You’ve got a knife. I’ve got a spoon.

Hummingbird

aka Redemption

(2013)

The Stat’s back and this time he’s baring his soulful, sensitive side amidst the usual skull-cracking. Steven Knight, a talented writer whose early credits on The Detectives shouldn’t necessarily be held against him, makes his directorial debut (as many dissatisfied writers are wont to do eventually) on Hummingbird, and it’s a mixed bag. Knight seems to be fully engaging with his archetypes, but does so to the point that his tale is doused in clichés. Material so self-consciously heightened requires a director and stars who can make a virtue out of the excesses; that everyone here is merely competent lays bare the overwrought corniness at its core.

Alternatively, perhaps Knight has just been lucky that the likes of David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises) and Stephen Frears (Dirty Pretty Things) have shepherded his previous London-set thrillers to the screen. Promises has a number of things in common with Hummingbird, not least the strong silent man of idiosyncratic morals working for the mob and on a mission that requires him to weave a path through the corrupt underbelly of the city. But Eastern Promises etched out a genuinely tense and dangerous scenario, and one with twists in its tail. What you see is what you get with Hummingbird; Stat comes on the balding hairy homeless man before transforming into the shiny bald bruising machine we all love. He’s tortured, drowning his sorrows and PTSD in drink; the picture provides an over-explanatory flash back to the root of Stat’s “Joey Jones” current problems but Knight’s choices of military service (Afghanistan) and drone strikes feels manipulative and cynical. And worse, crushingly obvious. At least the era of haunted ‘Nam vet had some resonance (until Stallone showed up to take part). Movies appropriating the Middle Eastern conflicts seem to be united in portraying (heroically) troubled ex-soldiers, fully ripped, who slot into a all-purpose action roles. There’s even the gall to claim “commentary” in the depiction, which rarely amounts to more than an “Isn’t it awful? Now let’s get to the action bit”.

So the Stat is a wanted man, and haunted by what he done (“They put me up a mountain and told me to kill people. What did they think would come back down the mountain” he impressively soliloquises). Really, there’s little difference between this and the average Stat movie; it just has a few pretensions (I was going to say “more pretensions” but Revolver’s about the only one that could also apply to). I prefer the literal UK title (Hummingbird; at one point Joey hallucinates a flock of the birds, a nice little moment that unfortunately descends into your rote flashback/trippy sequence) than the dead horse-floggingly literal US one (Redemption; do you reckon that could be what it’s about? Perhaps you should announce it on the poster just in case there’s any possibility of doubt)? The French title’s the best one for ignoring the tone of the picture, though; Crazy Joe indeed!

If Stat’s traumas are sketched in broad strokes, the women in his life are even more so; hookers and nuns. His mission is to dispense justice on the man who murdered his homeless friend, and he’s aided and abetted by a soup kitchen nun (Agata Buzek) with her own traumatic past (unfortunately the flashback to how Cristina deals with her problem has that reek of movie implausibility and so pulls the rug from under any impact it might have). Joey and Cristina have a romance so unlikely, you become convinced Knight is purposefully baiting his critics to call foul. And while it never for a moment convinces, not helped by some atrocious dialogue, there’s good chemistry between Stat and Buzek. We also find Stat playing to his gay fan base; he falls into an empty flat decorated with rippling man flesh and pretends he’s its occupant’s (Danny Webb) boyfriend.

While it’s good fun to see the Stat as the underdog regaining his stride - he does a work out montage, attacks some heavies with a spoon, and then goes to work for the Chinese mob – Knight allows it all to come to him much to easily. He has a flat, a car, a credit card, waiting in the post and a wardrobe filled with perfectly fitting suits (and a very jaunty cap). As usual, Stat in action is a lot of fun, taking down a gang of footie fans and then attacking with that spoon the duo who set on him in the opening scene. Knight broaches ideas of moral equivalency clumsily, using Cristina as a nagging conscience. Joey is willing not just to go into moral grey areas to track down his prey; he plunges into darkness. But the picture never does anything with the idea that his participating in human trafficking is a justifiable sacrifice in service of his cause.

The resounding box office failure of Hummingbird doesn’t seem to have dented the careers of either the Stat or Knight. The former remains a safe bet as long as they keep the budget down or stick him in an ensemble franchise (as Lee Christmas, or in Fast & Furious); he’s been a draw for more than a decade now, and he’s generally reliable no-brainer entertainment value. Knight is on a roll, with the success of Peaky Blinders on the small screen and a rash of screenplays coming up for the big. He’s also had time for his sophomore directing gig, Locke with Tom Hardy. In the case of Hummingbird, aided by old hand cinematographer Chris Menges, Knight at least doesn’t disgrace himself. Perhaps given time he can truly impress.

**1/2

Comments

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog