I WILL NOW PROCEDE TO PLAY WITH YOUR MIND... "THE IPCRESS FILE"

I know, we’re all on the quest for that one truly original story these days. There is much eye-rolling about all kind of cinematic cliché. But then again, some clichés, sometimes are not all bad. And you don’t get much more archetypal than a 60s spy movie starring Michael Caine.  But then again, as I often say, clichés are clichés for a reason. They wouldn’t have made so many of these movies if there wasn’t something about them that attracted the public – right?

Michael Caine stars as the hero of the show, Harry Palmer. He is a counter-espionage agent and he has been handed a particularly sensitive case. Some of the UKs most prolific and important scientists have started leaving their positions in drones. Not only that, one of the most important physicists, whose discoveries could give the UK the edge in the Cold War, no less, has now been kidnapped. Now, Palmer has a history of being insolent, doing things his own way and having far too much of an eye on the ladies – trouble is, he also happens to be one of the best agents in the service. Will his unorthodox methods carry him through and save the day?
Ok here's me being all technical and sh*t. Let's check out some moving pictures!

  I know it’s not a particularly novel concept to create antiheroes or to give the hero some negative characteristics (that, especially in more modern works the hero seems to redeem him-herself of without fail). But well, in the first place I was surprised they would make Palmer an anti-hero in the first place, it being the ‘60s and the “Russian Threat” being a very real thing in those days. I genuinely thought all the goodies would be “dashing”. I definitely didn’t expect them (Palmer I mean) to be, at times downright annoying. I mean the man must have been an absolute pain to work with. That said, we are entering the murky world of double agents (I won’t give you any further clues because it’s literally impossible to do without giving some plot point or other away). So, on a level it makes sense that our hero would not look quite the way we would expect him to look. Even if you are a seasoned spy film fan, I can pretty much guarantee even you will get briefly confused about who’s good, who’s bad and who’s “actually” working for who at some point in the proceedings.

And the other point is, of course that making Caine’s character a tad on the annoying side (not an actual jerk you understand, just, you know, a nigglesome bit annoying) is a lot more realistic than having him, for lack of a better word “all dashing”. He’s a top agent, used to manipulating people, outsmarting very dangerous baddies, getting it right and you know, saves the known world on a regular basis. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure I’d be a tad big-headed if that was MY definition of a regular day!  Needless to say Michael Caine absolutely nails it in his performance – I know he’s old-school but so am I, and I really enjoy his performance every single time ;)

Of course, coming from our modern perspective the “special effects” and the various “science things” border on the comical but I would really strongly advise you kind of suspend disbelief and just get stuck into the movie because, well, you didn’t REALLY get this far in the film because you expected fantastic HD explosions or something, did you?  Besides, it would be truly foolish of you to let this spoil a perfectly good film for you - I’ve personally never quite understood the point of view which states that “mind-blowing” special effects is almost the whole point of a film, it’s a completely different but equally erroneous school of style over substance… But I digress…

The again, of course, this is the 21^st century, everything is extremely visual and parts of the audience (not all, but definitely parts) want to be almost literally spoon-fed storylines without making a particular effort to “unravel” a darn thing. And I’m not even talking about unravelling some Tarkovsky film or the philosophical musings of Terrance Malik. Consider Bond films. It is only recently, under the “tutelage” of Sam Mendes that Bond is “slightly too old” a bit insecure about his abilities and even genuinely confused about the loyalties of the ones around him. But before that for the most part (say, since the mid ‘60s where this films hails from) Bond was perfect, for my taste; he’s slightly simplistic, won every battle – and never really provides one with any kind of doubt as to whether he would ACTUALLY make it or not . Bond films were all in all a rather brilliant collection of whatever the visual effects technology of the day could offer – especially in areas such as shoot-outs, high-speed chases, explosions etc.  – and not much else. That’s probably why I’ve never REALLY been a fan of Bond – I mean I have said a million times before, I’m all for escapist entertainment, but what is the REAL point if you know exactly what is going to happen in the end? You can get only so much pleasure from HOW you get there (in my universe) but basically, the moment I start, I know he’s going to beat the baddie, get the girl and save the world and my interest in watching is down to roughly a third of what it was (not very high in the first place). The one recent exception was Skyfall, where I had a moment’s hesitation what with all the build-up on Bond being so unsure of himself and all…

