The Nice Guys (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Nice Guys (2016) – S. Black

Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling try their hands at slapstick comedy to varying degrees of success in this buddy action flick that attempts to bring us back to the glory days of the ‘70s P. I. flick.  Director Shane Black (best known as a screenwriter for Lethal Weapon and similar) isn’t afraid to toss in some violence and sex but somehow the film doesn’t get too tawdry.  This might be due to the presence of Angourie Rice, who plays P. I. Gosling’s 13-year-old daughter, plain-talking and ready to help solve the crime/find the missing girl.  Crowe and Gosling stay in character well (brusque with a soft heart and definitely loopy, respectively) but the plot doesn’t really build much suspense.  Kim Basinger shows up relatively late as a villain to tie everything together but the plot isn’t really the point, I guess.  Instead, we are encouraged to revel in the period detail and overall pastiche.  But aside from the bright spark offered by Rice (and some of Gosling’s shenanigans), the film felt a bit flat.  Perhaps it could be shorter and tighter.  So, I wouldn’t necessarily seek it out, but if you are looking for something brainless…

  

Loveless (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Loveless (2017) – A. Zvyagintsev

I have found Andrey Zvyagintsev’s previous films (esp. Leviathan, 2014) to be really compelling stylistically, even as they deal with complex human relations in contemporary Russia, highlighting a lot of social ills.  Perhaps they were pessimistic and bleak but often there was a streak of black humour in the darkness.  I expected something similar from Loveless, about a couple going through a bitter divorce whose son goes missing, but there is no humour here to lighten the grimness.  Yes, the cinematography and direction (lots of slow zooms) is stellar and the film is gripping in its way – especially in its second half when the focus is on finding the 12-year-old boy who has disappeared and there are no clues. But the primary protagonists, Zhenya (Maryana Spivak) and Boris (Aleksey Rozin) are anything but likeable (yet not one-dimensional either); Zvyagintsev seems to be using their selfishness to critique the growing Russian middle class, where one’s own happiness matters most and the social fabric is becoming unglued as a result.  Another thread seems to suggest that parents’ selfishness can impact their children’s subsequent behaviour, as Zhenya’s mother, angry, belligerent, paranoid, and alone, has clearly helped to create Zhenya’s own ugliness toward her child (Boris might be starting the cycle again with his new girlfriend).  The events here are truly sad, especially when the parents wish aloud that they never had their child in the first place.  And seemingly their wish comes true… to what effect?  Harrowing, ambiguous, depressing. 

Bulworth (1998)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bulworth (1998) – W. Beatty

Although there are a few cringeworthy moments here (yes, Warren Beatty rapping), they might be deliberate – the point is to show how a sell-out democrat politician returns to his original values once he has contact with common people (in this case, the Black community in South Central L.A).  Of course, he can’t really identify but he can try to understand or empathise.  But let’s back up a moment.  The plot sees Beatty as incumbent California Senator Jay Billington Bulworth in the middle of his primary campaign for re-election but feeling despondent (it isn’t exactly clear why), despondent enough to hire a hitman to take himself out.  This act serves to free him to speak the truth to his constituents – mainly about the fact that big money (from corporate interests such as insurance companies and from wealthy donors) buys influence and that being poor does not.  I’m not sure whether this was shocking in 1998 but unfortunately it is still the norm in U. S. politics even now.  Perhaps people like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or AOC now have enough of a platform to speak these same truths to a broader audience in a way that was more difficult when the media was all controlled by Rupert Murdoch (or other corporate interests) and censored views that they didn’t like (oh wait, that’s still the situation in Australia).  At any rate, Bulworth/Beatty goes a bit crazy from lack of sleep and other influences, speaks the truth in an out-of-role fashion (yes, rapping), garners widespread public support, falls in love with Halle Berry, and the cynical viewer knows what happens next (I won’t spoil the ending).  In reality, though, the “disruptor” role seems to have been adopted, not by the progressive left but instead by the wacko alt-right. Has the appeal of disruption (of a system clearly biased in favour of the rich) blinded people to the fact that the disruptors are not acting to support the poor and disenfranchised? In any event, Bulworth is watchable, mostly comic, surprisingly profane, and set to the sound of rap gold records – also brave and perhaps prescient.  Not perfect but worth a look. 

