The Men Who Stare At Goats

A Partially Educated Review of The Men Who Stare At Goats

In which most of it is true... Honest.

Cast

George Clooney – Lyn Cassady

Jeff Bridges – Bill Django

Ewan McGregor – Bob Wilton

Kevin Spacey – Larry Hooper

Robert Patrick – Todd Nixon

Stephen Lang – Brigadier General Dean Hopgood

Stephen Root – Gus Lacey

Glenn Morshower – Major General Holtz

Waleed Zuaiter – Mahmud Daash

Inspired by the book by Jon Ronson

Screenplay by Peter Straughan

Directed by Grant Heslov

There's a problem with films that are based on a true story and that's that there's so many of them that it's far too easy to become cynical and disbelieving about how much emphasis is placed on the 'based'. I once had a conversation with someone about how their cat ran away. On the basis of the creative liberties taken in film today, I could take that story and say that the cat found itself in Libya and single-handedly (pawedly?) bought down Colonel Gadaffi. It would probably still get a 'based on a true story' credit too. While the liberties taken with The Men Who Stare At Goats aren't quite to that extreme (that's the horror genre's department), there's still an overbearing smell over the whole thing and it isn't coming from the goats.

Based on Jon Ronson's book of the same name, which stemmed from an investigation conducted by him and the uncredited John Sergeant, ...Goats stars McGregor as reporter Bob Wilton, who finds himself discovering stories of the U.S. Army training psychic soldiers. A meeting with Clooney's Lyn Cassady leads to the true (that word again) story being recounted over flashback, whilst they deal with various encounters with terrorists and U.S. security details in the present day.

As for the goat staring, it's actually a pretty small part of proceedings. Apparently the real-life research into whether psychic soldiers could kill goats just by staring at them took place over 25 years. During this time, they managed to kill a staggering total of one goat. Fantastic indisputable results of the programme's success, I'm sure you'll agree. There's no mention of this in the film, the way it's demonstrated in the trailer is entirely representative of the film's treatment of this real-life "phenomenon". Perhaps if the film were able to make a believer out of me, it would have worked, but skepticism becomes the prevailing attitude of the day. As it stands, I found myself struggling to believe far too much of it.

There's two main reasons for this. The first is a complete mishandling of Bob Wilton. McGregor should represent the necessary gateway for the audience into the world that Clooney represents. Everything's accepted far too easily though. Any doubts that McGregor has are dealt with in the first scene and it's not in an entirely believable way. He then spends the rest of the film as the Clegg to Clooney's Cameron, sitting back, blindly believing and accepting every word that comes out of his mouth, instead of asking the very questions that the audience is asking. All this serves to do is leave McGregor's character feeling a bit pointless, which is slightly bizarre as the character serves as an amalgamation of Ronson and Sergeant, the only two people that could ground the story in relatable reality. That's not to say that McGregor's putting in a bad performance. He's perfectly fine in the role. It's just not a great role.

The other issue is the film's outright failure to divide the line between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Clooney is like the frontier-man spinning a tall tale and that's fine because it becomes up to you to determine which parts you believe and which you don't. Sadly, they can't stop themselves from trying to bring elements of his tale into the world that McGregor inhabits with him. They're some fairly desperate attempts to make you believe in more of Clooney's story. Some of it works (predicted coin tossing), but some of it (cloud bursting) collapses.

Outside of McGregor, you have the psychics and it's in the smaller roles that you get the film's best performances. Spacey's Larry Hooper is a weasel, boiling with ambitious jealousy. A martyr in his own eyes, his inability to accept Cassady as the better man leads to some downright reprehensible acts over the course of the film and Spacey relishes in it, making him so easy to hate. Yet again, the script lets the character down by making his finale a bit of an anti-climax, but, for the most part, it's a well-done character. Likewise, Stephen Lang puts in a hilarious performance as General Hopgood, with his belief and faith in the cause perfectly juxtaposing his blindness to his own psychic ineptitude. Necessity dictates that the character is only in the first half of the film, but that isn't really something that could be prevented. The only real question the performance begs is why Lang is so bland in other films. (See: Barbarian, Conan) (or Avatar)