Ok, so, The Ipcress File. Definitely one for your head, not your “sense of explosion”. It may have been a combination of both at the time (this kind of film inevitably was – is). Now, with the “role” of the visual significantly diminished by our raised standards, do you know what… The part for the head STILL appeals. If you actually enjoy using your head when watching films, that is. And if you don’t, you know what, it’s a pretty darn good place to start… 

WHERE HEARTS AND MINDS COLLIDE IN A WOMRHOLE... "INTERSTELLAR"

Well this was a big one – in so many senses of the word! Not least because it was yours truely’s first ever IMAX experience! I did smirk slightly when the usher warned the audience to look away if they felt disoriented or sick – but I did actually feel quite sick during one portion of the film (although, ironically, telling you which bit would constitute a spoiler) and I felt as if my head was full of cotton wool for quite a while after the film… I still loved IMAX though… Especially with a highly visual film like Interstellar, it’s almost obligatory to have it either in 3D or in IMAX… I mean, there are some films (*cough* Gravity *cough*) whose entire USP is based on its visuals and being viewed with “advanced” technology. Interstellar’s aim is to be a bit more than a pretty face though. And Christopher Nolan being Christopher Nolan – the film has plenty to say for itself. Is it all coherent – I hear you ask – or does the film actually deserve the hashtag Interstellarplotholes Well…

In a dystopian world where “the system” has been destroyed and everyone have become farmers in a desperate attempt to  keep the world (and by that I mean the entire planet) from starving to death, Cooper, once an astronaut, is restless… His children have known nothing different but he remembers a world where mankind was adventurous and exploration of the final frontier was still on the cards… That is why he is delighted to happen upon a top secret space mission run by what remains of NASA and headed by Dr Brand Sr (Michael Caine) and his daughter (Ann Hathaway) Cooper gets the chance to return to his vocation, and possibly save the world while he is at it… However this is a mission like no other, Cooper is headed for truly uncharted waters and picking the new planet humanity is going to live on is a tricky business at best…

Now, this film has, you may have noticed, a huge number of fans. This is because the film is ambitious, incredibly ambitious, on so many fronts… First of all, visually… Well what can I tell you the film is a stunner… There are so many so called set pieces of space, the planets and (mild spoiler alert) the wonderful visuals of the galaxy beyond the wormhole and (major spoiler alert for like one sentence) the universe actually inside the worm hole (this is the point at which I started feeling nauseated by the way) are wonderful feats of technology and imagination. Best viewed with some form of HD, you will definitely be visually satisfied by Interstellar…

You will also be emotionally satisfied by it. Nolan produces quite a few very successful full-blown tugs at your heart strings. Even the toughest in my group welled up a couple of times during this one. I cannot state examples without giving spoilers as a lot of the most emotional moments come at crucial parts of the story – sort of jump cries as opposed to jump scares if you will…

But on the third hand (I appear to be an octopus for the purpose of this review) the film is also very, very cerebral. Nolan puts in a lot of science and a traditionally complicated storyline, successfully blending quantum physics, theory in a dystopian space context… Or I mean, does he really? This is where the hashtag Interstellarplotholes comes into play… Because Interstellar is a thing to be felt and enjoyed, sure… But if you start actually thinking about it seriously, holes begin to appear… I mean it starts from the smallest things – how, for example, in a world where purportedly nothing grows except corn, does mankind still have beer? How come Cooper never loses his tan for the duration of his “decades” in space? And – this is a big spoiler so look away now if you’re sensitive but I need to get this off my chest it’s a big pet peeve of mine  - why oh why oh why does this wormhole somehow magically end up behind a bookshelf? I mean I get the whole circular storyline thing, much like the Alchemist of Paulo Coelho we find the answer to the mystery we were searching for back where we began as it were but… I mean why of all things behind a book case?? I mean I get the importance of circularity. I really do. It’s the whole Humanist mindset of human beings “not needing any mysterious beings to take care of them”, that we and all the resources within ourselves are the only guides we’ll ever need if only we realize our own full potential. And I have to say, this is one of the more beautiful and intelligent ways I have seen of putting this message across. But I do wish Nolan had paid a bit more attention to the science as he went along. I mean I’m not even getting started on the fact that the only explanation we have of a wormhole is the same old folding a piece of paper thing every other sci-fi movie seems to do. Nolan either wants to mystify the viewer or, and I feel this may be the actual answer, this is not necessarily about “accurate science”. It’s a parable of love, humanity and life in a science fiction context and we should follow what our heart is picking up and not get “entangled” in the whole scientific context making sense to the “t”. Then again, it is the 21^st century and there are people out there who have made a bona fide hobby out of hunting for plot holes so I’m not entirely convinced this was the best way forward for this film if this was indeed what Nolan was after…