Three Days of the Condor (1975)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Three Days of the Condor (1975) – S. Pollack

The ‘70s conspiracy theory genre is evergreen! But Sydney Pollack’s film is a bit hollow at its core – sort of like those Hitchcock thrillers where the hero is on the run, in search of the MacGuffin that will prove his innocence, but the running is more important than the plot device that inspires it.  This film has a lot of scenes of Robert Redford running.  He plays Joe Turner, a CIA researcher (not spy), who suddenly finds all of his colleagues shot dead and suspects that the agency itself is responsible.  He kidnaps Faye Dunaway randomly and convinces her to help him.  Then, it is all about getting to the conspirators at the top (including Cliff Robertson and John Houseman).  Throughout it all, cool hitman Max von Sydow is on his trail.  Turner uses his wits and book-knowledge to foil him and the conspirators – but, in the cynical ‘70s, can he ever really win against the powerful?  As I said, the themes here are evergreen!  However, if you really want some classic conspiracy drama, I recommend the Alec Guinness miniseries of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1979) and Smiley’s People (1982).  The long form gives more room for plot mechanics and character development, something that isn’t possible here, where Redford relies on his typical charm and personality to get by instead.  

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) – B. Furman

Looking back, was this film the start of the “McConaissance”?  McConaughey is certainly on his game, playing a charismatic but unscrupulous lawyer (named Mick Haller) who is happy to bend or break the rules for a buck, sometimes at the expense of the criminal clients he defends.  The movie begins as he takes on Louis Roulet’s (Ryan Phillippe) defence against a charge of grievous bodily harm (beating up a prostitute).  Philippe plays the spoiled heir to a real estate magnate (Frances Farmer).  Marisa Tomei is McConaughey’s ex-wife and a public prosecutor (who has to stand aside when he takes the case but still casually helps him) – Tomei is always good value.  We see a bit of their divorced life sharing custody of a young daughter.  But the film is mostly a generic courthouse drama, as Haller and his investigator (William H. Macy) uncover clues that make them question Roulet’s innocence.  Roulet is unsavoury enough that even Haller starts to develop a conscience.  The clues tie back to an older case and a convicted man who may really be innocent.  You know the story.  In the end, there’s not much here save some solid acting that boosts this from being just another Law & Order knock-off into something a bit more.  But it is only passable fare and Netflix Australia still seems like a wasteland (at least for movies).

  

Side Effects (2013)

☆ ☆ ☆

Side Effects (2013) – S. Soderbergh

I haven’t been watching every Soderbergh film; he seems very hit or miss -- or somewhere in between, as with this film.  Of course, this probably isn’t the place to debate auteur theory but the variability in his output is probably due to other people, such as the writer -- in this case, Scott Z. Burns.  Presumably, Burns is responsible for the plot which is very au courant for 2013, positing that side effects of medication might remove someone’s culpability for a crime. Rooney Mara plays Emily, a twenty-something who is depressed (her husband has just served time for insider trading); after a presumed suicide attempt, her psychiatrist (Jude Law) prescribes her a series of anti-depressants, concluding with one that a friend recommended to her (after seeing ads on TV) that has a side effect of sleepwalking.  When she commits a murder while sleepwalking, the legal issues revolve around who is to blame – Emily, her prescribing doctor, or even Big Pharma.  If it sounds as though I’ve provided spoilers here, suffice it to say that the plot does not really resolve this quandary but instead takes its characters (including Emily’s previous psychiatrist played by Catherine Zeta Jones) into much more complicated (some might say ludicrous) territory.  To be honest, I’m not sure I fully buy (or understand) the resolution, but thrillers sell and incisive investigations into serious issues probably don’t.  Entertaining enough, I guess.

