And The Hits Just Keep Onnnnn Coming...

There are a very small collection of movies that I have been witness to, in a packed UK cinema, that has led to a very unusual response. Cheering. While this might happen a lot in North America, where audiences are naturally more comfortable at expressing their delight in public, this is extremely rare in Britain.One of those occasions was watching Aliens, at the moment Ripley emerges to confront the Alien Queen with the Powerloader. Another was in What's Love Got To Do With It, when Tina Turner finally starts fighting back against bully Ike. And then there's the climax to A Few Good Men. But more about that in a second.

Based on the stage play written by The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin, A Few Good Men is a drama set within the US military legal system. Tom Cruise and Demi Moore are Navy lawyers representing two soldiers who killed an under performing fellow grunt in, what is essentially, a court room thriller. Rob Reiner, directing the last in a line of hits that started with Spinal Tap, expands the story in a pleasing cinematic manner while delicately balancing the dramatic fireworks and the lighter character moments. Wisely, he lets the cast of characters tell his story, and with a cast this good, it's a hell of a good story.

The three leads are on top form; each using their familiar screen personas to positively support the plot. Cruise is grinning and cocky, which builds nicely into his character's arc. Moore* is both sweet, vulnerable and in-your-face tough...perfect as Cruise's number two. And Nicholson is Nicholson; he's only in three scenes, but his Colonel Nathan Jessop practically devours the rest of the movie. If the rest of the cast (including Kevin Bacon, JT Walsh, Kevin Pollock, Keifer Sutherland, Christopher Guest, Noah Wylie, Cuba Gooding Jnr, Xander Berkeley) weren't on form, they'd have been in danger of being overshadowed completely.

The plot has two templates. The mythic sea tale (fitting for a navel Officer) which has a naive boy leaving 'home', confronting the monster and resolving his mandatory father issues, to return a responsible man...a hero. There's also the classic court room drama which shows us from the outset an irrefutable legal case (we witness the murder at the beginning of the movie) only to have our perceptions challenged as the movie progresses (just like the other court room classic, Twelve Angry Men).

And that finale. It all leads up to one exhilarating confrontation between Cruise, who's trying to make his witness confess, and Nicholson who maybe just too powerful (in authority AND personality) for Tom to handle. As with any great movie our heroes are beaten down but keep fighting back, despite the odds. So when victory explosively appears (all initiated by a subtle purse of Cruise lips as he's about to deliver the killer blow) it's a hell of a rush. A classic from start to finish and one of my three favorite Cruise movies (and considering he's made a LOT of good stuff, that takes some doing).

* I adore Demi Moore. This was right in the middle of her screen Goddess period where she was by far THE sexiest thing on the silver screen. Unfortunately, when she started to exploit her own sexuality in movies (Striptease/Disclosure) the appeal of her onscreen persona started to diminish, along with her popularity. Then she started making crap (although I have to admit the definition of Goddess still applies...Aston Kuchner, you git).

Pity These Fools

This was supposed to be the year that Hollywood studio, Twentieth Century Fox, started hiring talented directors with whom they would not bully, or interfere with, in order to produce a higher quality of blockbuster than they were used to. Alas, with The A-Team, the movie adaptation of the popular 80's TV show, it's business as usual.

The Fox mandate is to produce product that is as broadly entertaining as possible, thus creating the biggest potential possible to generate revenue. Risky creative decisions are minimised and storytelling that might dissuade certain demographics are discouraged. Hiring hip, gritty director Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces / Narc) seemed like an inspired choice to give this reboot some genuinely fresh substance. But alas, either by his own doing, or by the usual massive studio interference, The A-Team is generic as dishwater. There's nothing in the editing, camera style, location, plot, lighting or music to distinguish it from any other big budget action thriller out there. The plot is too contrived and complicated and the CGI is middling to poor, at best.

Worst of all is the cast. They're really not bad at all. But when your going up against the original 19880's cast of Peppard, T, Bennedict and Schultz you better have something spectacular. They don't. Liam Neeson is solid as Hannibal but lacks Peppards swagger and charisma. Bradley Cooper, as feared, plays Face as an annoying Jock; a loud obnoxious Yank with no self awareness of what a jerk he is. Rampage Jackson is fine as T but just doesn't have Mr T's iconic personality. Coming the best off is Sharlto Copley as Murdoch, claiming all the best lines and winning by default because he's the only genuinely likable member of the cast.