Whatever it was, true to form, we will very obviously be chatting about Interstellar for a good while yet… 

THE CLOSER YOU LOOK, THE LESS YOU SEE : "NOW YOU SEE ME"

For my first trick tonight, I will make two hours of your life disappear J Wow, ok, that came out a tad bit darker than I intended it to. But you know what I mean. You sit down to watch a film, what with the dazzling special effects (yes, I know, I do moan about special effects a lot but you can’t beat them when they’re well used), glamorous actors and a whirlwind of a storyline, you’ll be walking out of the cinema scratching your head before you became fully conscious of ever sitting down.

It all starts, you see, with four illusionists (Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelsson and David Franco). They have banded together to form a troupe entitled “The Four Horsemen” – and for their tour around Las Vegas they use “magic” to “rob banks”. An amusing gimmick and nothing more, right? Well, possibly not. As the banks the four horsemen say they are robbing on stage in front of a live audience indeed start turning up empty the next morning, the police force (headed by Mark Ruffalo) is faced with the very same perplexing question we are all faced with at the end of magic shows (I know I’m supposed to call them mentalists or illusionists or whatever. For me, they will always ever be magicians. Sorry J ) : “How the heck did they do that?”  But with even one of the most famous “illusionist de-maskers” (Morgan Freeman) baffled by the turn of events and the possibility of an agenda that stretches way beyond just the cash… Is this simply a rather glamorous set of heists? Or is there actually something a lot bigger at stake?

Ok, quick question: Did you like the Ocean’s franchise? You did? Then jump right on the bandwagon my friends! This is most definitely one for you! And I mean, don’t get me wrong, I loved the Ocean’s films. But this is a tad bit better methinks. First of all, I like the fact that it doesn’t rely so much on star power. I mean don’t get me wrong there are one heck of a lot of stars in this one too. There are even a few I couldn’t get into the blurb like Michael Cane for example. But there are not 15 of them.  Which, in my view is a good thing. I mean 15 a-list celebrities are all very well and good – in fact in some cases but it always makes me a tad nervous about the rest of the film. You know, the directing, the storyline, the effects… I know it’s a tad unfair, but I always get the nagging question “what are they trying to hide?” – you know. If they’re throwing that much talent at it, my head reasons, there must be something going not quite right with it. Now this little number has a significant amount of star talent in the mix, you can ask what it’s trying to hide until you are blue in the face; I am pretty darn confident you won’t get it.

This is not simply because there is nothing that is obviously wrong with it; I have to say that this was one of the best heist  /stroylines I have seen in a very long time. I know that technology and development allows us to design visual effects gimmicks that are more intricate than ever before, but this was truly spectacular. And all the visuals – be it the effects all the stars – definitely do not retract from a complicated plotline you will literally “not see coming” until the very end. But don’t worry. There is a an actual “explanation”  bit very neatly inserted into the film so I can guarantee you won’t get completely lost.  This is actually my favourite kind of plot. I don’t like it when I can see films “coming” a mile away. And my “eyesight” is pretty darn good what with one thing and another  (mainly the sheer volume of films I have watched in my life).

If I were to say one negative thing about the film, it might be that it suffers from a slight lack of character development. I’m not going to go as far as saying they are “stock characters” they definitely are not, but… I mean we could, in an ideal world, get to know them a tad bit better. But then again, that is not what the movie is about. The movie is about the show – that’s why this is what the movie concentrates on. Which is fair enough, I think.

So next time you have a few hours to spare, feel free to spare it on this little number. You will not regret it – this much I promise you.