No Man of Her Own (1932)

☆ ☆ ½

No Man of Her Own (1932) – W. Ruggles

Despite the star power of Gable and Lombard (in their only film together, years before their marriage), the movie fizzles out after a promising start.  Gable is a card shark with a team of confederates helping him to swindle rich businessmen (who don’t press charges because they want to stay out of the papers).  The vice squad is onto him, however, so he takes a sojourn out of New York in a small town called Glendale where he meets Lombard’s bored librarian.  She’s a feisty match for him and follows him to the big city after a coin toss leads to their marriage (!!!).  She doesn’t know yet that he’s a crook but soon finds out (the movie doesn’t really build too much suspense here).  The second half is about his abrupt decision to go to South America for a long con, leaving her alone (but not abandoning her).  I think the script probably lets the actors down – or the lack of music highlights the way that the drama drags?  There is a little bit of naughtiness here, because this is “pre-code”, primarily in the form of heavy drinking and actresses in underwear (and both Gable & Lombard taking showers, separately).  Other films of this vintage, including with Gable and Lombard, separately, are far more sparkling than this.

The Fortune Cookie (1966)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Fortune Cookie (1966) – B. Wilder

This first pairing of Lemmon and Matthau for writer-director Billy Wilder is as cynical as you would expect – but I didn’t find it particularly funny.  Matthau is “Whiplash Willie” Gingrich, a personal injury lawyer who sees profit in his brother-in-law’s freak accident on the sidelines of an NFL game in Cleveland.  Lemmon is the cameraman (named Harry Hinkle) who gets knocked down by wide receiver “Boom Boom” Jackson (Ron Rich) and is persuaded somewhat begrudgingly to pretend to be seriously hurt in order to facilitate a suit against the Cleveland Browns etc.  Of course, the insurance company investigates and of course Matthau has some tricks up his sleeve to deceive them.  Hinkle’s ex-wife (Judi West) returns (for the money obviously) to sweet-talk him further into playing along – but Jackson, a really nice guy, takes it hard, making Hinkle feel guilty.  That’s the basic set-up.  I suppose the comedy here isn’t as shocking as it was in 1966 because we now live in a world where we take it for granted that people cheat and look after their self-interest only, that insurance companies and others spy on us constantly, and that those who don’t have these motives might turn to drink to escape this sad reality.  Surprisingly, Wilder gives us a happy ending that we probably don’t deserve – or maybe there’s still hope?  Lemmon and Matthau are solid as usual but better elsewhere.   

  

Storm Boy (2019)

☆ ☆ ☆

Storm Boy (2019) – S. Seet

The local council organised this film for a summer movie night in the park right next to our house (including a mobile petting zoo, popcorn and snags, free face-painting and various games).  So, Amon and I strolled over (it was a cold evening, so later I ran back to the house, in about a minute, and got blankets and pillows for us).  The film is an adaptation of Colin Thiele’s 1963 book, which Aito’s teacher read to him in third grade (it was also filmed earlier in 1976).  The basic story is about a boy who raises three pelicans whose mother has been killed by a hunter and forms a special bond with them.  Like the best children’s fiction, there are important adult elements here – the boy (Finn Little) has lost his mother and sister in a car accident and his father has sought to isolate himself in a rural part of South Australia (90 Mile Beach).  So, how best to cope with grief is part of the story here (esp. because, well, you know, pelicans don’t live forever).  Fit for 2019, a framing device shows businessman Geoffrey Rush (the boy all grown up to be a grandfather) having a change of heart about his company’s destructive environmental policies after being encouraged by his granddaughter (and reminiscing about the past – the actual story).  Although the framing device was a bit confusing for Amon (as were the scenes that showed both Rush and Little in the same shot), he was totally absorbed by the pelican actors (mostly not CGI) and their adventures – and he cried at the end.  Yes, it’s a tearjerker.  I suspect that films like this, when seen at a certain age, remain in one’s heart for a long time – and perhaps children’s films need to be judged by an entirely different rating scale based on the impact they unquestionably have, despite any technical flaws.  I’m sure you have your own list of influential and memorable kids films – mine are all from the 1970s – but I’m not sure they bear rewatching.

