The Criminal (1960)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Criminal (1960) – J. Losey

From the start of the picture, Stanley Baker (playing Johnny Bannion) is so sullen and brutish that it was hard to even recognise that he’s the star of the film.  He’s about to be set free from prison but first manages to orchestrate the beating of another prisoner recently returned from the outside (some foreshadowing here).  Clearly, the guards are on his side at this point (with Patrick Magee excellent as the crooked senior guard) but it’s a fragile alliance.  Once on the outside, Baker immediately gets involved in another caper (at a racetrack) set up by his accomplice Mike Carter (Sam Wanamaker).  After the score, with the money hidden, things are not so easy for Johnny Bannion – the powerplays and doublecrosses are beyond his thuggish mentality.  As directed by Joseph Losey (an American who fled to the UK as a result of HUAC persecution), the film is part prison dynamics and part swinging jazz and decadence.  Baker’s characterisation while at first seemingly roughhewn, later feels apt as a portrayal of a man who can’t manage a changing situation/society.  Beautiful cinematography by Robert Krasker (The Third Man).

Red Eye (2005)

☆ ☆ ☆

Red Eye (2005) – W. Craven

I haven’t seen too many Wes Craven movies (Nightmare on Elm Street – some thirty years ago, Scream, and maybe not much else).  But this concise thriller shows that he has skill enough to create suspense, film action, and keep the audience hooked.  85 minutes is enough.  Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy, both good, past their big hits but not yet in career decline, star as the competent heroine (a hotel manager) and the ruthless bad guy (terrorist/assassin).  Most of the film takes place on a plane where they are seated together in the two seats by the window, flying from Houston or Dallas to Miami.  The plot turn is as follows: he needs her to move the secretary of defence (or some such politician) to a different hotel room so that he can be assassinated and he has a hitman stationed outside her dad’s house to force her to call the hotel and make the change.  That’s it.  Very minimal but, again, well done, tight, and no time to ask about plot holes.  It ends as you might expect but no complaints – it is what it is and you got what you paid for. 

From Russia with Love (1963)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

From Russia with Love (1963) – T. Young

Yes, James Bond films do come with a lot of baggage, particularly in their treatment of women. Bond is an unrepentant womaniser (where such a word makes sense, in the context of 1963) but, as played by Sean Connery, he does seem to genuinely care about his love interest here, Russian agent Tatiana Romanova (played by Italian model Daniela Bianchi). However, the filmmakers themselves do objectify women, as does the script (so there goes Bond himself). So, you have to be willing to set aside this problematic aspect in order to enjoy the film (and these concerns do prevent me from giving it a higher rating). This is only the second Bond film (after Dr No) and it feels rather low key for most of its run time, only offering some really expensive stunts at the very end.  Before that, Bond is in Turkey meeting the Russian agent who is defecting to London with the Soviets’ secret coding machine (although in reality she is a pawn in a plot by S.P.E.C.T.R.E to kill Bond and get the machine).  Robert Shaw (looking nothing like the salty dog of Jaws) is Bond’s nemesis, chasing him across Eastern Europe (including on the Orient Express).  Of course, there are the usual gadgets offered by Q, banter with Miss Moneypenny and M, and a generally campy atmosphere – but these don’t dominate the action sequences themselves.  One of the better outings?

Le Confessionnal (1995)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Le Confessionnal (1995) – Robert Lepage

I re-watched Hitchcock’s I Confess (1953) to prepare myself for this film which also takes place in Quebec City and contains flashbacks to the days when Hitch was in town filming his film. Lothaire Bluteau plays Pierre, returning home for his father’s funeral and helping his adopted brother, Marc (Patrick Goyette), to solve the mystery of his parentage – his mother (Pierre’s aunt) committed suicide after having her baby out of wedlock (back in the early ‘50s).  It’s quite possible that the father was a priest (and a defrocked rich gay man is a prime suspect) and that links us to I Confess which starred Montgomery Clift as a priest accused of murder.  Director Robert Lepage, known for his stage work, imbues the film with a lot of style – and stylised camerawork, use of colour, jump cuts, etc.  Nevertheless, the film seems underplayed with the characters (or characterisations) not quite achieving enough clarity to help us to identify with them.  Perhaps there’s an echo of the stage and its formalities that intrudes? Or the production values are not as high as they should be? Nevertheless, the idea for the film and its style make it worth a look.

