Tim Allen has starred in four Christmas films throughout his career. I've seen all of them. This isn't even the worst one.
Shit Christmas
The Partially Educated Review
In 50 Words or Less: Conform or die! That is the moral of this film. Don't watch it is the moral of this review.
In Detail: The first thing that may throw you with Christmas With The Kranks is the opening credits, namely the bit that says that this is based on a novel by John Grisham. Yet there's not a taut legal proceeding anywhere to be seen. Instead, we've got Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple who decide to forego Christmas, rather than face the prospect of spending it without their daughter. If this was a normal scenario, everyone would ignore them and allow them to continue with this plan as they wish. I'd have been a lot happier if this was the case. Instead, we get Dan Aykroyd leading the sort of villagers that you'd usually expect as a precursor to a load of teenagers getting slaughtered. Aykroyd doesn't like the idea of a gap in his street's festive displays and so he sets out to force Christmas upon the Kranks. God forbid if a Goldstein or Patel family move in.
But this is not a film that wants to dwell on the possibility that Christmas may not be celebrated in some households. Instead, it wants to bring us all in to a sheltered existence in which Christmas is the only thing that matters and what better way to do that than accepting your own cult-like neighbourhood and discovering the importance of community.
Not that one.
Christmas With The Kranks has a message that it thinks is heartwarming, but it's horribly misguided, instead demonstrating a conform or die attitude, as though it's making a B-line for Kim Jong-un's DVD collection. It also has a dearth of laughs and an inability to decide whether it's characters are grounded in normality or nestling into the bosom of insanity. Particularly in the case of Allen, whose occasional rationality is offset by the sort of erratic behaviour that would suggest a bipolar diagnosis is on the way. At one point, skipping Christmas will save them money. At the next point…
Curtis doesn't fare a whole lot better, as she can't decide whether she's on board with the idea or not; a rational thought process, but it doesn't give you anything to enjoy, just excited shrieks followed by nervous panic. Then, the film really shows it's ineptitude with a final character twist that ranks on the idiotic scale somewhere between Dude, Where's My Car? and any combination of words leaving the mouth of Donald Trump.
If that's not enough to put you off, then bear this in mind. My boss likes this film. She also thinks The Muppet Christmas Carol is rubbish.
It's Star Wars week, which is somewhat coincidental as Shit Christmas continues with a film that directly attributes the blame for the existence of Darth Vader to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Shit Christmas
The Partially Educated Review
In 50 Words or Less: Arnie's on a toy hunt. He kills no one. Kind of defies the point of an Arnie film.
In Detail: There are those who will defend Jingle All The Way. There are also those who will defend Charles Manson. Both parties exist in the same realm of correctness.
Arnold Schwarzenegger plays salesman Howard Langston who, on top of missing his son's karate exam, has completely forgotten to buy the "must have toy of the season" Turbo Man. Cue a Christmas Eve of charging round the stores in a desperate bid to find a Turbo Man, all of which sold out a long time ago. All the while, he must contend with a rival father looking for the exact same toy (Sinbad, that's the actor's name, not the character's), a rival neighbour on the hunt for his wife's affections (Phil Hartman) and his own son crying and telling him what a bad father he is. Which would be bad enough, but then you suddenly realise said son is played by Jake "Anakin Skywalker" Lloyd and spend the whole time thinking…
I'm not entirely sure what Jingle All The Way thinks it is. Other than funny, but it's misguided on that one. At times, it's striving to be a comment on the consumerism of Christmas. At other times, it's gunning for the wholesome family "Spirit of Christmas" role. Then, at others, it's an off the rails slapstick farce. Is it possible for a film to be all three? Yes, of course it is, but Jingle All The Way isn't capable of multi-tasking so it flits from one style to the other like a Ritalin addled 2 year-old with no skill in handling any of them. It's rally cry against the commercialist side of it all is undone by it's own mentality that Christmas is all about toys. The family side of it is negated by the fact that no one whose age has reached double figures will be able to stand it. As for the farce, it's painful, providing cheap gags and painfully misjudged cartoonish moments. When Schwarzenegger becomes (admittedly second handedly) involved in a fake bomb threat, there's only one way for your mind to react.
The ending is a foregone conclusion, which doesn't always mean the death knell. In fairness, it would be unwise to expect anything different from a film aimed at children, but if a film is predictable, it needs something to keep you going and this rarely has that. Most of the enjoyment to be had comes from hearing Schwarzenegger's enunciation issues and laughing at just how low this man will sink in the name of a paycheck. Still, occasional enjoyment deserves some reward, so it's only fair to reflect that in a slightly elevated score.
THREE out of 10 (yes, that's elevated)
No, Arnold. No.
There'll be none of that here. Honest. Though to ensure that, I'm keeping it brief.
Shut up.
Up until now, I have stood firm in my resolve. I wouldn't hand out a 5 star review to any Star Wars film. Maybe The Empire Strikes Back if my own enjoyment hadn't been limited by the fact that I knew the ending, but that didn't happen. Now that I've seen The Force Awakens, I can say that I STILL wouldn't give a 5 star (or 9-10 out of 10) review to any Star Wars film. The Force Awakens is good though. At times, it's very good and in comparison to the prequels, it's certainly a huge improvement. It's new stars are almost all excellent, with flaws often down to their characters being underwritten (Oscar Isaac), rather than issues with their performance, though Domnhall Gleeson is only a few steps shy of Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Ascending.
Particular praise must go to John Boyega and Daisy Ridley, who show George Lucas the type of unknown (relative in Boyega's case) he should have cast when finding his Anakin Skywalker (either of them). As for the old hands, they're coasting a little bit, but nostalgia allows them to. The plot ticks along nicely and the action is well made, with a particularly exciting final fight. One of it's main moments of impact is telegraphed way ahead though, which kind of flattens it and there's also a resounding feeling that the film has blown one of it's later twists before it's even got there. All in all though, it's a return to form, though again bear in mind that I only class my Star Wars fandom as casual at best.
The path to the Full Education of Seven Pounds is taking longer than I thought, particularly when I can think of a multitude of things that I'd rather be doing than watching every single episode of The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air (shin kicking for one). That being said, I have noticed that posts on this blog have been infrequent at best over the past few months, so I'm going to do something about it. Lucky you.
So, welcome to Partial Education's December, hereby known as Shit Christmas (half) Month: a (half) month in which I will look at the some of the real Christmas stinkers that have come out over the years. The type of films that feel like biting into a Pig in Blanket, only to realise it's a vegetarian one. It's not hard to find bad Christmas films, so, rather than just delve in and randomly pull one out, I'm only allowing films which had a wide release in cinemas. We begin with a Ben Affleck film released but one year after Gigli. A film that made me consider Jennifer Lopez a lesser evil.
In 50 Words or Less: A witless, aggravating abortion of a film. Ben Affleck's career took it's swan dive before this. This just completed the face plant.
In Detail: This is a film that deserves more infamy than it has. Those who know of it know it's reputation even if they haven't seen it (lucky bastards). There are many though who don't even know of it's existence (luckier bastards) and that feels like an injustice to me. Surviving Christmas deserves to be decried in the same breath as Batman And Robin, The Last Airbender or any recent Adam Sandler effort. Yet, despite the fact that the film deserves it, I can't help but feel like I'm about to be unfair on this film. Picking on it is starting to feel a bit like the horse decomposed years ago and I'm still beating the ground into which it went.
It's just so damned awful though, with Affleck playing the type of millionaire that even the Kardashians would consider shallow. After suggesting he and his girlfriend holiday in Fiji, he finds himself spending Christmas alone, when she informs him that he's an odious tower of pond-scum. That or she wants to spend it with her family, I forget which and either are justifiable. A couple more contrivances later and Affleck winds up at his old family home, now populated by James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara avec family, where he pays them to pretend they are his family over the Christmas period. Cue gags about the awkwardness of it all, interspersed with painful moralising about the importance of family.
In fairness to the performers, O'Hara always gives her best for a laugh, probably because she's gotten used to appearing in crud like this. Giving your best only helps if there's something to play for though. This doesn't have that. Gandolfini plays pissed off very well, though it's debatable whether this is acting or his general attitude towards the film. During the shoot, he apparently locked himself in his trailer for a day, demanding rewrites before he would continue filming. It didn't help. Meanwhile, Christina Applegate provides the film's sole voice of reason, but pretty much stands there commenting on how grotesque it all is. Yeah, we know. You still agreed to be in it though. I wonder where your motivation came from.
Affleck, on the other hand, is in a league of his own. The bottom one. His smile is at it's most excrement consuming. The attitude of his character makes Jordan Belfort seem borderline humane and the worst part of it all isn't that the film sends the character on the dreaded JOURNEY OF SELF-DISCOVERY!…
…it's how he ends said journey. This next bit will qualify as a spoiler, but I wouldn't worry. I won't. Affleck ends his journey just as self-centred and hateful as he was when he began and the film clearly hasn't realised this. It thinks we now like him. It believes that it's done enough to convince us that the other characters can now accept him. All that achieves is us hating all of them for their failure to leave him festering away in the most miserable Christmas of all time.
If you survive Surviving Christmas, you deserve nothing less than canonisation. I've now survived it twice, so from here on out you may refer to me as Saint James.
Bit
of background. I didn't much like the first Maze
Runner
film. I found it dull and uninspired, coming far too late to the pack
of YA adaptations with a terminal lack of original ideas. I
didn't review it, but if I had, it would have probably been a
THREE/FOUR out of 10.
The
second one's better. Though
better is a relative term.
The
Partially Educated Review
Mockingjay
Part 12
In 50 Words or Less: Noticeably improved from the original, with some solid (but unoriginal) setpieces to ramp up the excitement that the first film lacked. The cast are solid, but the original characters are still dull, while some interesting new additions fall victim to under-development. The fatigue of dystopian YA also continues.
In Detail: Having
escaped from the maze (thus raising the question why they bother
mentioning the damn thing in the title), our prerequisite group of
mopey young heroes take shelter with people fighting against the
organisation that held them in the maze (WCKD, a name that's funny
when they say it and hilarious when you hear what it stands for).
