Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) – N. Meyer

Possibly I hadn’t seen this one since 1982, but by all reports it was the best of the O. G. Star Trek movies.  However, let’s begin by acknowledging that the TV series itself was better than the films – if you haven’t watched enough of Gene Roddenberry’s original creation (especially perhaps the episode “Space Seed” to which this film is a sequel), then a lot of the nostalgic nods to the past won’t make much sense.  So, the film takes place later in time, when the main characters, Captain Kirk (Wm Shatner), Mr Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Dr Bones McCoy (DeForest Kelley), Mr “Scotty” Scott (James Doohan), Mr Sulu (George Takei), Mr Chekov (Walter Koenig), and Ms Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), are now older and involved in more senior roles for Star Fleet Academy – Kirk is an Admiral, Spock is a Captain and head of Training, and so on.  When they are all on board the Enterprise for a training mission, they are suddenly called away to help a distant space station (which is home to Kirk’s ex and her son as well as a secret new terraforming device that destroys everything before it creates new life).  However, on the way there, they are waylaid by an old enemy who has been recently freed from his prison: yes, Khan, played with great zeal by Ricardo Montalban.  Montalban is the main reason to watch this film!  That said, the plot is probably more exciting than that of the other O. G. films (which I hardly remember) and one of the main characters does die!  (Cue the sequel).  To conclude:  watching the original series would be a better dose of nostalgia for those who want it. 

Knives Out (2019)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Knives Out (2019) – R. Johnson

Undoubtedly, I had my expectations set too high for Knives Out.  I should have realised that there are essentially no really good adaptations of Agatha Christie (although this film is inspired by her rather than adapted from her) – gentle readers, correct me, if I am wrong. I do love the old mystery series (Sherlock Holmes, Charlie Chan, The Thin Man, etc.) but they rarely earn 4 stars or above. Of course, Knives Out does benefit from a strong cast (particularly Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig) and a particularly tricky plot that inverts the genre by giving away the culprit early on. There is a certain delicious appeal to finding out that all of the characters have guilty secrets or that one is physically incapable of lying – these set the terms of our contract with the genre. But the film’s intentions for comedy are perhaps not broad enough – the characterizations are almost funny but not quite. Perhaps too another run through the events of the evening from another perspective would have tripled the fun (especially if some filmic fat were edited out)? As it stands, it is no doubt enjoyable to watch Detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) piece together the clues of the case (and he may have a sequel in the works already) but I find myself counting the ways that the film might have been pushed just a bit further into greatness… that said, I am sure director Rian Johnson knows how to court mainstream success and I do not.

After the Thin Man (1936)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

After the Thin Man (1936) – W. S. Van Dyke

Nick and Nora Charles (the sleuthing couple from Dashiell Hammett’s 1934 novel, The Thin Man) are back, again incarnated by dapper/sophisticated but totally soused William Powell and Myrna Loy. Of course, like many of the mystery series of the era, the plot introduces many characters (many red herrings) and brings them all together into a room at the end so Charles can accuse/catch the real killer. What elevates this series, aside from the stars’ perfect chemistry is the droll (and sometimes screwball) humour (both Powell and Loy know how to wait for the beat) and the superior actors in supporting roles. For example, this sequel features Jimmy Stewart (!) and Joseph Calleia as suspects (among others). The plot finds Nick and Nora travelling to California, arriving on New Year’s Eve but being called to her aunt’s house to investigate the disappearance (and then murder) of her cousin’s no-good husband. Perhaps viewers can’t really figure out whodunnit very easily (also an issue with some of Hammett’s short stories) but the fun is in watching the stars in action, despite the formula.   

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.