Change Your Image
ted-mcwhirter
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Extraterrestrial (2014)
Spot the reference
The plot is routine enough: teenagers visit family cabin in the woods, something alien is in the shadows and it wants you, young love is at first frustrated then reunited through shared trauma, deep state cleans up the mess. However I'm not sure if the director decided to scene-check his favourite films to make this more enjoyable. The references can't just be cliché or accidental. The cabin setup is Evil Dead, the handheld shots of the alien encounter is Blair Witch, the scenes inside the spaceship are Alien 2, the abduction in the phone booth looks like Bill and Ted, anal probe is Independence Day and those are just the ones I noticed. But final scene where the anonymous government agency takes control is surely The X files - especially when the man in charge takes out a cigarette and inhales forever. There's also a nice cameo from Michael Ironside who's as kooky as ever.
Monsters: Dark Continent (2014)
We are the Monsters
If the first one was a road movie then this one was just as surprising flipping, what should have been a shoot 'em up sequel, into a thoughtful examination of military imperialism and the psychological pressures of combat. This was in the vein of The Hurt Locker or Jarhead showing soldiers on the edge of nervous and physical exhaustion pitted not only against extra-terrestrial monsters but an indigenous population whose death and mutilation is deemed to be acceptable to combat the alien threat. The reality is that the monsters are just a metaphor for a nameless faceless enemy and, by depicting the flesh, blood and emotions of the Arab people, we're left to wriggle uncomfortably at the sights and sounds of what collateral damage really looks like. Some of the photography is breathtaking, first the urban desolation of bankrupt Detroit, then the wild spaces of the nameless Arab state where the monsters are thriving and finally to the close ups of the faces and especially the eyes of the soldiers. The shots of the remaining two on motorbikes in the desert and the huge creatures against a distant sunset are reminiscent of Easy Rider or Lawrence of Arabia. The performances are equally strong. Johnny Harris as Frater and Sam Keeley as Parkes are excellent; both spiralling downwards with the horrors they're witnessing and participating in but still vainly trying to do their job. There's a particularly moving scene where the two are rescued and then fed by a Bedouin tribe whist in the background the casualties from a bombed school bus are washed, shrouded and buried. The reality of precision bombing.
Hitchcock (2012)
Behind the Shadow
A compelling study of psycho-sexual lust and jealousy built around the making of Psycho. The acting is top notch though Hopkins, in depicting a person whose delivery and presence has been caricatured so often, sometimes seems to fall into caricature himself. That said his dance in the lobby as he waits for the shower scene to be projected is wonderful. Helen Mirren is too attractive for Alma but does capture her frustration, both physical and emotional, at being perceived as nothing more than Hitchcock's shadow when she was clearly so much more. And the shooting of shower scene though faithful in capturing Janet Leigh's reactions is way over the top in suggesting that Hitchcock's threatening behaviour was the catalyst. The darkest moments though are when Hitchcock interacts with the real life serial killer Ed Gein in his dreams and imagination - a disturbing look inside the reality of the killer that Hitchcock transformed into Norman Bates. The music is excellent using variations of the Hermann Psycho themes to move the story along as well as dipping into the score itself. Whether he was as much of a tyrant as is suggested here is best left for the biographies but one gets a real sense of his self-doubt, the sexual impotence he felt towards the unattainable actresses and the meticulous way in which he storyboarded, edited and crafted his unique films.
Chaplin (1992)
We're Sorry
It's notable that the best bits of this are when they play excerpts from the classics as a preamble to the "We're Sorry" episode at the Oscars in 1972. It's only then do you sense the genius of the man which rarely comes across from the episodic excerpts that form the rest of the film. Downey is good enough and the rest of the cast do their stuff but it never captures anything but a ghost of the real man for the meat and potatoes are inside the pants and the heart of the tramp. The synthesis of ballet dancer, acrobat and comedian that endear us to the tramp barely comes across although you get a sense of his driven and obsessive nature as he strove to improve on the art form that had defined him. It's become fashionable to deride the sentimentality and pathos of his later films and to elevate others, notably Keaton, above him. But the bedrock of his genius lies in the 100 or so one and two-reelers that innovated and developed the history of cinema and the classic features of his maturity. The film doesn't ever come close to capturing that.
The Devils (1971)
Religious and Political Extremism
The high point of Ken Russell's work? It's certainly one of his best and one of the standout British films of the seventies. Its strength is that Russell just manages to restrain his wilder side to focus on the telling of the macabre and disturbing story of political realpolitik hidden within the religious excesses of the time. It looks wonderful. How much of that is due to the stylised genius of Derek Jarman or to Russell himself I'm unsure, but the sets dominate the action. It has a theatrical feel throughout. The walls are enamelled Victorian brickwork – shiny white and brilliant - giving the illusion as much of a mental institution as of a walled city. The convent and Richelieu's office are shot within the same settings constrained by bars and gantrys and populated by people predominantly dressed in black and white. In fact it's the absence of colour that gives the film its visual strength. Apart from the scenes within the court of Louis XIII and some of the scenes between Grandier and Madeline, it's the sharpness of the contrast between black and white that is so striking; as if the politics are being distilled into polar opposites within the space. So some of the set pieces inside the convent with its white-bricked floors and walls, claustrophobically occupied by the nuns in their habits, are visually stunning. Interestingly for a film set in baroque 17th century France, the characters look like those one might find in a Dutch painting of the same time. The grotesques of the "scientific" community garbed in masks and using implements that are more commonly associated with torture reminds one of Bosch or Dutch genre painting of this period. But although there is a political grounding to the story it's also a tale of love and devotion, and of pride and envy. Oliver Reed is excellent as the vain Bishop both wanton and yet devout at the same time. Vanessa Redgrave, superb as the Mother Superior of the convent tortured by sexual frustration and madness.. But the rest of the cast - mainly British stalwarts of stage and TV - deliver riches beyond expectation. Forty years on from when I first saw it, does it still carry the notoriety and sensation that it had at the time? The violence is still shocking – the scenes of the torture and the burning at the stake still convey the horror of the inquisition and religious fundamentalism. In that sense it's strikingly contemporary. But the nudity and madness of the nuns which was deemed both blasphemous and pornographic at the same time seems quite tame considering the excesses of our internet content today. One could argue that stripped down, the political plot line is a little thin, but seen as a depiction of madness, cruelty and fanaticism this is a tour de force.
