Public Enemies (2009)

By offering up the figures of bank robber John Dillinger and F.B.I. officer Melvin Purvis, Michael Mann is once again rolling out his own obsessions about obsessive men who mirror each other… or is he?  Is the main focus here not the men but the systems by which they operate?  Dillinger is presented here as one of the last true outlaws (he is being replaced by more business like and profitable ventures), whilst the F.B.I. and interstate enforcement is just coming into existence.  Purvis is a driven man but his weapons include technology and the methodical gathering of information.  If this is an extension of the themes essayed in Heat (1995) then the roles have been reversed.  Maybe the clue is in the title and this is a study of the birth of the celebrity/information era but to be honest I’m not sure.  Why this story?  Why now?  It’s definitely an interesting tale but, unlike Mann’s previous films there is a lack of focus that keeps that keeps the viewer at a distance, talking of which…

Michael Mann makes beautiful films.  His name has always been a guarantee that what you are paying to see will be ‘cinema’.  Equally at home in the forests of Last of the Mohicans (1992) as he is on the neon-lit streets of L.A., Mann (and frequent DoP Dante Spinotti) has an eye for image and the ability to fill a screen.  The problem with Public Enemies is that whenever the camera, or even something within the frame, moves there is a distracting blur that kicks you out of the narrative and sets you thinking about the camera – this is deadly and, I suspect, the reason why I just couldn’t invest in what was happening.  By the way, I’m not just being precious about Mann using digital.  I love digital and I think that the images can be fantastic (I also subscribe to Mike Figgis’ view that ‘digital is digital so lets not pretend it’s film’) but, no matter what format you are using, it really helps if the film is watchable.  Public Enemies is beautiful when still but a mess when moving and, I suspect, might be one of the first truly cinematic films that will become more satisfying when viewed at home.

Public Enemies is at cinemas now and please let me know if you found it hard to watch because I’m convinced that it’s a better film than I experienced last night.

Knowing (2009)

Overcooked, pretentious, full of Nic Cage and yet utterly watchable, Knowing delivers a decent enough mixture of ideas and spectacle that rests somewhere between a slightly expensive seeming cinema ticket and a really good evening in front of the TV.

Directed by Alex Proyas (Dark City), the film centres around a sheet of seemingly random numbers taken from a time capsule at a school’s fiftieth anniversary.  Of course the sheet is picked out by the boy who’s dad just so happens to be a Nic Cage shaped astrophysics professor.  Naturally mum is dead and so our hero is a broken man and a movie drunk (i.e. once the boy is in bed he drinks Scotch that he doesn’t like, listens to classical music and looks into the distance) and so it ain’t too long before he notices that there might be a pattern in the numbers.  He picks up a pen and starts writing…

9 1 1 0 1 2 9 9 6

What could these numbers possibly mean?

Funnily enough, even though you may find yourself almost shouting at the screen whilst this ‘genius’ splits the numbers into various meaningless combinations, such shortfalls don’t actually harm the film.  In fact there are several moments of what can only be described as rubbish (some nonsense with a door is pure guff) but Proyas keeps you onside by managing to balance both subtle creep and big, noisy, harsher than expected set pieces.  Another bonus is the rare spectacle of child actors that don’t annoy and a central performance by the Cage that is actually pretty good.

At the end of the day Knowing is a good idea, with a decent budget, that has been fortunate enough to land in the hands of a director with vision and talent.  It’s not a great film, but it is enjoyable and thought provoking and definitly worth spending a couple of hours with.

Knowing is available now on Region 1 DVD.  The Region 2 DVD is released on 3rd August.

Moral Panic 765: The Sun doesn’t shine on The Antichrist

A couple of weeks ago on the Kermode Uncut blog,  Mark Kermode (for it is he) spoke about the era of the video nasty.  His thoughts had been prompted by a recent court case in which it was alleged that the gruesome murder of a teenager had been inspired by the horror comedy Severance (2006).  Also playing in his mind was the recent release of Sam Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell (2009) as the director’s first, and arguably milder, film The Evil Dead (1981) was one of the most famous victims of the UK’s early 80’s video nasty panic/scare/dark age.  Anyhow the Dr. was half expecting a new witch hunt but, luckily, he was proved wrong and nothing came of it.  Times have changed.  The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has decided that we, the ugly, rowdy, masses are, at 18, able to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to watch a film.  Their research backs this up and, so it seems, do the majority of The Sun’s readers…

How do I know this?  Well, today the British newspaper The Sun published a story with the shocking, weeks old, revelation that Lars Von Trier’s latest offering, The Antichrist (2009), has been passed uncut as an ‘18′ certificate.  Sandwiched between links to a story about a girl taking her clothes off and the famous delights of Page 3 the writer (reporter seems too strong a word) informs us that the film contains images that “cannot be properly described in a family newspaper”.  In true salacious overload we are also treated to a check-list of the contents.