What works? Well Patrick Wilson (from Watchmen/Hard Candy) shows his versatility by getting stuck into bad guy duties, chewing the scenery whenever he can. There's a fun sequence with a parachuting tank (when the effects aren't ruining it) and it has a fun, light tone on occasions. The problem is it wants to adhere to the Fox template of 'all things to all people'. So it's neither a thriller, nor a family adventure, nor a comedy....and the result is a perfectly enjoyable but instantly forgettable affair. Say what you want about Charlies Angels, but McG picked a style and stuck to it, rather than the bland indecision on display here. After the long development period, this is a major disappointment.

Gimme Shelter From The Tudors

Shelter wants to be an Asian horror movie really badly. So badly that it was released in Japan before it was release anywhere else, in fact. Julianne Moore plays a psychologist who's brought in by her father to assist in an intriguing case of Jonathan Rhys Meyers who has multiple personality disorder. It's a slowly developing mystery (who is he really, is he ill or is he faking, how many personalities does he have) that unravels like most Jap-Horror...slow takes, trips to the countryside, spooky shadows and revelatory searches through old newspapers, google and microfiche.

The whole film has an unassuming air of confidence around it while the principle cast lend gravitas to the spooky goings on. It's the same old, same old at the end of the day but it could be worse. The Jap-horror which it mimics is still far superior but it'son the same level as Orphan and much better than recent offering The New Daughter.

Wet Your Pants With Mr Pricklepants

A Pixar movie is about the closest you'll get to a sure thing in the world of movies. I've not yet seen Cars, but the remainder of their 10 movies are fantastic. From A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and my person favorite, Ratatouille, they've always put a good story in front of any other consideration. Original Toy Story director has stated that there are three things you need to make a good movie:-
1/ A great script
2/ A great script
3/ A great script

Point taken John! But it's true. And from experience, story, to Pixar, isn't an adventure or a quest or a battle or a challenge. It's the emotional journey that characters travel on. THAT's what they concentrate on. THAT's what makes Pixar films compelling. And it's becoming a lost art in Hollywood. But Toy Story 3, again following Woody, Buzz and crew, is a further example of the joys one can achieve if you put effort into a script. The latest, and likely the last, sequel takes the ideas about loss and rejection that were in the previous Toy Storys and pushes them much further. The Toys owner Andy has grown up and is going to college and, as a result, the film explores the themes of life and death, heaven and hell, and about 'letting go'....not only a mother accepting her son has to move on, but a boy accepting that he has to let go of his childhood (and his toys). And it's beautifully played out through the Toys adventures.

There's a great Prison Movie template on which the film is structured and the script has fun playing around with some of the cliches of that genre. Of the new characters two stand out; Timothy Dalton's preening thesp Mr Pricklepants and Michael Keaton's vain Ken doll, delighted that he finally met Barbie so he can share his wardrobe with her.

The rest you know. Brilliant story telling that's as visually satisfying as it is emotionally compelling. I haven't seen the other two Toy Storys for a while, but the slightly darker tone and more complex mature themes, make this my personal favorite. Oh, and the Spanish setting on the Buzz Lightyear figure is so comically spot on, that it blows most 'adult' comedies out of the water.

Two Guys, A Girl & A Gang War

There's a lot of my favorite directors that had to wait for their second feature film before crafting a classic. Spielberg had Jaws. McTiernan had Predator. Nolan had Memento. Cameron had The Terminator. All had established themselves with smaller films before knocking it out of the park with their follow up. Same goes for John Carpenter whose debut feature, Dark Star, failed to wholly capture the spirit and style that would define the director's body of work. But with his 1976 follow up film, Assault On Precinct 13, he certainly hit the nail on the head.

A stripped down, contemporary retelling of Rio Bravo, Assault shows off everything that makes Carpenter films great...and does them as well as anything he's ever done too.

1/ It's dripping in atmosphere and suspense courtesy of Carpenters trademark long takes and an eerie score (a discordant, oscillating, electronic note that plays disconcertingly for minutes at a time).

2/ It's got that Western vibe, not only in the story department, but in terms of the look too. Dean Cundy lights LA like some desert wasteland on the California/Mexican border.

3/ Like all good Westerns it's about the tension between 'civilization' and the 'wild west'. Austin Stoker is the cop who, despite growing up in a rough neighbourhood and working in a a white dominated workforce, has persevered within society's rules and won, is always doing the right thing. Then you've got the murderous gang outside who clearly have no values or morals, killing Disney child-actress Kim Richards without emotion (in the film's most shocking moment). In between you have the classic Western anti-hero, here played by Darwin Joston (like Ethan Edwards, Shane or The Man With No Name) who, when push come to shove, do the right thing...but just aren't 'good' enough to live amongst civilized folk.