It's not long though before the motives of their new allies are
bought into question. Could it be that they aren't as noble as they
first seemed? (Clue: they aren't)
The
reason why Scorch
Trials
is better than it's predecessor is simple: there's a bit more going
on. The first film's focus on character over action is flipped: a
wise decision given that a character driven piece only holds interest
if those characters aren't a group of surly teenagers. It's also not
bothered about wrapping it's young audience in some sort of soft,
protective material. I advise consideration if you're planning to
take a pre-teen to this because your average 8 year-old will likely
shit his/herself at some of the more, shall we say, intense moments. I can state that with confidence because I witnessed one
8 year-old (guessed age) stage some sort of meltdown, forcing a quick
evacuation of the cinema by one pissed off looking parent.
The
action sequences are what add a lot of the excitement...
...and
they're really well-made, though they befit the franchise's lack of
imagination. All of them are a mishmash of scenes that you've seen
before. In particular, the likes of 28
Days Later (yep,
those are the bits that push the 12A certificate to the max) and
Jurassic
Park 2
get the sort of tribute that borders on copyright infringement.
This bit, if you're wondering.
The
film isn't shy about introducing new characters either. In fact, it's
probably a little too eager to throw in as many as it can. Though
this leads to underdevelopment, the mercy of it is that a lot of
these new characters are played by adults, meaning a lot less puberty
woes. That's not to entirely denigrate the young casts' competence as
performers, as the franchise has always had fairly solid hands in
this respect. It's just good to see someone who's not an eye-covering
fringe away from the emo-kid stereotype that I thought dead in 2005.
Familiarity
is also an issue. If someone came along and declared a 5-year ban on
further YA adaptations upon completion of all current franchise, I
wouldn't be too distraught. In fact, it's reached the point now where
Mockingjay
Part 2
is the only one that fills me with any interest. Though I actually
consider the Divergent
series a worse offender in paint by numbers cinema, The
Maze Runner
really only has a male protagonist and sensible character names to
distance itself from the Hunger
Games
franchise. With Mockingjay
Part 1
boring a proportion of it's audience last year (not me, I liked it),
there are elements of this film that will royally drag for that same
audience when they realise it's a near identical film, with zombies.
However, when
I say The
Scorch Trials
is better than The
Maze Runner,
it's not by some small margin. It's a noticeable improvement that
director Wes Ball deserves credit for, along with his merciful
refusal to split the final book into two films. If that level of
improvement occurs next time around, we'll probably have a pretty
damn good finale to enjoy. IF
that level of improvement occurs.
For those who missed it, two or three weeks ago (I can't remember which and am too lazy to check), I selected Seven Pounds as the film that will be my first Full Education. Naturally, that means that the foreseeable future will consist of reviews that get me to that point. Now, to clarify, when it comes to which cast members I need to watch the entire back catalogue of, my rule is simple. It's anyone who is in the opening credits. In the case of Seven Pounds, that means these people.
Will Smith
Rosario Dawson
Michael Ealy
Barry Pepper
Woody Harrelson
Elpidia Carrillo
Bill Smitrovich
Robinne Lee
Tim Kelleher
Joe Nunez
Then, there will also be the writer Grant Nieporte and director Gabriele Muccino. I begin with a dark horse of a film.
The Partially Educated Review Coming out (by way of idealism)
The Seven Pounds Connection: A very early (and equally brief) role from Michael Ealy.
In 50 Words or Less: A sweet-natured film led by two hugely likeable performances. It's just unfortunate that it's brave subject matter is explored in an overly safe manner that seems scared of shaking the nest.
In Detail: Jennifer Westfeldt isn't a household name. She's not even a face that I'd put any amount of money on you recognising, but she's had a curious sort of career. Every five years or so, she releases a film in which she stars in a role that she's written for herself (she gets someone else to direct). The rest of the time she takes unmemorable bit parts, presumably for paying the bills whilst she writes her next project. I've seen two of her films (this and Friends With Kids) and they're both entirely fine, coasting along with a sort of cute rose-tinted view of the world. With Kissing Jessica Stein, that is both an asset and a detriment.
After the adamantly heterosexual title character responds to a 'women seeking women' ad in the classifieds section, she finds herself dabbling in the idea of a lesbian relationship. Curiously, despite the "not for bible belt consumption" plot, the film plays it incredibly safe. Any desire to present a view of societal issues with homosexuality or to make any sort of comment on the difficulties of coming out is muted by the fact that everyone who finds out is instantly accepting of the whole situation. Though it's a beautiful ideal, it feels fake. The film presents two hugely likeable characters in Westfeldt's Stein and Heather Juergensen's Helen (Juergensen co-wrote with Westfeldt), meaning you will care about the relationship and want it to succeed. Unless you're a raging homophobe, in which case...
When it shies away from much more than a hint of the difficulties coming their way, it feels like a squandered opportunity. The filmmaker's appear to lack confidence in whether these characters are winning over their audience and throw in overly frequent reminders of how great it all is. They want you to go along with it and you should go along with it, but the film could have taken the risk of including some voices of dissension in order to create a more real-world view.
Though that's a problem, the undeniably positive atmosphere created by the film does put conjure up warm, happy feelings. The narrative packs some surprises along the way (I can't imagine many will correctly predict how it ends) and the dialogue feels relatively sharp. There's some odd directorial choices here and there. For example, one of the initial love scenes between two white women has a song blatantly written for a black audience played over it. I won't go into deals, but you'll know it when you here it. Mostly though, the focus wisely remains on dialogue and characterisation. Kissing Jessica Stein feels like a film that should have caused more conversation and debate than it did. That it didn't is mostly it's own fault, but it's still worth the time.
There's this concept in film that's known as the Magical Negro. It's not liked much. This kind of explains it.
Technically, Seven Pounds is a magical negro film. I'm not saying it's not, but (go with me on this), I actually don't care.
A Partially Educated Review
The film that will be my first Full Education, but isn't yet.
In 50 Words or Less: By far, the most under-appreciated film of Will Smith's career (so far). A film that manages to be both heartbreaking and uplifting in tandem. It may veer dangerously close to committing some nasty Hollywood sins, but pulls it back with great performances and a truly affecting narrative.
I am happy to accept all of the following:
That good intentions should not always be a "get out of jail" free card if the end product panders to insulting tropes or damaging stereotypes.
That Hollywood is, in any way, equal when it comes to gender or, in this case, racial equality, particularly in the quality of roles that are out there.
That vanity projects usually need to be eradicated from cinema.
I'm also not going to shy away from the fact that all three of those criticisms have been thrown in the direction of Seven Pounds, but when a film affects and moves me as much as this one does (and it's done it three times now), I can't bring myself to cite it as anything other than excellent.
It's a hard film to describe without giving things away. The concept is simple, but told in a non-linear manner that keeps things hidden. At first, it may appear like a vain attempt to make the film seem more clever, but just go with it and it becomes a non-issue by the end. What you know is this; Will Smith is not in a good place. His opening phone call is announcing his own suicide. We then see him borderline stalking people who he has clearly never met before (they clearly do not know him either) with a desire to discover whether or not they are a good person.
It's a hard opening to get behind for sure, but the way the film unravels won me over. You may see a some of the plot coming before it arrives. It also has a final act that stretches credibility to the point where it almost snaps, but the overarching story that it's telling combines with the characters to instil an overwhelming wave of emotion in me and a number of other people I know. In fact, the only people I'm aware of who this film hasn't affected are people I don't even know. It's true that the film's chief want is to reduce it's audience to tears and that's an aim that frequently leads to criticisms of emotional manipulation. Again, I see the point. Again, I don't care.
Will Smith is at his absolute best here. I had a quick look through his other films and I've seen almost all of them. I can't name one where he delivers a better performance than this. Something tells me Hitch won't challenge it. There is so much internal conflict going on and Smith makes you feel every ounce of it. Supporting roles are also fairly good, with Rosario Dawson getting the best deal and Woody Harrelson delivering a decent, if underused, role as a blind pianist.
Here's testament to how much I like Seven Pounds. I've picked so many films over the last two years, with regards to what should be my first Full Education and I can't help but keep changing my mind. An initial attempt to find something where I like everyone in it and everything they've been in proved a fairly foolhardy exercise. I considered taking a classic, but what's the point of telling everyone how great a film is if they already know it. So that's why I'm choosing Seven Pounds. I love it and due to a fairly poisonous response from other critics, it's been pretty much forgotten about. It's helps that I'm a fan of Smith, Dawson and Harrelson; the latter two of which I consider amongst the most under celebrated actors working today. I understand how the criticisms levelled at Seven Pounds have shown their head and I'm not saying their wrong (I don't believe in the idea that an opinion can be wrong). I'm just accusing them of being heartless bastards!
Can we please make it a punishable crime to go out in public without first masking your own body odour? I sat through the whole of Fantastic Four with that very stench permeating itself from the bloke in front of me. The Lynx effect, mate. It's not all the adverts crack it up to be, but it's better than what you're offering.
A Partially Educated Review
It stank a lot less than the guy in front of me.
In 50 Words or Less: It feels far too much like an introduction to a bigger (hopefully better) film, but a darker tone and solid to very good performances provide promise. Though the previous incarnations didn't make it hard, this is the best stab at Fantastic Four by some way.
In Detail: This one's a nerve wracking one. I saw Fantastic Four last night and, in the absence of pre-screening for critics, have not seen any other reviews. That's not to say that I would let those reviews sway my opinion (I probably wouldn't even read them before watching it). It just helps knowing whether I need to justify a rebellion against the status quo or not. Given my current track record with superhero films (for a refresher, I was underwhelmed by Ant-Man, liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and, though I haven't reviewed it, I really wasn't impressed with Days Of Future Past), I'm thinking justification may be needed.
So, it's not perfect, but the biggest question is whether or not it's better than previous efforts. I've never seen the apparently abhorrent 1994 version, but I have taken the journey into Albaville for the delightful 2005 effort and this pisses all over that. The delightful is sarcasm if you hadn't gathered.