AND TO FINISH OFF, SOME VINTAGE BRITISH FARE : "THE ITALIAN JOB"

Here we have before us two great British classics. Michael Cane is undoubtedly one of the best known and most liked British actors and The Italian Job has its own place among immortal British movies. I am not (in fact and in all fairness cannot) dispute the charisma of the young Michael Cane. And The Italian Job is no doubt a really funny movie, well worth a spin of a weekday evening – but I can’t really say I wasn’t disappointed. I mean, I expected more from this fella for some reason, possibly because of all the hype surrounding it…
So, a lot of you probably know “the score” but I’ll quickly run through it for those of you who don’t. Charlie Croker (Michael Cane) is a smooth-talking professional criminal. He is just out of jail and already onto the next big job. The idea is stealing four million dollars’ worth in gold while it is being transported through the crowded and congested streets of Turin. A lot of things seem to point to this being an impossible feat, not least because the mafia have got a hint of what the Brits are planning and have taken a personal affront to this daring stunt on their own turf. But Charlie, along with a little help from a randy computer expert Professor Peach (this character is first time I’ve heard Benny Hill speak!), the support of British crime-boss Mr. Bridger (Noel Coward !), three minis (appropriately colored red, white and blue), a couple of vans and a whole host of petty-criminals is determined to give it a shot. And get away with it.
Credit where it’s due, this film is one of the ones that is responsible for the birth of a whole host of hilarious heist movies, the modern and most successful incarnation being Ocean’s 11. And I was rather surprised to see that even this early ancestor was sure to involve the latest technology and computers. We have almost all probably watched the modern Ocean’s 11 and remember how highly computers figure in the film – here they have a place too. Admittedly, here the computers look more like walk-in freezers crossed with old magnetophones and the computer programs look like old and massive reels of film, but still. A nice touch. And of course there is the famous car-chase scene with the three minis and the Italian cops; now that one completely deserves its place in movie history, I’ve never seen anything like it! Michael Cane is dashing, funny and witty. There is a lot of witty repartee and word-play, common to British humor; the only problem you WILL have is if you do not like British humor… But I love it, so am biased.
I have to say however that; first and foremost this NOT the most original plot in the world. Benny Hill is a nice touch, but it’s classic, typical Benny Hill, just with a soundtrack. And I love Benny Hill, but in a film that bases itself on rather cool British humor I think he was a tad out of place. I don’t know, like spaghetti in chocolate sauce – nice in their own rights and separate, slightly “icky” when they come together. Another thing is, the whole film leaves a lot of loose threads at the end, and I don’t just mean the “cliff-hanger” ending, the whole darn thing is untidy – I thought so anyway. You just have to “suspend belief”, accept “that’s the way it is in the film” and get along with it. It just doesn’t bare too much scrutiny. So just don’t scrutinize it (with me it has become a professional hazard) just sit back and enjoy, and you should be ok. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