4/ Just like the shooting style, dialogue is minimalist and character is built by looks, glances and action rather than extensive backstories. We learn as much about criminal anti-hero Napoleon Wilson by what he doesn't say, as what he does. His catchphrase "Got a smoke?", isn't just a request...it's a way of provoking a response from people so he can judge their character.

5/ Carpenters score is stupidly effective. The main theme is one of the coolest ever committed to celluloid and helps give the film it's own unique identity.

6/ Structurally it's a film of two halves. The first moving the chess pieces into position while introducing character, location and situation. The second is the drama of the siege as our heroes overcome trust issues and tough moral questions to battle the tide of thugs that tries to breach the station. There's obviously a Night Of The Living Dead influence here as the emotionless gang members could easily be substituted for zombies.

And finally, Darwin Joston, as Napoleon Wilson. Snake Pliskin is cool but Wilson is definetely on the same ultra cool level. The confidence of the delivery, the smart, perfectly delivered one liners and little things too. The surprise he shows in others when they decide to trust him....and the surprise others show when he shows he's more decent then they'd anticipated. If there's a tragedy in this masterpiece it's that Joston never made it to the big time.

Extraordinary Non-pleasures

There aren't many actors that I would watch virtually ANY film they're in. Sad or not, Arnie, Stallone, Fillion and Faris are a few that I'd watch any old crap that they'd appeared in. For the former two, it's more of a sense of loyalty. For the later, I like what they do as they can lift any project with their mere presence alone. Harrison Ford is part of the former. Apart from Crystal Skull, the screen legend has had few hits over the last 15 years, and even less acclaim (Hollywood Homicide/Firewall). But, when he puts the effort in, there's still traces of the man who played Han Solo to be seen.

Extraordinary Measures, Harrison's latest self produced drama, is all that you heard it would be; an inoffensive Hallmark TV Movie about a father's (Brendan Fraser) attempt to produce a medicine for his dying kids. To do so he teams up with grumpy genius, played by Harrison, who has the know how, but not the business fundraising savvy, to create the new drug. It's solid drama, with a gently line in humour, and which is prone to large dollops of sentimentality.

Best thing about it? Harrison Ford. The older and grumpier he gets as a person...and the more he's able to channel that into his acting, the more of a return to form he approaches. With the JJ Abrams scripted Morning Glory next in line (in which he plays a pompous windbag presenter) and Jon Favereau's Cowboys Vs Aliens (in which he plays a baddie/anti-hero) it looks like he's finally ditching the good guy persona and embracing characters that are a little more interesting. The trick for Harrison is choosing equally interesting movies in which these interesting characters can thrive. Extraordinary Measures, while in no way terrible, is not one of these movies.
Good luck Mr Ford.

Are You Watching Closely?

Why hasn't anybody told director Christopher Nolan that your not suppose to make your audience think...let alone make art films at a blockbuster level. But that, it seems, what he's intent on doing. Nolan has two type of narrative in his films; either a relatively straight forward, linear narrative (like The Dark Knight or Insomnia). Or there's the non-linear, fractured narrative. The latter is used, not to confuse, but to artfully communicate a particular idea in the story. So in Inception, Nolan uses five simultaneous events to communicate the concept of dreams within dreams. In Memento he tells the narrative in reverse using 10 minute scenes, to communicate the idea of short term memory loss. And with his period thriller, The Prestige, he unfolds the narrative in such a way as to resemble a magic trick.

As with Inception and Memento, The Prestige requires your FULL attention (indeed, the first line of the movie is, "Are you watching closely?") It follows two 19th Century magicians, Christian Bale (a brilliant magician who lacks theatricality) and Hugh Jackman (dependant on colleague Michael Caine for his tricks, but a talented performer) who fall out after a tragic event. Their contempt for each other is later overshadowed by their desire to perform the ultimate illusion, The Transported Man; both consumed by how the other performs their version of the trick.

Basically it's a tale of obsession as we see how their lifelong commitment to the world of magic takes it's tolls on their relationships and morality. As with all Nolan movies its compulsive viewing as Nolan gives us scenes throughout the two men's relationship, hopping backwards and forwards between years and continents, but in an order that gradually enlightens...gathering momentum until we're as desperate
for answers as the two obsessed leads.

On a production level the film is flawless, with cast and crew working in perfect harmony. But it's director Nolan that's the real star and it's a tribute to him that we don't work out the magic trick (or one of them, at least) until the very end. Original, classy, mentally stimulating and absorbing.