You see, the glasses were what made her a scientist
Taking yet another superhero origin story and making it feel fresh is now a much harder task, but director Josh Trank has made a solid and, at moments, very good stab at it. With our four scientists looking into the ability to shift between dimensions, a journey gone wrong is what bestows them with their powers and casts Toby Kebbell as Victor Von Doom (that name works so well in 2015) into the unknown and his assumed death.
It's not a narrative that packs a lot of surprises, but it has some stylistic choices that help to remedy this and give the film some bite. Trank has bought the darkness from his debut film Chronicle and injected it into a world that felt far too cartoonish last time around. It can be quite hard to make some of these powers look anything but comical, particularly the stretching powers of Reed Richards (Miles Teller), but our initial look at this feels more like an image from a horror film. The arrival of Dr Doom also makes for some more mature viewing than we've become accustomed to from the Marvel universe and I loved it, though it also signals one of the problems. It all feels like it's over too soon, not because it needs to be longer, but because it needs to get going faster. Far too much time is spent waiting for the shit to hit the fan that, by the time it does, the wise decision to keep this film nearer the 90 minute mark leaves us with very little time left. The result: Doom gets shafted.
In the end, it's unarguably disappointing that the film feels more like an introduction to a better sequel. Good will is prevailing though, because the promise that's there makes me want that sequel to happen and makes me want the same team to do it. The performances are all at least solid, but everyone just needs more to do. Trank hasn't created Guardians Of The Galaxy, but when you put this next to Ant-Man, he's done the better job.
In 50 Words Or Less: Dull when dialogue-led and derivative when action-led, Ant-Man isn't bad in the grand scheme of things, but Marvel are starting to take the piss a little.
In Detail: As startling as this may sound, it is actually possible to start getting bored of something if it's thrust upon you 35 times in the last 15 years. Such is the case with films based on Marvel properties. That gets worse when you consider that not only have we have not had a year without a Marvel adaptation since 2001, we've also had 15 of them in the last 5 years. If there was ever a case for the links between over-saturation and fatigue, this is the one that settled the argument once and for all. Here's the thing that really throws me though. I keep coming back to them. Not because of some bizarre necessity for completion, but because I want to see these films. I then still feel some semblance of surprise when I leave the screenings with a resounding sense of disappointment. It's how I imagine most Adam Sandler fans feel. This disappointment goes doubly for Ant-Man: a film so utterly unable to raise itself above anything other than competent. It is the poster-child for those people that like to claim that Hollywood is nothing more than a soulless money-devouring eater of souls.
Stop me if you've heard this one before. A good-natured but misguided soul finds his true calling when he…
Ex-con Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) steals a high-powered suit that shrinks him down to the size of a take a wild guess. Somehow, this also gives him superhuman strength (characters fall asleep when this starts to get explained, but it's something to do with ants being able to carry multiple times their own weight). Meanwhile, a shady organisation wants to use the technology for shady needs. Let me stress this. Every single character in Ant-Man is a stereotype that's been used more times than Bill Cosby's Quaalude collection. This wouldn't be the end of the world if the actors were doing something with that, but none of them are. Paul Rudd plays Ant-Man like every Paul Rudd character. Evangeline Lilly is as dull as it comes in the ass-kicking (Marvel's idea of feminism) female role. Then there's the Oscar winning clout of Michael Douglas, but he's defining the term "cashing a cheque". Meanwhile the likes of Corey Stoll, Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale get short-changed by a script that considers them grateful to be involved. One of those three is the main villain and that kind of says all you need to know.
This is where Edgar Wright comes into it. Or rather, would have come into it. As was fairly well documented, Wright dropped out as director following disagreements with Marvel and came to be replaced by Peyton Reed, a man who could make as many films as he likes, but will always be hated by me on account of his helming of Down With Love.
I'm not going to pretend like I love everything Edgar Wright does (can we all learn to agree that The World's End wasn't, by any stretch, good), but the hint of his touch provides the film with it's only sense of imagination. It pokes it's head out on the rarest of occasion, only to be smashed back down by Kevin Feige's million dollar boot. Different is not welcome here because frankly the status quo is working for the needs of the producers. My question is: how long will that last? They curried some good will last year with the refreshing Guardians Of The Galaxy, but are people honestly going to keep paying to watch the same film again and again.
Michael Mann's a legend. I wanted to watch his films. I figured I'd review them in the process. Quite simple really.
In 50 Words or Less: A classic to many who aren't me. Thief is a good film with some excellent performances, but a brilliant lead character comes too much at the expense of the supporting players. As a precursor to the style that Mann would come to call his own, it's still an interesting watch.
