Skip to main content

Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?

Movies on My Mind
Week Ending July 2 2016

War on Everyone

How can this possibly fail? Michael Peña, riding high after being the best part of Ant-Man, and Alexander Skarsgård, just pleased he still has a career after The Legend of Tarzan, and penned-directed by John Micheal McDonagh, the man who gave us The Guard and Calvary (and whose brother gave us In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths). With its focus on a couple of lovably corrupt cops, this looks to be more in The Guard territory than the tragi-comic Calvary, revelling in the kind of coarse repartee McDonagh makes look easy but very few can write well.

In highly idiosyncratic style, he and his brother are filling the gap in top quality crime fare absented by Tarantino and the Coen Brothers when they’re off dabbling in other genres. So much so, the McDonaghs are pretty much the new reigning champs. His leads appear perfectly paired, Peña evidencing little in the way of traditional parenting skills towards his son (“little Lord fucking Fauntleroy here”) and Skarsgård…. doing a pterodactyl impression. The only issue I have with it is the title. It’s a bit… straight-to-video?


Trolls

I hope Dreamworks are confident they have a Smurfs-size hit on their hands, because this bears every semblance of the apocalypse foretold. Quite aside from a troll shitting cupcakes and offering someone said faeces as food, it’s advertised by way of a putrid cataclysm of dance anthem detritus, unpleasant design work (no doubt hence the “from the makers of Shrek”, but that movie’s central character was at least pleasantly ugly, and his unsightly physiognomy was the whole point) flattened into generic characters entirely indistinct from any other animated movie characters – aside from being branded “Trolls” (Timberlake and Kendrick are doing nothing to sell this either, and there’s the added bonus of James Corden to really encourage you to miss it). This movie likely deserves a stretch in purgatory, by way of being consigned to an eternity of self-flaming on Internet message boards. It will probably make half a billion.


Voyage of Time

It’s only six years since we first heard about this documentary (off the back of Tree of Life), but that’s Terrence Malick for you. He has about 20 movies backed up and waiting for release, none of which have much truck with traditional narrative form. I can’t say I’m over enthused by Brad Pitt’s lacklustre attempt at selling the wonder to us (although Cate Blanchett is also providing her dulcet tones tones to the feature-length, non-IMAX version, so that’s something), but this meditative odyssey through creation, from birth to thermal death point, could be something else, a successor to those Godfrey Reggio pictures. And if it isn’t, no doubt the next gen of stoners will simply watch the trippy pictures with the sound down. Mind you, then they’ll be missing the Morricone score, which would be a crime.


Sully

Not the latest Monsters, Inc. sequel, Sully actually looks vaguely interesting, in terms of being a movie about whether someone doing the right thing doesn’t suit the people holding the purse strings. Of course, a poignant trailer doesn’t necessarily mean Eastwood’s complete piece won’t be languorous and lacking focus.

On the other hand, he showed surprising rigour in the heat of the tour-of-duty scenes in American Sniper, as unsatisfying as that movie was overall. Let’s face it, though, Eastwood movies are generally so-so at best. He was always more interesting as an actor when he wasn’t directing himself (and had a strong director, rather than a handpicked mate) and he was always only interesting as a director when he had a decent script (which has only happened a clutch of times). One also gets a bit of Flight déjà vu, except that Sully wasn’t actually on the voddy tat the time. Still, I’ll warrant that, for Hanks fans, this is better than Inferno. And, if he wants to, he’s got the right look right to go ahead with that live-action Polar Express sequel everyone’s been clamouring for.


Box Office

The summer slump continues. A couple of performing sequels (Finding Dory, The Conjuring 2, The Purge 3) doesn’t not a season of success make. Independence Day: Resurgence’s sputtering returns aren’t going make that costly Fox outlay easy to swallow (and bowing to the yen has only helped returns so much), Central Intelligence is merely doing okay, Now You See Me 2 isn’t a total bust internationally, but no kind of magic act either, and now Tarzan isn’t going to set anyone’s jungle alight (unlike the Book).

The BFG sounds like it has turned out rather sluggish, Spielberg not quite retaining his facility for telling disarming tales for family audiences (what possible reason could it have to clock in at two hours, other than the maestro thinks he’s so important now that all his movies should reflect this in unwarranted weight?) Is there any reason to think Ghostbusters and Star Trek Beyond wont underperform too, or that Ice Age 5 may well not be an unstoppable force? At this rate, we’ll learn that Jason Bourne is a bit shit.

Westworld

HBO definitely needs a hit, with Game of Thrones in its last laps and any other relative newcomers getting either a cold reception (Vinyl) or never rising above cult status (The Leftovers). Could Westworld be it? It certainly has a lustrous sheen, and by taking its AI cues from the likes of Battlestar Galactica (the reboot) and Philip K Dick, it looks to have sufficiently distinguished itself from the original. It even has its own Roy Batty psychology (“What are your drives?”: “To meet my maker”). 

The trailer makes it seem as if the focus is the androids, but given the expanded series narrative I suspect that’s just a hook for selling it (and with Ben Barnes and the always-interesting Jimmi Simpson in the James Brolin and Richard Benjamin roles it appears to be well-appointed elsewhere). Both Jeffrey Wright and, for a change given his last decade of roles, Sir Anthony Hopkins look like they have something to get their teeth into. Fingers crossed that this one’s teething troubles were worth it.


Stranger Things

‘80s nostalgia, and especially for Spielberg’s Amblin, has had mixed results, from Abrams’ Super 8 to the recent Midnight Special, but this particular soup seems to possess all-important substance, with well-cast, rather than annoying, kids (more Stand by Me than The Goonies) and a scenario that seems to take in influences as eclectic as John Carpenter, Stephen King and Poltergeist (all evident from the trailer, and all referenced in an Irish Examiner interview with the writer-directors), as well as featuring Noonie herself, all strung out but as becoming as ever.

Most enticingly, though, this was originally titled Montauk (it’s now set in Indiana, for reasons as yet unknown, but it suggests conscious distancing from alleged events). The Duffer brothers, twins Matt and Ross, previously served up scripts for Wayward Pines (which I’ve been wayward about getting round to watching), so clearly like their small town mystery narratives, and Stranger Things is self-evidently based on that most fascinating and elusive of purported occult intrigues of the last century, one that rivals the (inter-connected) Philadelphia Experiment (not so much the Michael Paré movie, though) in terms of reality bending paradigm shifts, parallel time-lines, and time travel, with its tales of military mind-control experiments, test subject Montauk boys, and even the materialisation of a thought-form beast that wreaked destruction at the base. Preston Nichols and Peter Moon have written a whole series of – increasingly tenuously linked – books on the subject. And for tenuous connections, check out Andre Gregory’s account of a bizarre initiation ritual in the classic My Dinner with Andre (made long before the goings-on there had gained currency).

I haven’t made any further progress with the second season of Bloodline thus far, but Stranger Things appears to have the sense not to hang around digressing; at eight episodes it has the potential of being punchy, and if the Duffers (and Shawn Levy, but hopefully that’s in no way indicative) include only a sliver of the subject matter, this promises to be a highly engrossing experience (notably, however, they make no mention whatsoever of the Montauk Project in that interview, so let’s hope it isn’t a missed opportunity to bring the material to a wider audience).




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa