#27: Vantage Point (2008) May 14, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, 2000s, 3 stars, 2008 , 1 comment so far2008 | Pete Travis | 86 mins | download | 12A / PG-13
Vantage Point is nothing like Rashomon.
I don’t imagine you’ve missed the endless comparisons — every review seems to have them, IMDb’s single-line plot description mentions it, the film itself certainly pretends to be like it, and I imagine even the pitch to the studio went, “well, it’s like this Japanese film…”. But, in fact, it’s nothing like it, and here’s why: Rashomon is about four people who tell completely different versions of the same events, some or all of which are therefore untrue; Vantage Point repeatedly shows the same events from different angles, revealing a sliver of new information each time. There are no lies and no real misdirection; none of the characters interpret what they see, we’re just shown it from where they were standing. Nonetheless, it’s a potentially interesting way to construct a thriller, but Vantage Point doesn’t exploit the concept’s full potential.
And then, halfway through, it gives up on it.
At first it seems like the filmmakers have simply lumped the gang of terrorists together as one character for the purpose of their perspective, an example of typically uninsightful American action-thriller ideology. But it soon becomes clear that, instead of continuing the perspective-shifting high concept of the first half, the rest of the story is going to play out like a normal thriller. And suddenly it’s a lot more entertaining, freed of pointless repetition and an irritating tendency to stop each story at an appropriately cliffhanging moment. If only the whole film had been constructed this way! Yes, it would have lost out on the odd mystery and some revelations wouldn’t have been so spread out, but continually retelling the story to pull this off seems a cheap trick anyway. Not that it matters, as most of the twists are blatantly obvious, and possibly the biggest of all was blown in the trailer — and is glossed over in the film as if they expected you to have seen it there.
Of course, the already slim running time would be reduced to the length of an American TV episode if they edited it chronologically, because there are plentiful repeated shots of speeches, explosions and crowds running, as well as the over-egged ‘rewind’ sequence each time the chronology is reset, a trick that’s as pandered to an inattentive brain-dead audience as ever you’ve seen. Another reason for employing this disjointed wannabe-Rashomon style is that the timelines probably don’t add up: some characters seem to squeeze an awful lot into a couple of minutes before their plot has to sync with someone else’s, while others presumably stand around doing nothing now and then.
Ultimately it’s the much-reported attempt to be ‘Rashomon-like’ that really scuppered Vantage Point for me. It only manages the multiple perspectives trick until halfway through, and even then its not especially well executed. The style has clearly been foisted upon it to mask a story that isn’t that original — the plot is a bit like half a season of 24 on speed — but it could have made passable enough entertainment for 90 minutes, especially as there are a couple of half decent action sequences. As a straightforward thriller it might not have been a great deal better, but it would have been less disappointing.
#26: L.A. Confidential (1997) May 12, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Thriller, Film Noir, 5 stars, adaptations, 1990s, 2008 , add a comment1997 | Curtis Hanson | 132 mins | DVD | 18 / R
Once again I’m watching an adaptation shortly after plowing through the source novel, a situation that has so far proved awkward for giving films a fair assessment. L.A. Confidential is an especially tricky one: how does a 480-page, densely written, intricately plotted crime novel, spanning seven years and “no fewer than four and perhaps as many as a dozen major crimes”, translate into a two-and-a-quarter hour film? With more than a few surprises, as it turns out, because the apparently minor changes near the film’s start turn out to be the proverbial pebble in a pond: their ripples spread so far that, by the second half, not even a reader who can remember the many details of the novel’s complex plot will know for sure what’s coming.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If screenwriters Hanson and Brian Helgeland had tried to squeeze in everything the movie would have been rushed even at three hours. Instead they’ve excised several unnecessary subplots and trimmed others to the bare minimum. Most impressively, they’ve picked apart several of the multitudinous plot threads and completely restructured them. It’s an incredible feat of adaptation. The downside is that some great strands are lost. Ed Exley’s father plays a huge role in the novel but is completely absent here; Inez Soto, the victim of a brutal gang rape, is reduced from a key supporting character to a couple of lines. Another connected loss is some characterisation. Jack Vincennes and Exley lose the most, though Bud White’s development is tied too closely to the main storyline. That said, the characters are still mostly there, painted quickly and precisely; they may lack some of the depth and complexity the novel can offer, but that’s an almost unavoidable difference between a film and a long well-written novel. To make a good film such sacrifices are necessary — even though it’s been simplified, the novel’s complex plot is still a long way from becoming straightforward.
