The Newton Boys (1998)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Newton Boys (1998) – R. Linklater

This was one of director Richard Linklater’s first big-budget Hollywood films and you can tell that he is having a ball experimenting with some cool shots and techniques.  The cast (including Linklater favourites Matthew McConaughey and Ethan Hawke) also seem to be enjoying themselves, verging on the hammy at times.  But but but…the film itself is only humdrum; the fun behind the scenes doesn’t really translate to fun on the screen.  McConaughey is a bank robber in the early 1920s who recruits his brothers (Hawke but also Skeet Ulrich and Vincent D'Onofrio) to join him and they become the most successful bank robbers in U. S. history (the film is based on a true story).  Linklater does a nice job with the period sets and costumes and the plot is fine, if conventional.  Julianna Margulies is the love interest (without much to do) and Dwight Yoakam and Chloe Webb are accomplices.  At the end, a couple of real Newton brothers are shown (one with Johnny Carson) over the end credits. Perhaps Linklater needed to show he could handle the budget in order to have permission to continue with his more interesting projects; that said, he still seems to alternate between mainstream flicks (School of Rock, Bad News Bears, Me and Orson Welles) and the weirder/experimental/conceptual stuff that is so much better (Slacker, Midnight Trilogy, A Scanner Darkly, Boyhood).  But he is definitely someone to follow.

  

The Fourth Protocol (1987)

☆ ☆ ½

The Fourth Protocol (1987) – J. Mackenzie

A good spy thriller can really hit the spot – but unfortunately, The Fourth Protocol, is really a by-the-numbers exercise in generic clichés that even Michael Caine can’t salvage.  Not that a straight genre film can’t be fully enjoyable – they can be totally and explicitly formulaic and still great; however, this film is really just going through the motions.  Apparently, author Frederick Forsyth and Caine were friends and dreamed up the idea of producing this version of his fifth spy novel (after successful films, without Caine, were made of his earlier books:  The Day of the Jackal (1973), The Odessa File (1974), and The Dogs of War (1980)).  I thought director John Mackenzie would be an added bonus, because his The Long Good Friday (1980) is so great (but alas, he never seemed to have directed anything else that good).  Michael Caine is a British spy who is on the outs politically with his “acting” superior when he cottons on to a plan to smuggle an atomic bomb into the UK to blow up an American Air Force Base.  Pierce Brosnan plays the undercover Russian spy doing the dirty deed.  Of course, there is the usual political subterfuge going on in the background, which pulls the rug out from under the audience (sort of).  However, all of this was done so much better in the awesome miniseries (adapted from John Le Carré), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979), starring Alec Guinness, and its sequel, Smiley’s People (1982).  Start there first and skip this one.

Downsizing (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Downsizing (2017) – A. Payne

I love a good “high concept” film, but truly they are hard to pull off.  Director Alexander Payne (e.g., Election, 1999; Sideways, 2004; Nebraska, 2013) has as good a chance as anyone.  The trick is to have a follow-through after the fun of the concept starts to wear off.  Here, Norwegian scientists have invented a technique that shrinks people to 10 cm in height – this will solve the environmental crisis by downsizing waste as well as people.  An added benefit is that your existing savings go A LOT further.  Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig are a couple, struggling financially, who decide to get small.  (Steve Martin is nowhere in sight, BTW).  We are then shown the residential development where they can choose a mc-mansion to live in and the complicated procedure (shaving all body hair, removing fillings/teeth) is carried out, step by step.  Everything does not go to plan and we end up following Damon as he adapts to being small.  This is where the follow-through needs to happen and it isn’t as smooth or coherent as it could be; the plot takes a detour, as Damon meets a disabled Vietnamese refugee (Hong Chau) and comes to understand her ethos of charity and compassion.  Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier (!!!) are friendly (but self-serving/capitalist) little people who befriend the two.  So, the plot starts in one place and ends up in quite another.  Apparently, some viewers felt ripped off because they expected a full-fledged comedy rather than a thoughtful (though light-hearted) reflection about the environmental crisis and human nature.  Those who don’t believe in climate change wouldn’t find this appealing -- but then they wouldn’t watch a Matt Damon movie either, would they?  Damon himself may be the film’s weakest link (apparently Paul Giamatti was attached at the start – and he would have heightened the comedy of the first half, but perhaps he wouldn’t have convincingly carried the second half, which Damon does, although he’s a pretty boring everyman).  In the end, I found this enjoyable, but fundamentally disconcerting, given its premise that humans are facing extinction.  If only we really could get small…

Free Fire (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Free Fire (2016) – B. Wheatley

Yes, it’s basically a 90-minute gun fight between characters to which we are never properly introduced and which are never fleshed out.  So, if that’s not what you are after, look elsewhere.  I wasn’t sure it was what I wanted either.  But I enjoyed High Rise (2015) from director Ben Wheatley and so I thought I would give it a try.  So, beyond the fact that it’s shallow, it is a marvel of technical craft.  Basically, you have 10 (or 13) people spread out across a warehouse floor, shooting at each other, getting hit but not killed (as Wheatley apparently wanted realism and drew from actual FBI records of gun battles), dragging themselves bloodily to different hiding spots, and mustering all their strength to escape, call for reinforcements (on the one telephone, as this is set in 1978; cue John Denver), or kill the opposition.  That’s about it, except that it is also pretty funny.  The technical wizardry is less to do with blood and gore and a lot more about the editing and storyboarding that keeps the viewer straight with both who is still alive and their physical location in the complicated set.  But, yeah, if you don’t want to see blood, violence, and a lot of swearing, this isn’t your film.  Starring Bree Larson, Cillian Murphy, Armie Hammer, Noah Taylor, and others with whom I was unfamiliar (Sharlto Copley is a stand-out and Babou Ceesay has a great surprising turn). 

Pygmalion (1938)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Pygmalion (1938) – A. Asquith

George Bernard Shaw’s play, scripted for the screen by the playwright himself, was first directed by Anthony Asquith (with co-director’s credit to star Leslie Howard).  But then it was famously revisioned as the musical, My Fair Lady (first on stage and then on screen in 1964, directed by George Cukor and starring Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison).  Having seen the musical first, as a child, it is hard not to hear the lines of the play/1938 film (“the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain”) and recall the songs they became later.  But without revisiting the latter film, it is rewarding to say that Pygmalion may be better.  Both Leslie Howard (as Professor Higgins) and Wendy Hiller (as Eliza Doolittle) present memorable and charismatic characters and the plot twists (such that they are) are funny and well-played; Wilfrid Lawson and Esme Percy are solid and comical in support.  Of course, the basis of the story, Higgins’ boast that he could refashion Cockney flower seller Doolittle into a princess simply by teaching her phonetics and improving her diction, is still condescending and paternalistic – but Howard plays Higgins with his flaws foregrounded, so perhaps this can be forgiven? (And Eliza does tweak him in the end, at least – but what will their relationship be, if relationship there is to be?).  Eighty years on, the social satire (or fantasy?) designed for the British class system may or may not hold up (depending on your aims) – and it is tempting to imagine the roles with different cultural variations (for example, there appears to be a version with genders reversed) but any new version would require a lot more bite and insight than what is managed here. There’s no denying that we use accents to stigmatise people though…

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Spiral Staircase (1946) – R. Siodmak

Version 1:  A high water mark for the "woman in peril" genre (with all of its flaws) that is basically just a fulfilled opportunity to try to scare viewers. A serial killer is on the loose, hunting women with disabilities of some kind, and he's apparently made it to the sprawling dark mansion in which Helen (Dorothy McGuire), who has been mute since childhood, is working as a maid for invalid Ethel Barrymore. Sumptuous in its décor and art direction and expert in its camerawork, Robert Siodmak (The Killers, Phantom Lady) uses his noir skills to great spooky effect. Anyone could be the killer (of course) but the pay-off is sort of ho-hum.

Version 2:  A serial killer menaces women with disabilities in a Gothic New England town in the early 20^th century in this noirish tale.  Dorothy McGuire, mute since a childhood trauma, is handmaid to Mrs. Warren (Ethel Barrymore), an seemingly insufferable invalid who lives with her son, Steven (an irresponsible rascal just back from Europe) and her stepson, Albert (a Professor who has taken on the burden of caring for his stepmother after his father’s death).  Early in the film, it is made clear that the killer has entered the house, now besieged by a terrible storm, and director Robert Siodmak takes the opportunity to introduce us to a number of suspects, including Mr Oates (Rhys Williams) and Dr Parry (Kent Smith), the latter also a possible love interest for Helen (McGuire).  The cast is rounded out by Rhonda Fleming, Elsa Lancaster, and Sara Allgood who work for the family in various capacities.  As I said, it was a dark and stormy night.  McGuire can’t scream.  The killer strikes.  Who will be his next victim?  The conclusion sees a number of characters running up and down the spiral staircase which leads to the basement.  Although my synopsis may make this seem formulaic, the result is not anything like the various mystery serials that were popular in the day (which often say the suspects rounded up into a room where the detective announced the killer).  Instead, things are moodier, more visually interesting, darker, and hard (but not impossible) to predict.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) – T. Gilliam

When Terry Gilliam could still be counted on for a (relatively) coherent cinema experience and one that was predictably visually cluttered and surreal, he made this version of the Munchausen tale (which had been filmed several times before).  The Baron is a possible spinner of tall tales, which see him riding on a cannonball, visiting the King and Queen of the Moon (Robin Williams and Valentina Cortese), engaging with Vulcan (Oliver Reed) and Venus (Uma Thurman), and defeating the Turkish army with just a few friends (Eric Idle, Charles McKeown, Jack Purvis, Winston Dennis – all with special powers, such as running fast, blowing a gale, super strength, long-distance vision), and so on.  The framing device is that we are in a town laid siege by the Turks at the end of the 18^th century and a troupe of actors is staging a version of the Munchausen adventures when in walks the Baron himself (John Neville).  He begins to regale the audience (including evil bureaucrat Jonathan Pryce) with his tales which Gilliam shows to us (leaving the stage to show us the full three dimensional experience).  But at some point things become blurred and young Sarah Polley, the daughter of the leader of the actors, joins the Baron on his adventures, which do end up freeing the city (and the actors) from the Turks (or perhaps Pryce’s pretense that they were really besieging the town).  Although the plot is (overly) complicated, Gilliam manages to retain a sense of childlike wonder for the proceedings and Neville is an excellent raconteur/guide/hero.  Perhaps there is slightly too much bombast and sameness throughout, but on the whole, an enjoyable affair.

