original film and didn’t quite make it. I also think it’s partially that L.A. is not as interesting to see people fight through as New York was, and that the supporting players were just weaker than in the former film.

Russell is still enjoyable in this, and watching him be Snake again is always fun, but it’s the supporting cast which isn’t as engaging this time around. Steve Buscemi as the weasley conman was okay but his character seemed fairly ancillary and could have been cut from the movie and it wouldn’t have mattered. George Corraface as Snake’s main antagonist was also rather weak. He didn’t seem like a credible threat at any point and really didn’t invoke much interest one way or the other in me.

Elements which did work however, were the slow poisoning of Snake as a motivational tool and the ending. The poisoning was enough like the bombs from the first movie that it felt familiar while also adding a new flavour to things as we get to see Snake getting weaker over time and having to compensate for that as well. The ending was, again, like the original but it had enough of a twist on it to make it work. It also felt very much like what Snake would do in that situation and it’s always nice to see characterisation continuing to pay off.

Nowhere near as good as its predecessor, but enjoyable in the same vein as say Demolition Man or Stallone’s Judd Dredd. Could have been better but still a fun watch. 3/5

#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