Naturally, the BBFC are given a say on the matter and repeat the idea that adults can make up their own minds about such things but ‘The Sneak’ (I wouldn’t have put my name to it either) does not seem satisfied by this.  It is, after all,  “the most shocking The Sneak has seen” (so shocking that only italics will do) and, he/she, informs us that the BBFC is getting more liberal (i.e. adults are no longer treated as children) and then, dear reader, there is this…

In 1985 The Terminator was rated 18. Terminator Salvation, released this year, was a 12A.

Yes, you read that correctly.  It seems that those ‘liberals’ at the BBFC have given two completely films different certificates.  Okay, so the films are different in tone.  Yep, one is a nightmarish cyberpunk classic whilst the other is a summer blockbuster aimed squarely at a much younger audience but surely the BBFC noticed that… well… okay it is about as stupid a point as one could make, but ‘The Sneak’ is right to demand that the BBFC need to do more to warn people about the content of these films.  Ideally they should make it an offence to supply young people with… oh… but surely we should demand that films have to display some sort of certificate (an age rating perhaps) that… oh… well then maybe they could give further information regarding the certificate on publicity material… or provide a website (plus a specific one for parents) so that… well you get the idea, the BBFC supplies a ton of information for consumers because part of treating us like adults is the assumption that we are able to read and make up our own minds.  Will I go and watch an ‘18′ rated psycho-sexual horror film made by a director with an impish delight in courting controversy?  I think most people can make that choice… pleasingly, if you look at The Sun’s own readers they would tend to agree as most of the comments left at the website echo the wise words of ‘claire2594′…

Who cares?! Its rated 18 and therefore Adults can decide if they want to see it or not. If you dont like itm, dont watch it. Simple.

The Signal (2007)

The Signal follows a small group of people in the aftermath of  mysterious transmission (or ’signal’ if you like) that, to paraphrase one character, gives people ‘the crazy’.  This might sound familiar to anyone who has read Stephen King’s Cell but where The Signal differs, not only from King’s book but also from the numerous zombie-flavoured gubbins doing the rounds at the moment, is in the type of ‘crazy’ that it brings to the table.  Instead of brain munchers or ‘rage’, these ‘infected’ are delusional psychopaths, capable of both horrendous violence and crystal clarity.  This slight change to the formula is enough to deliver a film that, despite it’s obvious generic influences, still feels fresh and even contains a few neat twists.

Starting off with the usual outbreak scenes, The Signal is split into three segments (each with a different director).  The first, as mentioned, deals with the initial spread of the ‘crazy’ and is the strongest segment of the film.  We follow Mya (Anessa Ramsey) as she makes her way home to a jealous husband and again as she attempts to escape the next morning.  Although there is no mass brutality, the film’s gradual build up of unease and panic is as unsettling as any recent big budget offering and, in avoiding spectacle, the film makers never allow the audience to pin down exactly is happening and to whom.

Containing a number of laugh-out-loud moments, plus an overly ample amount of blood, the second segment plays with this uncertainty by twisting the premise into a comedy.  Again jealously plays a large part in proceedings as Mya’s husband Lewis (AJ Bowen) arrives at the home of Anna (Cheri Christian) & Ken (Christopher Thomas) in search of his missing wife.  In the hands of a less confident director such comedy could easily fall down but The Signal proves that a lack of subtlety can sometimes carry an idea a long way and the retention of gore allows the film to flow into the final, horror/thriller orientated, leg.

With three directors, The Signal could have easily have been a tonal misfire but it seems that David Bruckner, Jacob Gentry and Dan Bush  (plus producer Alexander A. Motlagh) have found a common ground that allows the segments to integrate with ease without losing their individual flavour.  This is a bold film, a reminder that intelligence and wit cost nothing and that whilst genre films are often the most repetitive, they also contain the most surprises.

The Signal is available now on DVD.

The Last House On The Left (2009)

As a teenager The Last House On The Left (1972) was one of those films that had acquired almost mythic status.  Only being three years old when the film was put on the infamous DPP list of video nasties, and then just four when the Video Recordings Act came into force, meant that I had missed out on its first, albeit unregulated, appearance in the UK.  Alongside The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) the title remained out of reach and therefore utterly desirable.  It was therefore with eager anticipation that I sat down in 2000 with a US tape – the tagline said ‘to avoid fainting keep repeating it’s only a movie’ and it turned out that it was only a movie.  Whilst Tobe Hooper’s film was still brutally effective and unsettling, Wes Craven’s own response to Vietnam had become somewhat irrelevant, nasty but almost meaningless.