What impressed me most about L.A. Confidential is that, despite spending huge chunks of the film pondering what they’d cut and changed, I still enjoyed it immensely. Even while distracted with thoughts of the novel, its differences and its relative merits, I could still enjoy the fantastic filmmaking. The casting is perfect, especially Spacey, Pearce and Crowe (perhaps the last most of all, considering his penchant for real life violence). For once it really is as if the roles were written for them, making it easy to forget that Pearce and Crowe were virtually unknown at the time. They’re supported by a cracking screenplay (which I think I’ve praised plenty already) and beautiful direction, which manages to evoke the period without being shot like a period film — Hanson has stated that he aimed to make it period-accurate but shoot it like a modern thriller, and he’s succeeded. There may be one or two imperfections (the music felt a little repetitive to me, for example), but they’re slight and it seems churlish to pick on them in any depth.
I look forward to watching L.A. Confidential again without the novel hanging over my head. I’ve made my comparisons now, and my memory’s weak enough that, by the time I get round to watching it again (perhaps when the long-rumoured special edition re-release turns up), I’ll have forgotten enough of the novel’s specifics to not be bothered by them. I expect I’ll enjoy it even more then. It’s an excellent achievement, both as an adaptation and a film in its own right. You can’t say fairer than that.
#21: Notorious (1946) April 27, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Thriller, Film Noir, Romance, 5 stars, 1940s, 2008, Alfred Hitchcock , add a comment1946 | Alfred Hitchcock | 101 mins | TV | U
Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains star in Alfred Hitchcock’s 7th best film (according to the ever-changing IMDb Top 250, where it currently resides at #108). Grant is Devlin, an American spymaster who recruits a Nazi spy’s daughter, Alicia Huberman (Bergman), to infiltrate a group of Nazis in Brazil, via her old acquaintance Sebastian (Rains).
Initially the film focuses on the will-they-won’t-they relationship between Devlin and Alicia. A lesser film would have happily made this last the duration, but Notorious moves on to the question of how far an undercover agent should go in the line of duty. Once it has an answer for that it’s on to what the Nazis are actually plotting, and beyond that to the effects of the spy being uncovered. It’s not that the film is restless or doesn’t deal with any of these threads in depth — indeed, my implication that it drops each to move on to the next is disingenuous, as they overlap and weave around each other — but it doesn’t over-analyse or stretch them out interminably. It’s all the better for it.
The second half is where Notorious really comes into its own. Detailing the relationships and situations in the first half is time well spent to set up the second, which contains a brilliant sequence at a society party and a wonderfully tense climax. Hitchcock’s direction shines here, with swooping crane shots and dramatic close-ups — who’d've thought a cup of coffee could be so menacing? The villains’ plans may be under-explained, but no matter, because the focus is on how they’re uncovered rather than how they’re prevented. All in, it makes for a highly effective and entertaining spy thriller with a not insignificant dash of romance.
#20: Double Indemnity (1944) April 23, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Thriller, Film Noir, Billy Wilder, Crime, 5 stars, adaptations, 1940s, 2008 , 3 comments1944 | Billy Wilder | 108 mins | download | PG
This review could be seen to contain some spoilers.
Double Indemnity is perhaps the archetypal film noir — unsurprising, really, when you have Raymond Chandler co-adapting a novel by James M. Cain. Present and correct are the femme fatale, dry-witted lead man, voice-over narration, shadowy photography, murder, cover-ups, investigations, twists… The difference to films such as The Big Sleep is that the hero is the villain: our narrator, insurance salesman Walter Neff, conspires with Phyllis Dietrichson to murder her wealthy husband for the payout from an accident insurance policy — the double indemnity clause of the title. Neff even has the perfect plan… but, perhaps, too perfect…
Once again I’m viewing this in the context of its source novel (see previous such reviews), and it makes for a very faithful retelling of Cain’s novel. Some of the subplots are sadly lost, not only for time but probably for reasons of taste (Wilder struggled to get the film made in the first place, as the ostensible heroes are both murders and adulterers), some of the names are changed (maybe there was something objectionable about “Huff” and “Nirdlinger”?), and the ending is modified, perhaps with an eye to partially redeeming Neff. In some ways the film’s variant finale is more in keeping, especially for the character of Keyes, but I expect the merits of both versions could be debated. Chandler’s influence as screenwriter is clear in the dialogue. Many lines and exchanges ring with his unmistakable style, which is generally much wittier than that found in the novel.