Apparently, Thief is a great film. According to the late Roger Ebert, it is "one of the most intelligent thrillers I've seen". I don't deny the intelligent part and I can't really deny it's right to be viewed in such high esteem. If it resonates with enough people, it deserves that right. I'm just not one of them. Essentially a character study of jewel thief Frank (James Caan), this is the usual story of said thief trying to bring about some good in his life; his true passion being to start a family with his partner Jessie (Tuesday Weld). The film has a lot going for it. Caan delivers an exceptional performance here that may not stray too far from some of his other roles in regards to character type, but cracks the shell of the hard man exterior to bring out a human fragility. Weld is also very good, though suffers from Mann's weaknesses in writing female characters. Let me say it here, rather than repeat it in every review. Mann's female characters may as well be called Wife when you consider how little they're fleshed out in regards to their male counterparts. Naturally, this being Mann's first film, the directorial style he shows here is one that he would develop throughout his career. His admiration towards the cities in which he sets his films is viewed through a murky lens, as humanity's own flaws squander their potential for greatness. His sweeping panoramas of America's metropolises are the stamp marks that let you know you're watching one of his films and Thief is riddled with all the signposts of the career that would follow it. That's a good thing, if you're wondering. It doesn't have that grandiosity of some of his later films though and that suits it. As I said, this is first and foremost a character study of Frank, with other characters being made to fit round him. The elements of those other characters that we discover are usually limited to what Frank himself discovers and this is part of where I struggle with this film, as many of them feel as though they could have done with more development. The likes of James Belushi, Robert Prosky and Willie Nelson (yes, that one) all play vital characters that still feel secondary to whatever Frank's purpose in their particular scenes are. In Prosky's case, this makes the character feel far too familiar and Prosky's great work deserves a little more attention than it gets, while Belushi and Nelson disappear and reappear with such irregularity that every appearance throws you as you're suddenly thinking "how long is it since they were last in this?" The performances are what make this film worth the effort, particularly if you're a fan of Mann's work, but I do not share the high praise that many others have given this film.
THREE out of five
In 50 Words or Less: Perhaps the most uncharacteristic film of his career, it's not as stupid as the premise (Demon VS Nazis) sounds. Then again, stupidity may have made it a lot less boring.
It's not often that Mann ventures too far into the past. To be honest, it's probably a good thing because, as you will see, it's always been blatantly apparent to me that the present day is where his strengths lie. That is where his masterpieces lie. However, of all of his delves into bygone eras, it's at least reassuring to know that his first is the worst. The Keep is a film so uncharacteristic of Mann that I had to double check there weren't two directors going by the same name. As Nazis take control of the film's namesake, they open up a previously blocked passage, resultantly releasing a not-too-happy demon. With the Nazis blaming the mysterious deaths upon the local villagers, they are convinced to bring in an ageing and unwell Jewish doctor (Ian McKellen) to decipher the messages contained within the keep. Unknown to them, the doctor and the demon soon enter cahoots, as the doctor seeks to restore the strength of his supernatural ally in the hope that he will assist in the extermination of his captors. The film isn't quite as stupid as the synopsis suggests, though that isn't to complement it too much. It's just incredibly hard to explain this film whilst keeping a straight face. Mann was trying something new here and that's always commendable, but it just doesn't work. The biggest problem that the film has sounds a little base, but it's really boring. Any sense of excitement is ruined by an unfocussed script that tries to throw in far too many plot strands and all of these end up underdeveloped. It's not like I wanted to see them develop though because there was nothing here that pushed me into any sort of emotional investment. There's some nice effects used for the demon in the early stages of the film, but as it's appearance develops with it's growing strength, it's not long before it starts to look like the bastard love-child of Jabba The Hutt and Resident Evil's Nemesis. Throw in a voice that just sounds like a pissed off version of the SuperTed narrator…
…and taking this seriously becomes a real mission. There's also the score, which is provided by Tangerine Dream. I should say here that …Dream's work on the score for Thief is brilliant, evoking the right mood, setting and feeling for the film. In The Keep, they pretty much deliver the exact same score, apparently missing the part where this film was set some 40 years before that. It jars horribly. The Keep is not the schlocky B-movie that it perhaps should have been, with an obvious effort on Mann's part to elevate the material further than that. Full points for ambition and that does yield the odd moment or shot that works (the initial reveal of the demon is pretty great, even with the dated effects), but there's a reason why you never here anyone talk about this film.
TWO out of five
In 50 Words or Less: The best Hannibal Lecter in film is a small part of a great thriller that thankfully has a second lease on life as a result of the character's growing fame. Not perfect, but if Seven is the thriller of the 90s, this may well be the thriller of the 80s.