As for the other leads, Clooney and Bridges both seem to believe they're in a Coen brother's film. Bridges wheels out The Dude for the umpteenth time and, while The Dude is always fun to watch, you can't help but feel character retirement's calling. Clooney delivers a solid performance, but it doesn't quite delve into the character far enough. At first, he shows the calm, cool exterior that you'd expect from him, blended quite well with a quirkier, slightly deranged edge. This is brilliantly betrayed by an early exposure of the character's rampant paranoia, but that is swiftly forgotten and never really mentioned again. Clooney simply reverts back to the original character and an extra-dimension that could have really benefitted his performance is left hanging there.

Then we arrive at the ending. It's awful. Without giving anything away, it's attempt to tie in proceedings to something that people will remember is handled pathetically. The problem isn't in whether it's true or not, as, by all accounts, the link is definitely there. Instead, it lies in it's suggestion that the press latched on to the wrong story. They didn't. Did they leave out elements of the true story? Yes. Of course they did. It's what they always do and I'm not trying to justify that. From where I'm standing though, of the two angles they could have been reported, the more important one is the one that they did report as it raised a lot more necessary questions than the other angle would have. Add to this the very final scene (and, indeed, the final shot) which leaves the whole film feeling a lot more fiction than fact. If I could see what they were trying to do with the scene, I'd have been fine, but I really couldn't and it jarred with me.

The thing with The Men Who Stare At Goats is that it's not actually a terrible film in it's own right. It's decent, if unremarkable. However, looking into the real story and the proceedings around the film being made really does sour things, with the treatment and flat-out erasing of Sergeant's contributions being particularly miserable. Ordinarily, I would advise to not let the real story get in the way of the entertainment and to take the film on it's own merits. In this case though, a lot of the liberties taken just feel rotten and, for me, it's impossible to separate them. As a result, these hurt the film far more than any creative flaws ever could.

TWO out of five

Contains a decent film, that can't help but leave a sour taste in the mouth for all the wrong reasons.

Starter For 10

A Partially Educated Review of Starter For 10

In which a casting agent displays an alarming talent for predicting the future

Cast

James McAvoy - Brian Jackson

Alice Eve - Alice Harbinson

Rebecca Hall - Rebecca Epstein

Catherine Tate - Julie Jackson

Dominic Cooper - Spencer

Benedict Cumberbatch - Patrick Watts

James Corden - Tone

Mark Gatiss - Bamber Gascoigne

Guy Henry - Dr Morrison

John Henshaw - Des

Elaine Tan - Lucy Chang

Simon Woods - Josh

Charles Dance - Michael Harbinson

Lindsay Duncan - Rose Harbinson

Screenplay by David Nicholls based on his book

Directed by Tom Vaughan

Starter For 10 may seem like a weird choice for my first review, but there's two very good reasons for this.

1. I wanted to make it apparent from the start that I'm not just going to be posting up reviews of brand new films.
2. I watched it last night.

I was going to be pretentious and try and state my 2^nd reason as some patriotic desire to show my support for British film, but I decided go with honesty instead.

What fascinates me though is how within the space of a couple of years, pretty much all of Starter's (at the time) up-and-coming cast were well on their way to breaking out in a huge way. When Alice Eve and Dominic Cooper are your least established actors, you know that you've done something right. Let's be honest, the film's sub-10 million budget would very likely be unable to achieve this cast today unless they felt like being charitable.

Set in 1985, the film follows Brian Jackson, a walking hive of general knowledge. Starting his studies of English Literature at Bristol University, it's not long before Brian enrols on the University Challenge team, led by Patrick Walsh and also featuring the instant object of Brian's desire, Alice Harbinson. Elsewhere, Brian also develops a friendship with Rebecca "different protest every week" Epstein, whilst also coming to terms with his mother's new relationship with local ice-cream man Des, following the death of Brian's father.

