Pushover (1954)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Pushover (1954) – R. Quine

Fred MacMurray and Kim Novak are better known for other roles (in Double Indemnity, 1944, and Vertigo, 1958, respectively) and those other roles haunt this late noir.  For example, MacMurray plays a cop who decides to commit a crime with a suspect/femme fatale and Novak, in her debut, plays a woman complicit in an earlier crime who becomes the target of the male gaze (a stakeout) and the object of MacMurray’s obsession.  Pushover can’t match those top ten noirs but it does rise above a lot of other B pictures through its careful plotting which finds Novak always under surveillance by the cops and MacMurray on the stakeout constantly surrounded by his unsuspecting peers.  Their game is to kill Novak’s boyfriend and steal the proceeds of his recent bank robbery and somehow get away with it, taking advantage of MacMurray’s position.  Of course, there are a few complications and, in the end, not everyone behaves rationally.  Worth a look, especially for film noir aficionados.

The Trip to Spain (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Trip to Spain (2017) – M. Winterbottom

This is the third in a series of films (edited from the respective TV series) directed by Michael Winterbottom and starring Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon playing “versions” of themselves on a tour of restaurants sponsored by The Observer newspaper (in the UK for The Trip, 2010; then The Trip to Italy, 2014, and now in Spain).  As before, the two comics poke fun at each other -- with Coogan’s supposedly fragile ego creating the main emotional dynamic of the film.  He defensively promotes himself (his Oscar nomination for writing Philomena, 2013, figures prominently), puts Brydon down (though the latter is good natured about it, while still getting some good digs in), and deals with crises in his professional and personal life.  But the centrepiece of the film is the visits to various Spanish restaurants and out-of-the-way tourist stops and the non-stop banter between the two men.  Half of the running length seems to be impressions of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Marlon Brando, the cast of Monty Python (“no one expects the Spanish Inquisition” of course), and more.  It’s absurd and ridiculous and made me laugh (which few “normal” comedies do these days).  Of course, there’s a fairly good chance that this is particularly funny to me since another emotional undercurrent has to do with guys turning 50.  You never can tell though how much of this “reality” show is reality and how much is scripted (for example, wives and girlfriends here are played by actors); even the references to Coogan and Brydon’s own careers might contain only enough truth to give us the illusion of reality.  But enough is funny and “true”(probably half-assed and half-improvised) that this is an enjoyable hour or two away from the real reality watching these guys joust with the windmills of their minds.

Train to Busan (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Train to Busan (2016) – S.-h. Yeon

If you are looking for Korean zombie action, look no further!  Director Sang-ho Yeon moved from anime to debut in this live action flick that follows the conventions of the (modern) zombie genre, including fast moving zombies who are the result of some biological lab accident.  This time, the epidemic seems to have covered most of South Korea – except the southern coastal city of Busan.  A seemingly amoral businessman played by Yoo Gong is travelling there to bring his primary school daughter (Su-an Kim) to see her mother, his ex-wife.  But when the zombie outbreak infects the train, he needs to learn to make some moral decisions.  There are a fair few character-types on the train, including a no-nonsense and buff married man (charismatic Dong-seok Ma) and his pregnant wife (Yu-mi Jung), some baseball players and a girlfriend/cheerleader, an evil corporate leader, the conductor, some old women, cabin attendants, and so on.  En route to Busan, they have to fight a lot of these very hyperactive zombies (who also apparently can’t see in the dark) and also navigate interpersonal tensions among the survivors.  As you would expect, not everyone survives.  But it is ripsnorting action throughout, with only a few pauses to play up the pathos and let us catch our breaths.  Yeon controls everything smoothly and the art direction/set design/effects are all top notch. Nothing too important here, of course, but a lot of fun and not as gory as you might expect.  So, if zombies are your thing, this is a treat!

mother! (2017)

☆ ☆ ½

mother!  (2017) – D. Aronofsky

After hearing that it was shocking and could be the worst film ever, I was excited to see director Darren Aronofsky’s latest film.  After all, Black Swan (2010) and Requiem for a Dream (2000) were certainly full on and intense and unforgettable and Pi (1998) was a great debut.  The Wrestler (2008) was a surprisingly good Mickey Rourke comeback film. However, I remember being less enamoured of The Fountain (2006) and I guess I must have skipped Noah (2014), not even realising it was Aronofsky.  So, my expectations were high for Mother!  However, I found it extremely pretentious (once I watched the special feature that clued me in to the allegory undergirding the plot).  I’m not sure things would have been different if I “got it” earlier but this was rather deadly dull for the first ¾ or so.  I hoped for some supernatural element to appear (given the poster’s evocation of Rosemary’s Baby) and the decision to keep the camera close to Jennifer Lawrence’s head and shoulders, making it difficult to see what she is looking at or what is around her, led me to think that there would be horror afoot.  Her relationship with Javier Bardem – and his suspicious behaviour – also seemed ominous.  When rude guests Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer show up, it’s threatening – but also pretty annoying.  And the film progresses from there, with Lawrence increasingly bewildered and irritated.  And so was I – my expectations were dashed.  Aronofsky may have had a fever dream from which the script emerged but it feels a lot more heavy-handed than it should (pretentious and trying vainly to shock).  Yes, there’s a message here but it’s simplistic and incoherent in the main.  Too bad. 

 

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…