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)

☆ ☆ ☆

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992) – D. Lynch

I decided to re-watch Fire Walk With Me, the prequel to the original Twin Peaks (filmed in 1992), to see if it gained anything in light of the recent new series in 2017 (which I enjoyed).  Indeed, the first 30 minutes with special agents Chris Isaak and Kiefer Sutherland, was pretty great – with David Lynch as Gordon Cole, David Bowie as Philip Jefferies, Miguel Ferrer as Albert, and Harry Dean Stanton as Carl from the trailer park, all reprising the roles they would play again in 2017 (albeit with Bowie only in flashback).  There is a reference to a Blue Rose case and the same haunting and weird atmosphere found in the latest series.  However, as soon as Isaak finds the “green ring”, that part of the film ends and we enter the story of Laura Palmer, one year later.  This is a bit grim, given that the plot revolves around incest, since Bob has entered Laura’s dad, Leland Palmer.  The ambiguity is that we don’t know if Bob exists or if Laura’s perception is a result of the trauma she is experiencing.  Her drug use and acting out sexually could also be symptoms.  Of course, Twin Peaks fans know that Bob is real and now we know more of his backstory (born in the first atomic test?) and we understand that Leland was not acting of his own accord.  But that doesn’t make the degradation here any easier to take.  Those who wish to experience Lynch’s haunting world (the music, the sets, the debauchery) can find it here – except don’t come into this hoping for the same thrills and puzzles as we found in the last series (after the first half hour, that is). 

  

Robin and the 7 Hoods (1964)

☆ ☆ ½

Robin and the 7 Hoods (1964) – G. Douglas

Perhaps, once upon a time, there was an audience for the Rat Pack pictures (starring Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Sammy Davis, Jr., and here with Peter Falk as their nemesis and Bing Crosby as a fellow traveller).  I thought it would be interesting for kitsch-value – but alas, not true.  Instead, the film is rather plodding, hoping to skate along on its stars’ charisma (certainly not their acting) and therefore coming across as not much more than a rehashed 1940s gangster pic with a bunch of “dad jokes” and some rather weird musical numbers.  The only hit tune is “Chicago, My Kind of Town”—but Sinatra’s listless delivery doesn’t really rouse the troops.  Crosby is given little to work with, though makes the best of his (comic?) part, whereas Martin is so laid back he doesn’t really seem to care if he’s in the picture or not.  I was hoping for better when the curtain opened on “Big Jim” (classic gangster Edward G. Robinson) – but he is soon shot dead, leaving room for gang war between Falk and Sinatra, with Big Jim’s daughter, played by Barbara Rush, doing her best to manipulate all of the men into letting her run the town.  Sinatra and his gang decide to give the money meant to bribe them over to charity – hence the title and Robin Hood analogy (Sinatra’s character is “Robbo”).  I could go on but I’ll spare you.  This isn’t a bad movie really but there are far better ways to spend your time, unless you are part of the audience that once upon a time this picture was made for.

Walker (1987)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Walker (1987) – A. Cox

Director Alex Cox (famous for Repo Man, 1984, and Sid and Nancy, 1986), here takes a stab at a historical biopic of William Walker, an American “Filibuster” who became the self-appointed President of Nicaragua in 1856.  Of course, Cox’s focus on Nicaragua was no accident, given Ronald Reagan’s then-current efforts to undermine the Sandinistas by providing (illegal) aid to the anti-government “Contras”.  However, Cox clearly did not set out to make a serious film, instead presenting Walker’s time in Nicaragua (after an earlier, very bloody, foray in Mexico) as almost comic chaos, with cartoonish violence and anachronistic dialogue and props (from the 1980s, not the 1850’s).  Ed Harris plays Walker serene and very nearly straight but with just a tinge of lunacy that starts to manifest in his decisions (to legalise slavery, to burn the town of Granada, etc.).  In fact, a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that Rudy Wurlitzer’s script has stayed very close to the facts of Walker’s life and exploits (and ultimate death by firing squad).  But, as I said, this is not a reverential treatment (nor should it be, given the imperialistic and inhumane actions of the “hero”) – only as the final credits scrawl do we get reminded of the current US actions in Nicaragua, underscoring the otherwise implicit statement being made.  After the film flopped, Cox found that he was never again able to make a movie with Hollywood backing.  Yet his subversive approach here might be the best way to present the horrors of history, keeping you laughing in order to stop you from crying. But the take-home points still get through.