After the obligatory character intro montage, we go straight to University with a Vicars and Tarts party in which the attendance is suitably sparse. Note to future British students: if you're expecting the parties to be like American films, stop deluding yourself. It's not the perfect set-up to be honest, every decent representation of University lifestyle is marred by stereotypes. The hippy guy claiming that toilet paper is harmful comes off as someone who you would never actually meet at a University. I'm happy to accept that I was at University 20 years after the time this film is set, but I still don't believe it. Likewise, Epstein's group of protesters stop short of literal bra-burning, but do pretty much everything else that you would expect from every movie protest group in the history of ever.

McAvoy's great though. Adopting the awkward "out of place Brit" template, he manages to avoid becoming Hugh Grant through the simple fact that he's capable of showing more than one emotion. He doesn't seek out the laughs, but lets the story and script produce them while he humanises the character, knowing that the best laughs are pulled from human flaws, rather than farcical ones. Elsewhere, he lets the more emotional side of the character show itself in equally natural ways. When he remembers his late father, he elicits genuine sympathies from you, showing a subtlety in his reflective sadness, rather than despaired histrionics. It isn't going to reduce you to tears, nor should it have tried to, but it will resonate with anyone capable of human emotion.

Scenes like this are helped by a brilliant script that never forgets that it's primary purpose is to amuse. Remaining consistently funny throughout, it's able to blend the more emotional or serious moments in a way that flows, rather than jerks, between styles. Keeping these moments to a minimum also helps in ensuring that they don't become too wearing and means that it strays from the Nicholas Sparks-esque manipulative side that writer David Nicholls demonstrated in his script for One Day.*

Elsewhere in the cast, everyone does their job to at least a decent standard. The stand-out though is Rebecca Hall. While the protest scenes have the clichés, Hall is given plenty of time to flesh out the character away from the scenes. Where the protester is often played for comedy value, Rebecca is there to be liked. It's obvious from the start that she's supposed to be the true object of Brian's desires, but it's not because the script can't help itself from telegraphing it at every point it gets. It's because Hall's performance makes you like her far more than Alice and makes you want her to be happy. Elsewhere, Cumberbatch brings out the pomposity and arrogance of Patrick well, but he's overdoing it ever so slightly and isn't given much of a chance to do anything else.

There's a couple of elephants in the room though and they go by the names of Tate and Corden. Don't be put off by their names in the cast list. I actually don't mind James Corden, but if you really can't stand him, don't worry, he's barely in it. As for Tate, I have to give her props. Loud, irritating and with a voice that's like sticking a screwdriver in your ears, Tate tones down her less likeable qualities and comes out with some of her best work. With only an 11-year age gap, she's blatantly far too young to be playing McAvoy's mother, but embodies all the motherly qualities necessary for that to become unimportant. Thankfully, her laugh only makes one appearance and does so in a scene that's otherwise funny. As for the handling of her new relationship, it's is executed pitch-perfect and that's entirely down to her ability to show her guiltless affection for Des, whilst retaining the love for her late husband.

Special mention must also go to the soundtrack. With Kate Bush, Buzzcocks, The Smiths, The Cure and many others, it's a veritable pantheon of British greats that feels and sounds like a student soundtrack from the 1980s. It doesn't matter that you've heard all of them before. It matters that it suits the film and it does that admirably. Although, Pictures Of You in 1985? I think not.

It's a shame then that box office results were hardly staggering. With a general release date that fell a couple of months before The Last King Of Scotland's, it would have perhaps fared better had it come after the growing interest in McAvoy that Last King provided. That wasn't the case and the box office didn't even break the 2 million mark globally (let alone an embarrassing domestic gross that failed to breach a quarter of a million). Bar my parents, I can't actually name anyone who's seen it either. I admit that British film has produced some dire stuff like Lesbian Vampire Killers, Sex Lives Of The Potato Men and Keith Lemon: The Film (or just him in general), but this ones more in line quality-wise with About A Boy. If you're a cynic, you'll hate it, but that's your problem.

If that's not enough then I go back to my original argument. LOOK AT THAT CAST!

FOUR out of five

Contains: a damn good advert for British film from the director of What Happens In Vegas... actually, ignore that last bit.

*Aimed at the film, not the book which I've never read.