Tell No One (2006)

☆ ☆ ☆

Tell No One (2006) – G. Canet

French thriller (based on a novel by American Harlan Coben) that is exciting and perplexing, throwing the lead character, a paediatrician (François Cluzet) off the deep end when the police re-open the investigation into the murder of his wife eight years later.  Suddenly, he is a suspect despite having been knocked unconscious during the attack that killed his wife.  As the police net tightens, he goes on the run, seeking to figure out who the real killers are -- although viewers could well suspect that he is hiding something himself, as the filmmakers only drip feed facts and clues to the audience.  Without spoiling things (as there are so many twists and turns, it is hard to keep them straight), let’s just say he comes to believe that his wife is still alive.  Of course, this is Hitchcock territory and it is easy to identify with the poor doctor swept along by events out of his control – and to feel suspense due to the many unknowns in the story (and many suspicious characters).  However, director Guillaume Canet never lets us forget that there is a romance at the heart of the film (even if it may have been betrayed).  Films with twists often include at least one long scene where a character explains it all and Tell No One is no different – in that way, it is a bit formulaic/generic.  But this is mainstream filmmaking designed for thrills (nothing much more) and it succeeds on that count with solid acting, good direction, and a crafty script. 

  

Color Out of Space (2019)

☆ ☆ ☆

Color Out of Space (2019) – R. Stanley

So, Nicolas Cage is making six movies a year these days?  He’s on a roll, a tear, and really is the go-to actor for over-the-top madness (still).  This version of the H. P. Lovecraft story is clearly designed as an acid trip (no need for actual drugs).  I had read the story a few years ago (and I’ve just scanned it again now) but had no specific memories of it. The film seems true to the story though we see more from the insider’s point-of-view perhaps. As usual with this sort of film, things start out rather ordinary: Cage playing Nathan Gardner is at home in rural Arkham (presumably New England) with his wife (Joelly Richardson) and three children, when a meteorite crashes in their front yard.  A hydrologist (Elliot Knight) surveying the area stops by to investigate, including visiting the home of the squatter (Tommy Chong – still smoking!). Gradually, some weird shit starts to happen (the youngest son seems zombified, Richardson starts to lose it).  Cage holds on, perhaps drinking too much, until things just completely melt down.  As does he.  As does the plot.  And the visuals.  But if this is your sort of thing, then perhaps this one is somewhat better than the usual crap out there aiming to be thrilling but ending up only incoherent).  The director is Richard Stanley, last seen getting fired from the Brando version of The Island of Dr. Moreau; apparently this is the first of an intended trilogy of Lovecraft adaptations.

I Confess (1953)

☆ ☆ ☆

I Confess (1953) – A. Hitchcock

Hitch’s obsession with guilt and innocence are on full display here (he always claimed to have a mortal fear of the police despite doing nothing wrong) and he reveals the Catholic roots of these concerns much more overtly here than elsewhere in his canon.  Montgomery Clift plays Father Logan, a priest in Quebec City (the site of a memorable field trip for my high school French class) who hears a murderer’s confession in the first five minutes of the film.  Unfortunately for him, the murderer was dressed as a priest at the time and Logan falls under suspicion – but can’t reveal the real killer because of the sanctity of the confessional!  More importantly, Logan and an “old friend” (Anne Baxter) share a secret, yes, a guilty secret, that means that they are not quite innocent and this further attracts Inspector Karl Malden’s unwanted attention. (Baxter pursuing the “unavailable” Clift, who was gay, does seem to have some Lavender Screen double meanings). Logan seems quite ready to become a martyr, either because of his faith/the principle or to expiate his own guilt – and Hitch makes a number of references to the Stations of the Cross, suggesting the trials he is being put through.  It’s all a bit turgid to be honest until an exciting chase through the Chateau Frontenac (site of a memorable h. s. dinner w/ wine) wraps things up with a bow.  Not Hitch’s best but not without interest.