I am a proud member of the "Brian Is Better" camp: that being anyone who has seen Manhunter and thus realises that Anthony Hopkins did not deliver the definitive Hannibal Lecter performance, just the most famous one. Some 5 years before Hopkins made the serial killer a household name, Mann took the first (and best) stab at Thomas Harris' original Lecter novel, Red Dragon. Ignoring the title that everyone bar producer Dino De Laurentiis hated, Manhunter is one hell of a thriller. Criminal profiler Will Graham (William Petersen) is called upon by the FBI to assist in tracking down a killer known as the Tooth Fairy (a great performance by an underrated actor that I won't reveal), so named due to his habit of leaving bite marks in his victims. It's a whodunnit inflicted with some of the darkest of moods. The whole feel of the Lecter series is that of a descent into some of the most depressingly sickening areas of humanity that you could discover. Manhunter has that feeling, like a constant oppression against it's audience, as no character that escapes with their life comes out unscarred. Feelings of warmth will have left you by the end of this film. Petersen is decent in the role, particularly when it comes to Graham's own inner issues, stemming from his earlier encounters with Lecter. Less good is the character's apparent inability to hold an inner monologue. He spouts out his every thought which gives the audience all the necessary information, but Mann's script may as well involve someone walking on to inform us that this is the exposition bit. Then there's Cox. As this came at a point when no one knew quite how infamous a figure Lecter would become, his appearances are few here, yet he still manages to steal it. The key difference between this performance and that of Hopkins is the feeling of chilling normality in Cox. It's as though the character is entrenched in his own belief that normality resides entirely within him. The real evils and perversities lie in the world outside his cell. He talks with a chilling calm about some of the most horrendous things, both in a sense of challenge to Graham, but also with a disdain for anyone who is too sheltered to deal with the horrors that surround them. There's no wide-eyed stare, no psychotic snaps with vampiric grin and no weird sucking sounds. Just terrifying calm. I'm not saying that Hopkins is without merit (I enjoy him in Silence Of The Lambs, less so in Hannibal), but anyone telling me that Cox isn't the master is going to need one hell of a justification. There is the odd moment where the film drags and the end scenes are a little too much, with the Graham engaging in one heroic moment that comes off as a little stupid. It's those great moments that stick in the memory though.
FOUR out of five
In 50 Words or Less: American Braveheart. I quite like Braveheart though.
And so Mann once again ventures into a period setting, this time the 18th century and the Seven Year War. This is the only time Mann made a film set earlier than the 20th century and, as a result, it really does feel entirely different to any other film that he has made. Is it good though? Yeah, just about. A British Army Major (Steven Waddington) is tasked with transporting his new Colonel's two daughters to their father in New York, where they are currently defending against the French. When they are betrayed and almost killed by their Mohawk guide Magua (Wes Studi), they find themselves rescued and guarded by the chief of the last remaining Mohican tribe and his two sons, one of whom happens to be played by Daniel Day-Lewis. With an obvious affection blossoming between Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe (as the oldest of the two daughters), the three tribesmen agree to escort them the rest of the way, with their inevitable involvement in the war being the result of this. I could kill The Last Of The Mohicans for a lot of you in one statement. It's about two steps short of Braveheart. The love story that transcends class, the unlikely hero getting his day to shine and the music score that feels a constant need to remind you that you're supposed to be roused right now. That's me being a little mean there (whilst also denying the fact that I'm a bit of a Braveheart fan), but it may help you to decide whether you're going to enjoy, tolerate or hate it. This is a join-the-dots historical epic, with a lack of features that make it stand out. Even Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty run-of-the-mill here, playing the archetypal hero without any of the real delving into the character that we've all come to expect from him. There's a moment of his brilliant acting here and there ("they stay where they lay"), but there is nothing to get really excited about and his and Stowe's romance is just as unexceptionally competent. Thank God for Wes Studi then, who delivers the film's stand-out performance with a character that injects a little unpredictability into things. You never question the film's consideration of him as a villain, but though you'll find it easy to dislike his actions, it will be every bit as hard to condemn his motives. The vengeance he wants is rooted in a justifiable grievance and Studi plays every conflict with a steadfast determination. The faith he has in his own motivations is entirely believable. It is primarily this performance that takes this film into good territory, but Mann's struggles outside of a modern day setting still show.
THREE out of five
In 50 Words or Less: To call this the greatest cop film of the 90's is unfair. From the cop films I've seen, I can only consider it right to call this the greatest of all time.
There are many people who, when asked to name Mann's best film, will point to Heat. I am not one of them, but that is in no way a slight on it. It more shows just how much I really love my favourite one (reviewed next time). Though Manhunter was a decent film, it was not a success and only became well known as a result of two events. The growing popularity of the series is one of them, but so too is Mann's directing of a handful of films so brilliant that people had no choice but to start paying attention. Heat was the film that kickstarted that, nearly 20 years in the making and every bit worth that time. It moves beyond just the simple marketing ploy of De Niro and Pacino sharing the screen for the first time, to become far more about their characters' separate journeys than the brief time they spend together. It's cops and robbers, with Pacino in the cop role and De Niro in the other. Much like Studi in …Mohicans, there can be no doubting that De Niro is the villain here, as established by his willingness to kill if he deems it necessary, but this film is all about varying shades of good and bad. The actions he commits are not acceptable on their own, but in comparison to some of his associates, he's a saint. On the flip side, Pacino's cause is entirely justified, but it's the way in which he allows this to overcome and completely cast aside his personal life that brings up the more questionable elements of his own character. Again, with comparison to the flaws in De Niro's character, the lines of right and wrong are clearly drawn, but there is no such thing as clean cut here. It's this element that dominates much of the film, but with a near three hour running time, there is more than just that string. The film's heist scenes are gripping and a huge downtown gunfight is almost terrifying in it's hard-faced realism. With high definition sound, that is even more so, so I strongly advise buying the Blu-Ray if that is a possibility for you. Thief laid the groundwork for Mann's style and a lot of the films that he would come to make, but the scale of Heat makes it a true modernist epic. My only advice is this. If you don't feel that way after the first viewing, come back to it about 6 months later. Asking to spend 6 hours on one film will be something that some may scoff at, but I say that because it took me a second watch to truly see this film for how great it is. That's not to say that the first watch wasn't enjoyable, but the second was definitely the pay off. I have now lost count of how many hours I have spent watching this film. I regret none of them.