So what of the remake?  Well, unlike the original it is a slick piece of cinema.  Written by Carl Ellsworth and Adam Alleca the film makes a touch more sense than the original, the characters are more interesting (and better acted) and things are less dis-jointed.  Similarly director Dennis Iliadis delivers plenty of arresting images whilst also demonstrating a knack for building tension.  At times the film shares the dreamlike quality of All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006), a feeling helped by a seemingly floating camera and another fantastic score from John Murphy.  Yep, at almost two hours the film is slightly too long (we could easily save meeting Krug & C0 until the girls do and the wildly misplaced final scene should go straight in the cutting bin) but it is a highly effective thriller that does the job if you are looking for a few scares and it will definitely have you looking forward to Iliadis’ next project…

…like Craven’s, however, it is just a movie.  Where the original became irrelevant over time the remake is almost instantly empty – it exists solely because the title was famous and films with famous titles make money.  One had hoped that following Michael Haneke’s Funny Games (1997/2007) the filmmakers might have delivered some kind of rebuttal (because surely the final word on home invasion / revenge thrillers can’t be a teacherly telling off) but obviously commerce has no time for such considerations…

Staying Alive (1983)

Tony Manero is a goon.  He is charismatic and stylish but you get the impression that every time he opens his mouth braincells fall out.  But he is a compelling character because he has a talent and he knows that apart from his looks and dumb optimism he ain’t got nothing else.  In Saturday Night Fever (1977) his dancing lifted him above his peers, he was king of his world but like Ace Face from The Who’s Quadrophenia he spent his days in minimum wage anonymity.  In Staying Alive his dancing is once again his key to success but this time Tony is in a bigger pond and looking to make it on Broadway.

Directed and co-written by Sylvester Stallone, this story of raw talent and attitude bears more than a passing resemblance to that of a certain pugilist but, whilst Manero (a role that John Travolta has never bettered) exudes a more sexual masculinity than Balboa, the film fails to match the streetwise grit and confidence of it’s predecessor.  Similarly, through a combination of uninspired choreography and lacklustre direction/editing the dance sequences lack real spark and skill – even Manero’s final strut seems like a mere impression of the iconic walk that started it all.

Maybe it was just a bad idea or maybe it proves the folly of watering down a concept in order to sell more tickets (a PG compared to the original’s 18 cert.), whatever the reason Staying Alive is a feeble shadow of Saturday Night Fever that remains watchable thanks only to its camp earnestness and the chuckle-some fact that the big show our hero appears in has the rather unfortunate moniker of ‘Satan’s Alley‘… hmmm.

Staying Alive is available on DVD.

The Reckoning (2003)

Don’t ya just love it when you know nothing about a film?

No marketing, no clips, never even heard the title before… this is how I stumbled across the The Reckoning – stop reading now if you like.  It was on ITV4 (that late-night treasure trove of action, oddities and obscurities) and the program guide said something about a medieval acting troupe and a murder with Willem Dafoe and Paul Bettany and Brian Cox and Vincent Cassel… they had me at medieval.

Directed by Paul McGuigan (Push (2009) and Lucky Number Slevin (2006)) the film sees Nicholas (Betanny), a disgraced priest, join the afore mentioned troupe (headed by Dafoe) as they travel the country performing Biblical stories.  Arriving in the lands of  Lord De Guise (Cassel) the actors, spurred on by Nicholas, are drawn into a murder mystery.  Based on the book Morality Play by Barry Unsworth and channelling both The Name Of The Rose and Hamlet, The Reckoning covers a wide area that includes feudal politics, religion, morality and even the evolution of drama.  Granted, the ‘mystery’ is not as mysterious as the film believes it is, but when the road towards discovery is as interesting, good looking and well acted as this it barely matters.

All things considered, it is easy to see why the film slipped through the net.  Based in another muddier time and somewhat literary in its approach, The Reckoning is a film that requires concentration.  It is crammed with actors (Tom Hardy, Gina McKee, Simon McBurney, Ewan Bremner, Mark Benton, Matthew Macfadyen, James Cosmo, Simon Pegg and Julian Barratt round out the cast) but no ’stars’ and, although never drawn-out, it takes as long as it needs to.  All these things, plus the admittedly dour content, will have counted towards its disappearance but, in an extremely selfish state of mind, I loved being surprised.

A true hidden gem.

The Reckoning is available on DVD.