Skip to main content

I went 35 miles an hour straight into a cow.

The 355
(2022)

(SPOILERS) Probably the best Simon Kinberg’s fledgling directorial “career” can hope for is that audiences who wouldn’t touch his work on the end of a bargepole – commonsensically, that’s everyone – should be exposed or directed to it via artificial means. Consequently, early January’s conspirasphere rumour must have seemed like a godsend. This claimed no theatres in the US – or anywhere – would be allowing bookings beyond January 6, barring this opus, on account of some massive imminent Truther announcement taking place. For a few days, there was a spike of interest in just why it should be that The 355 was singled out for attention. Alas for Kinberg, this did not translate into ticket sales. Mostly because the movie so clearly sucked.

Anyone hoping the title promised more Zack Snyder Spartan action was going to be resoundingly out of luck. Rather, The 355 references the code name of a female spy during the American Revolution (See? They were progressive back then too). Purportedly, the number, applied by American Revolution War spy network the Culper Ring, could be decrypted to mean “lady” (others suggest the code number referred to network member Anna Smith Strong). These codes may simply have been rather prosaic in application – Washington was 711 – although gematria lovers were doubtless like pigs in shit when the rumour surfaced (my superficial response to the numbers is that they add up to 13, the Death card in tarot).

If the title’s of indeterminate importance, a sift through The 355’s content may unearth relevant subject matter. Obviously, this is an all-female spy movie, so it’s playing the doctrinally stamped progressive card, but there’s hardly anything ground breaking there, regardless of Jessica Chastain’s – the project’s originator – empty puffery. That these spies hail from diverse nations with diverse agendas – some of them antagonist – who unite in the name of a greater cause may, however, be construed as an indication of the global puppetry behind nominal sabre-rattling. The sort of thing that’s miraculously dropped when it comes time to unfold a plandemic (and is swiftly taken up again when that narrative proves unsustainable).

The MacGuffin, meanwhile, turns out to be a device that “can get into any closed system on the planet”. With it, one can “control and destabilise entire city grids, nuclear facilities, world markets, anything from a plane in the sky to the phone in your pocket”. It could start WWIII: “The war would be over before we could even fight back”. So, the kind of thing you’d see in an Mission: Impossible plot – Chris McQuarrie is probably wailing and gnashing his teeth – but also something that may resonate with anyone hoping the shutting down of the Internet for ten days is still happening, less as a harbinger of a Schwab-induced great reset than the good guys announcing they’re holding the reins. Of course, anyone accessing anything on the net on a whim this way could, indeed, initiate an actual great reset, such that you’d have nothing and be happy, all in the blink of an eye.

Chastain was “inspired” to make a spy movie with female leads, one like M:I or Bond, having observed the gaping hole in the market not previously filled by the likes of Atomic Blonde, Charlie’s Angels, Black Widow, Spy, Mr & Mrs Smith, Wanted, Red Sparrow, Ecks vs. Sever (if you must), Salt, La Femme Nikita, Point of No Return, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Hanna, Kate and Anna. This thunderbolt struck her on the set of Dark Phoenix, where such creative juices were doubtless in short supply, such that she went and suggested her sterling notion to its first-time director Kinberg, an old hand at espionage (XXX: State of the Union, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, This Means War) but mostly a writer of X-Men movies.

It was at this stage that Chastain’s already questionable inspiration entirely deserted her, as she sanctioned Kinberg to direct the movie too. Who knows, maybe he inspired confidence on set? Maybe it was only later, when all those reshoots failed to salvage the movie and his hot mess became even hotter, that cold feet were felt The point is, Chastain would have been advised to bail once she saw Kinberg was in no way an action director, and once the reviews savaged Dark Phoenix, yet she kept The 355 going on its projected course (I didn’t think Dark Phoenix was too bad, but one thing it wasn’t was encouragingly directed).

It should be no surprise, then, that The 355 gives the impression Kinberg takes notes from the likes of other writer-turned-directors Akiva Goldsman and Mark Steven Johnson. One might charitably suggest he isn’t attempting to disguise his rudimentary grasp of film grammar by resorting to over-editing, but mostly, the movie resembles an early ’90s, straight-to-video affair. Yes, there’s a rare scene where he engages with his material, but it isn’t an action one; the auction of the device is actually quite involving, and Nick (Sebastian Stan) having Mace’s Angels’ nearest and dearest executed is commendably unvarnished… until Kinberg cops out and has the girls sacrifice their utilitarian principles. Because the audience would never forgive you if you kill Penélope Cruz’s kid, now would they?

Of whom, Cruz’s Graciela is an awful mother anyway, compelling her offspring to lather themselves with hand sanitiser and scoff dairy-free ice cream. She’s also Colombian, a casting decision that caused a Twitter storm (or some such teapot) and elicited a sort-of grovelling non-apology from Chastain. Quite why she and Kinberg didn’t cast an actual therapist working for Colombia’s National Intelligence Directorate too, I have no idea.

Stan plays the old “You thought the good guy was killed early on, but here he is again and he’s a villain” character. The kind of telegraphed “twist” evidencing that Kinberg the writer is every bit as deadly as Kinberg the director (there’s a dreadful piece of staging/editing later, when Diane Kruger’s German Federal Intelligence Service agent Marie exclaims of the device “I’ve got it” several times, standing exposed in the middle of a room, just asking to get shot seconds later, and lo and behold…) Jason Flemyng, who variously looks about seventy or as if he has undergone extensive plastic surgery, depending on the lighting, is Nick’s bad guy boss, but barely gets a look in.

None of the leads have any chemistry whatsoever, which is a bit of a drawback for a sisterly ensemble. Chastain, an Easter Island drag act, is the ostensible lead, as producer, and leaves you wondering who she, or her agent, or her distributor, thought she appealed to. It isn’t as if she has any hits to her name that would justify a $40/75m production. As an action heroine, she entirely fails to convince – she previously tried, also unsuccessfully, with Ava, so it may be a Charlize-envy bee in her bonnet – and rather puts one in mind of a slightly more youthful Esther Rantzen.

Cruz and Lupita Nyong’o – “I’m cyber intelligence” her MI6 agent Khadijah announces, which means she knows her way around a smart phone – at least aren’t attempting to persuade of action skillz. Fan Bingbing, doing her best Marc Almond as Ministry of State Security operative Lin Mi Sheng, gets a kick-ass scene, expectedly, but the only performer really giving it some persuasive grit or welly is late addition Kruger – replacing Marion Cotillard – who at times is so good, so formidable, she seems set to salvage Kinberg’s comatose direction singlehandedly.

The positive takeaway is we won’t be getting a The 356, as the picture tanked. Perhaps it should have been sold to Netflix, who would immediately have greenlit a sequel. Kinberg, most likely, will return to his keyboard, probably to re-emerge with a low-budget personal drama that also fails to do any business but at least gives him a lifeline as a director of non-action vehicles. Chastain is next hunting serial killer Eddie Redmayne (I always had my suspicions) in The Good Nurse. Cruz isn’t winning an Oscar for Parallel Mothers. Fan Bingbing is trying to stay out of the taxman’s bad books. Nyong’o is hopefully going to change agents. Kruger will remain perpetually underrated. And The 355. Even if it had been the only film to see in theatres after January 6, it still couldn’t have crawled back any credit.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…