After Dark, My Sweet (1990)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

After Dark, My Sweet (1990) – J. Foley

How many of my reviews begin with “I haven’t read the source novel…”?  Well, here is another one, although I probably should give Jim Thompson a look since I do enjoy noir (and pulp fiction – at least Hammett, Chandler, et al.).  Here, his novel has been updated to 1990 and since its set in the desert, the shadows are all in one’s head rather than physical (given the hot sun everywhere).  “Kid” Collins (Jason Patric) is an ex-boxer who may have killed someone in the ring and then spent time in mental institutions – he’s out, possibly on the run. He gets mixed up with Fay (Rachel Ward) and Uncle Bud (Bruce Dern) who have cooked up a scheme to kidnap a rich kid and ask for a big ransom.  They convince Collins to do the heavy lifting but he begins to suspect that they are going to play him for a sucker.  So, it’s a standard noir set-up and Patric sinks himself into the role of the loser, complete with broken-down shuffle and hapless voiceover.  We never quite know whether Fay is bad or good, probably because we are seeing things through Collins’ point of view – he can’t decide because he desires her but senses a trap.  Uncle Bud is much easier to read – he’s obviously deceptive.  Dern shows again how much he can make of a good part – even if he had few of them during this point in his career.  Overall, it’s a slow burn that never quite bursts into fire.  You are there for the characters and the tension and not for any significant plot twists or action.  But director James Foley and the cast do capture that particular mood…

Clash of the Titans (1981)

☆ ☆ ☆

Clash of the Titans (1981) – D. Davis

The final Ray Harryhausen film returns to ancient Greece (the milieu of Jason and the Argonauts, 1963) to tell the story of Perseus (Harry Hamlin).  As before, the Gods squabble and intervene in human affairs – both Zeus (Laurence Olivier) and Thetis (Maggie Smith) have produced human offspring, Perseus and Calibos, respectively.  Calibos (a Harryhausen creation) has been punished by Zeus for killing all of the winged horses (except Pegasus) and turned into a deformed satyr.  Perseus and Calibos clash over their love of Andromeda (Judi Bowker), who is subsequently cursed by Thetis to be eaten by the Kraken (a seamonster titan).  The only way the Kraken can be stopped is with the head of Medusa, which Perseus attempts to secure.  As before, the stop-motion animation is really the reason to watch these films, as the plot itself, despite the presence of name-brand actors (including Burgess Meredith), is rather soapy.  Surprisingly, there is some occasional nudity here!  Nevertheless, Amon found this an enjoyable adventure, although I felt it showed a decline after the wonders we had seen earlier in the Harryhausen canon (I’m not a fan of the mechanical owl). 

  

Everybody Knows (2018)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Everybody Knows (2018) – A. Farhadi

Iranian director Asghar Farhadi (best known for A Separation, 2011) is a master of ambiguity – we are never quite sure where his characters stand in relation to each other and whether or not they are withholding information from each other (and from viewers).  In his second film outside of Iran, this time working in Spain, Farhadi employs superstar actors Penélope Cruz, Javier Bardem and Argentinian Ricardo Darín to good effect in a mystery drama that has less interest in whodunnit and much more interest in the relationship dynamics that result.  Cruz and Bardem play ex-lovers who are now married to others but who are brought together again when Cruz returns to Spain from Argentina with her two children for her younger sister’s wedding.  After a slow build where we get to know the characters, a crime occurs and suspicion falls on everyone – Farhadi does a nice job of slowly revealing secrets that implicate each of the principals in turn (including Darín when he too travels to Spain).  Perhaps there are a few too many secondary characters (to increase the number of red herrings?) and perhaps the retired policeman is too overt a plot device directing the characters to provide information to advance the story.  Finding out who the culprits are is rather unsatisfying, suggesting again that this is not Farhadi’s main focus, and the open-ended finale (again with the ambiguity) probably lets everyone off the hook.  Nevertheless, I was gripped by the possibilities, the tension, and the emotions for most of the film. 

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977)

☆ ☆ ☆

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) – S. Wanamaker

Surprisingly, I found this penultimate Ray Harryhausen production a good watch – but perhaps I have simply adjusted my expectations after watching three of his earlier films first or perhaps it is because I am watching them with my 7-year-old son and seeing them through his eyes.  In this one, Sinbad (a different actor each time; this time Patrick Wayne) needs to help a prince who has been turned into a (dynamation) baboon by travelling with a Greek philosopher and his daughter to the arctic where a mysterious pyramid will help to transform the prince back to human form.  Sinbad’s love interest is the prince’s sister (Jane Seymour) and the main foe is evil witch Zenobia (Margaret Whiting).  A lot of the special effects here are camera tricks (characters grow big or small and change into seagulls and such) but Harryhausen animates a (friendly) troglodyte (early human), a sabre-toothed tiger, some alien-looking monsters, a big bee, a bronze minotaur, and an awesome giant walrus.  That walrus was something else.  Again, the plot is rather beside the point here, come instead for the Harryhausen creations which are pretty well integrated into the live action.   

  

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) – G. Hessler

Amon continues to ask for more Ray Harryhausen films and he reckons that this is his favourite so far – mostly because of Kali swinging six swords at a time and fighting off Sinbad and his men (until finally pushed off a ledge and broken “by a kid”).  I’m not so sure this beats out either 7^th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) or Jason and the Argonauts (1963).  Probably the acting by John Philip Law (as Sinbad), Caroline Munro (of Hammer Horror fame as a “slave girl”), and Tom Baker (yes, that Tom Baker, as another evil magician, Koura) is on par with the acting from the previous pictures.  The plot is similarly convoluted. Sinbad needs to find three pieces of a broken golden tablet in order to stop the evil magician from securing some more powers and instead give these to a good king whose face has been horribly burned.  The magician does everything he can to stop Sinbad and there are some fearsome (dynamation) creatures to behold, for example, a griffin fights a one-eyed centaur (both gigantic, of course). Most of the stopmotion seems devoted to Koura’s little homunculus goblin though.  Slightly more “adult” content (some very tame off-colour jokes and Munro’s barely dressed outfit) place the film squarely in the Seventies.  Start with the earlier films, if you are interested (but we will likely move onward to Eye of the Tiger, 1977).

  

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The 7^th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) – N. Juran

I think it is a mark of this film’s success that Amon is still asking questions about it the next morning (New Year’s Day 2020).  Of course, it is the special effects (“dynamation”) by Ray Harryhausen that are the reason to watch this film, now as it was in 1958. We get cyclopses, a roc chick and mother, a dragon (that later fights with a cyclops), a swordfightin’ skeleton, and a snake woman.  However, the interpersonal dynamics that drive the plot were a little lost on him.  An evil magician tricks Sinbad into heading to his home island to kill the cyclops that has grabbed the magic lamp (with genie inside) by shrinking Sinbad’s princess fiancée and claiming to only be able to make a potion to change her back with an eggshell from the roc found only on his island.  Amon kept asking why they were helping the evil magician and vice versa.  But really that magician could not be trusted (although his acting was probably the best of the lot)!  Now Amon wants to watch the subsequent Sinbad films (1973 and 1977), which I fear will be a notch below.  We shall see. But for its mix of wonder and adventure, we give this one a thumbs up!