The real feat of Double Indemnity The Film is that none of these changes jar too much, leaving us with that rare thing: a film that changes the original, but leaves both as excellent pieces of work.
#11: Ocean’s Thirteen (2007) February 22, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Comedy, Thriller, Crime, 2000s, 3 stars, 2008 , add a comment2007 | Steven Soderbergh | 117 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13
Last year I reviewed Ocean’s Twelve, and came to the conclusion that it had been slightly harshly treated by critics — while not a patch on the first film, it was a decent enough heist romp. Now it’s the turn of last year’s threequel and, by contrast, I found it to be distinctly overrated.
In fact, I’d personally put Thirteen at about the same level as Twelve. The return to both a Las Vegas setting and the first’s glossy cinematography seem to have fooled many into thinking it’s more like Eleven, but the convoluted and over-long plot (needlessly complicated by some chronologically variable storytelling), relative lack of humour, over-abundance of under-used characters, and lacklustre finale bely the truth. Thirteen is Twelve with Eleven’s sheen. Its critical success relative to its immediate predecessor is, I think, another of the gang’s expertly executed cons.
#2: Dark City (1998) January 7, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Thriller, Sci-fi, 5 stars, 1990s, 2008 , add a comment1998 | Alex Proyas | 97 mins | DVD | 15 / R
A little while ago I wrote about not falling in love with new films any more. Well, put bluntly, here’s one.
Dark City is probably the most underrated film I’ve ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant. It’s an intelligent and engaging neo-noir thriller with wonderful sci-fi twists. The imagery is fantastic — the film is beautifully designed and shot in a wonderfully stylised and highly effective manner. The sets and effects are breathtaking — not showy like so many blockbusters, but utterly effective and impressive. The script and story are complex (though never too much) and interesting, allowing you to piece together the mystery of just what is going on. To my mind, it’s much more effective than the whole “what is the real world” thing of The Matrix.
Incidentally, on that subject, if you’ve seen all of that particular trilogy you may find some bits of Dark City eerily familiar — to say which would spoil things, but many are so obvious you don’t have to be a film buff to spot them. Either both universes are based on similar philosophical ideas, or the Wachowskis just ripped this off (in case you hadn’t noticed, it predates The Matrix by a year, and many of the most recognisable elements are in the sequels anyway). Considering there hasn’t been a lawsuit (to my knowledge), I’ll guess it’s the former. But Dark City does it all better: there are no rambling, incomprehensible speeches and it doesn’t batter you around the head with philosophical claptrap when all you want is the story to move forward.
The film’s single major flaw is the studio-impossed opening narration, which gives away far too many plot twists — honest to God, if you ever watch this, mute it during the New Line logo and don’t turn the sound back on til the first close-up of Kiefer Sutherland’s fob watch. If you don’t, you’ll find most of the mystery of the plot ruined, as this narration shockingly gives away most of the answers. (There are rumours of a director’s cut, 15 minutes longer and without that narration, slated for release back in 2006. Maybe this year it’ll turn up as a “10th Anniversary Edition”.)
I could witter on for pages about how much I’ve fallen for Dark City. It’s a superb movie, massively underrated, that I hope I haven’t over-hyped for any reader who wants to seek it out. But please, if you do, heed my warning about muting the opening narration — it really is worth it.
#127: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) December 31, 2007
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, 2000s, adaptations, 4 stars, British films, Paul Greengrass, 2007 , add a comment2007 | Paul Greengrass | 110 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13
This final installment in the action-thriller trilogy was recently announced as Empire magazine’s film of the year, following wide praise on release that dubbed it the best action movie in a long time. Unfortunately, I fear it may’ve become a victim of its own hype.
It’s certainly a good film for many reasons: its appropriately unrelenting momentum, even in dialogue scenes; several stunning action sequences; a mostly decent plot. But it’s also flawed: despite the globe-hopping, complex plot, it feels somehow slight; several villains and plot devices seem tacked on to create an over-arching plan for the trilogy, when Bourne had really dealt with all these matters in the first two. Ultimately, it simply didn’t feel as entertaining as the first two installments, though I had an odd sense that I should be liking it more. Perhaps future re-viewings will aid my appreciation.