FIVE out of five
In 50 Words or Less: As spot on in it's condemnations as the real story is infuriating in it's injustices. Two great lead performances (perhaps Russell Crowe's best) cement this film as a must see. The good parts are so good that I completely forgive some obvious flaws.
So there was a bit of a "where will he go now?" feeling after Heat. Attempts to replicate the success of that would have been a little foolhardy, but an undeniable strength had emerged when Mann stuck to the present day American city settings. Four years later, Mann managed to counter both problems by going for a more drama based thriller, with the added heft of a true story behind it. Russell Crowe plays Jeffrey Wigand, who was fired from his position at tobacco company Brown and Williamson and effectively blackmailed into signing confidentiality agreements. After Wigand's path crosses with that of 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), the media's desire to uncover the truth took hold. The Insider is a deeply critical film. It is entirely condemning of the tobacco industry and it's wilful blindness towards the health issues it creates. It's also not overly favourable in it's views on the media. Though it treats Bergman with respect, showing him as a man whose passion is born out of his integrity, it doesn't shy away from the censoring initially placed on the story by network executives. The stresses felt by Wigand will also be felt by the audience, as injustice upon injustice piles on top of him, all stemming from a justified speaking of his mind. Crowe is brilliant in the role and watching the film again reminded me exactly why I've been so disappointed with a lot of his recent work. Though this film had the advantage of coming out before Gladiator, it still doesn't feel like a Crowe performance in the wake of the one that defined his career. It likely helps that he is forced to play the smaller personality in the presence of Pacino's performance, a huge presence that commands the room with bravado (inevitably meaning that the audience will be more concerned with Crowe). I've never seen any interviews with Bergman, but even so doubt that he is that much like Pacino, so a realistic portrayal it may not be. Not much of an issue though, because the performance still has layers, with Bergman's heart and soul occasionally showing face. He sees what has befallen Wigand and, worse still, sees what may be to come and you never get the feeling that he considers this collateral damage, more an unfortunate inevitability if anything close to justice can be served. Mann's direction is very focussed on the performances, toning down some of the gloss and the sweeping skyline shots to keep things focussed on the gritty, unpleasant issues at hand. It's not without it's stumbles. Jessica Lange's great performance suffers from the female character that epitomises Mann's weaknesses and the runtime could have probably been a little tighter. The importance of the issues within though are enough to offset these and render them just about moot.
FIVE out of five
The Bonus Review
In 50 Words or Less: Urge to kill... rising.
So, I've established that Brian Cox is my favourite Hannibal (though I should add that I've never seen the TV series and so can't judge Mads Mikkelsen). That does not, by any stretch, make Anthony Hopkins the worst though, because in a moment of financially motivated madness, Thomas Harris allowed Hannibal Rising to happen. Hell, he wrote the novel seemingly just so they could make film. The result is a poor film and a performance that makes Hopkins look restrained; the worst Lecter performance on film by a country mile. Ladies and Gentleman, Mr Gaspard Ulliel. As the title would suggest, this is the story of how Hannibal Lecter came to be the psychotic scumbag that he is, only it's apparently forgotten that we're not supposed to like the guy. Tracing his roots from World War II, in which all his family are killed as a result of Nazis or worse, Hannibal becomes detached from society and hankers revenge for what befell his family. Along the way, he conveniently develops his liking for the taste of flesh. I have no issue with the idea that society can be to blame for a person's dehumanisation. This film, however, expects us to root for a man who we know will eventually hold a prevalence towards sinking his teeth into the faces of innocent nurses, whilst also feeding one of his victims to unwitting guests at a dinner party. Perhaps it would have worked if we had seen the gradual dissolving of his own sanity, to the point where any feelings of support we may have had were completely gone by the end, but, without giving away the ending too much, that doesn't happen. If anything, it leaves more of the story to be told, but isn't a good enough film to make us want to see that next chapter. As I've said, Ulliel is the worst Lecter performance by far. His perverse grin isn't an indication of his nature, more an indication of an actor trying far too hard to look evil. His creepy line delivery is no better, a see-through attempt to mimic the vocalisations of Hopkins. Supporting characters come and go, with only Gong Li and Rhys Ifans designed to hold any sort of true importance to the narrative, but neither character works. Gong is meant to be the influence of good in Lecter's life and perhaps if we were able to see how she had an effect on the future Lecter, she would have felt worth the time, but her lasting impact is just about nil. As for Ifans, he's an evil European leading a group of fellow evil Europeans. It's testament to how poorly developed this group is that I started to assume they were German, despite already knowing they were meant to be Lithuanian. Hannibal Rising is terrible and only a few steps short of "Hooray for cannibalism". It can be commended for not taking those steps because had it gone that far, I'd have probably busted out a zero.