Adaptation. (2002)
No orchids for Mr Kaufman
Where to start with a film like this? That's precisely the challenge that Kaufman sets himself except, it's not just the start that's torturing him, it's the middle and the end as well. Kaufman dramatises the dynamics of the act of writing in the same vein as Fellini does in 8½ except it's not the muse that's evaded him, it's his confidence, his imagination and his competence. Each step in trying to distill the contents of a semi-autobiographical novel seems to take him into the cloying depths of procrastination and fear. The structure is sublime. The film creeps forward in the same way as the writing of the screenplay, experimenting with options for the plot, with fantasy and the brilliant introduction of his seemingly twin brother whose first forays into the art of screenplay writing only depress the creativity within Charlie further. Kaufman writes himself as pathologically insecure, incapable of forming relationships with those around him and traumatically stuck within the story. It takes the pragmatism and confidence of Donald to finally bring the narrative to a form of conclusion which in its absurdity can be seen as nothing short of self-parody. The acting is wonderful. Tight, layered cameos from Tilda Swinton and Brian Cox; a rich, complicated performance from Meryl Streep; a frenetic, insane Chris Cooper and, finally, from Nicolas Cage who, despite the turkeys in his portfolio, gives Charlie and Donald a paranoia and charm that is the centre of the film. Spike Jonze's direction is spot on. There are no tricks or artifice to distract you from Kaufman's spiral of collapse and the time and storyline jumps are seamlessly blended in without looking crunchy. Hilarious at times and yet moving and thoughtful. No-one else could have made the life cycle of an flower let alone an orchid so rewarding.
River of Grass (1994)
Going nowhere special
As a counterpoint to Thelma and Louise and Badlands, this is the unromanticised, pathetic cry for attention and escape. Two anonymous casualties of society unintentionally crash and burn their way through the suburban sprawl of the Florida wetlands, an ecological miracle now supposedly re-claimed for twentieth century progress. Except their crashing and burning barely gets them out of their home state such is their ineptitude and powerlessness. Even with a real and yet symbolic gun they still can't capture that dream; inept burglaries, and an accidental shooting all they can muster. In the city they'd descend into an underworld of disease and drugs but in the wide recovered flats of the Everglades there isn't a subculture they can lose themselves in. Kelly Reichardt's minimal style, long takes and static camera just emphasises their hopelessness. There's no cathartic cliff to drive off at the end just a slow moving highway going nowhere special.
Brick (2005)
Chandler at High School
Despite the High School setting, this is an homage to film noir, the Chandleresque detective and whodunit genre. Brendan is the archetypal honest detective in a world of drugs, murder and deceit fired in this case by the death of his previous girlfriend. But instead of the mob, crooked policemen and black and white chiaruscuro we have teenage drug dealers, the school authorities and a stark, brightly-lit High School as the backdrop for the films events. But this tilt at the genre is both the film's strength and weakness. This is not the soap opera land of Orange County but a dysfunctional and brutal depiction of American youth as corrupt as the gangsters that it caricatures. However such a view of normality is so extreme that you have to take a step away from the real world of the teenage angst of acne, weight, social status and attitude and see them instead as the typical characters that populate the film noir genre. This act of displacement can be difficult but it is to the credit of the filmmakers and cast that they largely carry this off. The script is tight and witty. The plot weaves its web of intrigue so that no-one's motives and actions can be trusted. But Brendan as the classic film noir hero resolutely pursues the question of who killed Emily and, why without any regard for his own safety.
The look of the film is the one departure from the genre. The bulk of the action takes place under the glare of the South California sun in the grounds of the High School. This stark depiction is like placing a microscope over the whole events of the film where the audience is asked to scrutinise and consider the machinations of the character's actions. Johnson frequently uses straight lines and angles such as walls and corners to frame or confine his characters, especially Brendan, and there are some notable long shots of Emily and Laura walking either towards or away from Brendan reminiscent of the closing shot of The Third Man which emphasises the fragility of the characters. There's also an excellent shot of Brendan dreaming of Emily at the storm drain, the colour palette diluted, where the stream seems to come out and suffocate him which both wakes him and forewarns him that something terrible has happened.
The characters, though rooted in the demands of their film noir stereotypes, are well drawn and well acted. Brendan retains the integrity of the honest investigator throughout while Laura and Kara are classic femme fatales. In one scene Johnson paraphrases the dialogue between Bogart and Mary Astor from The Maltese Falcon in a scene between Brendan and Laura with Brendan ending on the Hammett line of "Now you're dangerous". But it is the role of Pin, in particular, which is the most layered. He looks like a latter day Lord Byron with a club foot, a caped overcoat and antique cane and in the context of the other characters is an old man at twenty-six. Once more with this look there are overtones of Sidney Greenstreet's villain, Caspar Guttman, in The Maltese Falcon. Pin is the mover and shaker of the drug deals in the area but he is vulnerable; he may be pre-occupied with spotting and foiling the move that might displace him but his conversation with Brendan on the beach about his fondness for Tolkein is straight out of any High School common room. It's one of the rare times when Johnson counterpoints the reality of High School against the backdrop of the film noir motif.