THE END OF THE WORLD WEEK FOR THE CHILDREN OF MEN

I have to admit, there was a lot of hype about this particular dystopia. I mean, it was praised to the skies, nominated for three Oscars ® and miscellaneous awards, over half the people I know watched and said it was one of the best films they ever watched. So I thought it would be only fitting to put it in here. It is, after all, the most recent dystopia out of the three and has the added bonus of being, in my mind, the most realistic. That is partly due to the fact of it being so recent, so we can draw clear ties with the problems we have today. The film presents what could (unfortunately) logically be “worst outcome” scenarios involving things that happen today. I mean, yes I grant you, given the vagueness in “Time Of The Wolf”, we can’t really say that isn’t realistic either, but the difference between this film and Time of The Wolf is that Time of The Wolf has the people and the effects of the disaster on the people in the foreground; it is a psychological dystopia if you will. Children of Men is all about the disaster and, in true Hollywood style (it is a British film but all the same), “fixing” the disaster. Of course in Time of the Wolf people aren’t trying to fix anything just trying to survive, and that is what makes the film so tough to watch; it’s bleak, there is no end in sight. Children of Men, however, does provide “a cure”. And unfortunately, for that reason, a film that starts out with one heck of a lot of promise and originality, spirals down into something quite cliché – with a few Biblical references thrown in for good measure. But I’m getting ahead of myself, let me give you a lowdown of the story first…
The year is 2027 and we are in London. The world has, basically, gone to pot. An “infertility” pandemic has taken over; no human beings have been born for the last 18 years. All the doctors in all the lands are powerless; the human race is, for all intents and purposes, dying out. Chaos, in the meanwhile, has taken over. Governments like Britain crack down on illegal immigrants, refugee camps have sprung up all over the country where the “fugees” live in ghettos and are shipped out of the country. Anti-government activism is rife, bombings and raids a day to day occurrence, pollution is everywhere, you get the general picture… Theo is separated from his wife Julia. Julia has gone underground and has joined the anti-government fight. Theo has lost faith and just gets on with his life. Until, that is, Julia contacts him and asks for his help. A girl needs to be escorted to meet the mysterious “Human Project” and he is the only one she trusts to obtain the necessary papers to travel through the country. Theo is dubious at first but it becomes obvious that bigger things are at stake, because this girl may well be the key to the salvation of humanity… The problem is, she is a refugee and must be kept safe from the government. But it will not take Theo long to understand that the government aren’t the only ones trying to get their hands on this woman… The future of humanity is, for all intents and purposes, in their hands…
You may have, on reading the plotline, wondered what was so “original” about the film. I mean, you don’t have to be a genius to guess why the woman holds the key to human survival, right? Yes, yes, she’s pregnant (you still don’t know whether they get her to safety or not though, so I technically didn’t tell you the end). But there are lovely little touches about the possible future world that are given out within the first 15 “introduction” minutes of the film that draws one straight in. For example, now the government distributes “suicide kits” for people in depression, allowing you to take your own life in the comfort of your own home, with no mess. What else? In the first 10 minutes again, we learn the youngest person in the world, an 18 year-old, has just died. The entire world is in mourning (don’t worry, this is not integral to the storyline AT ALL J ) Remember when Lady Diana died? Heck, any celebrity? Nice dystopic poke at the phenomenon there, Theo uses the excuse to get off work early because “he is distraught” J Oh and there are these funny little “rickshaws” made up with motorbikes all over the roads. There still are cars and busses but obviously they have been stopped at some point, the cars are quite old. And the whole theme itself is also good, I mean, we are responsible for entire species dying out, why not humans? Especially with this “aging population” all around Europe and the developed world, it isn’t unthinkable at all, scary but true.
But the clichés bleed through straight away. The anti-government stance of the film is a given of course. There is the unavoidable old hippy acquaintance of Theo’s that gets them out of a scrape or two (the inimitable Michael Cane, the only possible excuse for this characters existence is the fact that he is played by such a great actor). And of course the reason why Theo and his ex-wife went their separate ways (yes, yes again you got me; their son died). And then, completely out of the blue, there are the Biblical references. I mean, putting aside the obvious one of a baby whose very existence is a miracle bringing hope and salvation to the human race (note here that the reference is made obvious by the mother herself joking about it, teasing Theo who asks who the father was by saying “there is no father I was a virgin” and then bursting out laughing). There is the activist that helps Theo and Kee (oh yes, the mother’s name is Kee. As in key. Get it?) to escape Miriam (Miriam is the name of the sister of Moses and leader of the Hebrew women during the Exodus) who just so happens to be a midwife. She is leading her out of an oppressive and scary state (Egypt reconstructed as Great Britain) to, wait for it, the Human Project that will pick her up on a… Boat. (Moses in the reeds anyone?) And then there is one scene, right at the end, where the crowds admire and “adore” the baby. Now, I have seen this being interpreted as a throwback to Rosemary’s Baby, but I am not too darn sure about that. And of course the very name of the film. (Children of Man / Children Of Israel – there is the second connection with the children two of course, but such things are rarely coincidental in this business). Unfortunately, that is where the philosophical “similes” end. I do wish the director had gone deeper with the theme, I mean why not, but if there was any further depth to the film I missed it. And yet the presence of the previous parallels are so obvious that their presence without any further basis is confusing – they confused me at any rate… The director then mixes in various parallels with the Iraq war (some parallels with the infamous Abu Ghraib prison cannot escape even the most undiscerning viewer). And of course these make sense seeing as this is an anti-government film but… I don’t know, too many themes spoil the broth if you ask me…
In short, I admire what director Alfonso Cuaron Has set out to do. Unfortunately, I feel he hasn’t quite finished the job. I do understand that there is a lot to say on these things but why, oh why did he feel he needed to say the whole lot at once? Fewer “messages” would have salvaged the original themes that are present in the beginning of the film, making it a whole lot better than it is. Wasted potential. Watch it. You will like it. I’m just saying you could like it one heck of a lot more…