MAYHEM, MAGIC AND JACK THE RIPPER

I am a strong believer in bargain basements, as you probably already know. I am the same with books; you will often find me scanning the bookshelves marked ``two for the price of one`` with an intent expression trying to work out if there is a bargain to be found in there somewhere. I often do this at airports. It passes the time, there are often special ``airport editions`` to books otherwise only available in hardcover and well… Everyone loves a bargain. This is how I came to pick up Mayhem by Sarah Pinborough and came to discover a new writer and series that will no doubt afford me hours of enjoyment. You see I love fantasy and magic in my books. I also love crime. But if I come across a successful combination of the two… Well that is by far the best… J

Dr Thomas Bond is a normal police surgeon living in abnormal times. It is London, the year is 1888 and that mysterious killer called Jack the Ripper is prowling the streets of Whitechapel. Dr Bond is known for his success and ability in such cases and thus starts working on the case when another series of murders starts taking place in Whitechapel. Bodies, brutally mutilated, missing limbs and internal organs, more brutal than the Ripper has ever been… But why are there suddenly so many predators prowling the streets of London? And more importantly are they the real problem or the symptoms of something, much, much worse to come…  

I really loved the way this story wove the strands of the story together. Of course, thanks to television and DVDs, we are no strangers to the concept of merging crime as a genre with fantasy. Neither are we unfamiliar with the concept of an everyman brought face to face with a gang of supernatural crime fighters and villains who turn out to be bona fide monsters. So in a sense, Pinborough has taken on a rather daunting task – not only must she write an example of a genre tried and tested multiple times, thus creating very fixed expectations in the fans, she must also somehow achieve the same effect without the aid of special effects and on screen ``magic`` that makes it that much easier to suspend disbelief and dive straight in.

This has largely been achieved by structuring the novel pretty much in the same way one might structure a TV series. Every chapter is narrated by a different character, you know, in the same way the camera follows first one character and then another in those series where we have multiple heroes and heroines. Of course, here (as in most such narratives), we have one main protagonist, but we have a quite a few secondary characters knocking about who get a good dose of ``page time`` too. The flip of perspective is most refreshing and gives, in my opinion, a much more all-rounded sense of where the story is going. The other thing is that of course the setting is 19^th century London. Opium dens are ``all the rage`` and suffice to say that said dens play quite large parts in our story. Not only does the way the story flits from character to character at some point begin to resemble those rambling dreams brought on by the drug and so aptly described in the book, it also adds a completely new dimension to the character of Dr Bond, who is the ``hero`` of the book and at the same time, a bona fide opium addict. This makes him a bit of an anti-hero in a way, as Pinborough makes a very, very good job of describing his mental process as the addiction takes a firmer and firmer hold – and that in itself is an interesting portrait. But on the other hand, it also adds a dreamlike quality to everything Bond experiences, adding another dimension to his disbelief. I mean, I need to add that a lot of the other, secondary characters are not exactly painted in black or white either. There are a lot of greys, a lot of unusual traits and questionable attributes… But then again, that`s a bit like real life I suppose. The ``good guys`` often have their own scars and crosses to bear, and may not seem as ``snow white`` as prime time TV would have us believe.  

Another thing I admired in the book was the mastery with which the true stories of the epoch were mixed with fiction. Jack the Ripper enthusiasts will find it interesting reading in parts, possibly not because they will discover a lot of new information, but because Jack prowls the pages of the book along with our own killer, as large as life, and if the information about him is not new (because in truth, unless some historical artefact is unearthed, I don`t see how there could be any new info on him at the moment,)it is very well redacted and very well melded with the fantasy world of Dr Bond and Mayhem.

In short Mayhem is a sensitively written book where reality and fantasy collide to form some truly breath-taking results. It`s the kind of book that would make you miss your stop on the tube. Just sayin`. J

"THE LETTER" FROM A LONG LOST AGE...

Aah Film noir. One of the oldest genres around. To be sure it has changed a lot since it’s heyday in the ‘40s and ‘50s so much so that it has spurned a new genre called “neo-noir” that differentiates the modern versions from those good old Hollywood classics. It’s like a roast dinner, fish and chips, your favourite drink (please note that I am writing this post just before dinner LOL), in short something you know like the back of your hand and come back to knowing what to expect. If it is an American Classic like The Letter, you will get a beautiful woman, seductive but dangerous (Bette Davis), a man of the law (often a private eye or a police officer but in this particular case the family lawyer, played by James Stephenson), a crime, a cover-up and the impending sense of doom despite the best efforts of the characters, be they sympathetic or not… Adapted from W. Somerset Maugham’s best-seller, The Letter is cited as an example for “classic American noir” – and there’s a good reason for it…

Leslie (Bette Davis) and Robert ( Herbert Marshall) lead a charmed life, living on plantation in Singapore. Servants to tend to their every need and enough money to make %100 sure these needs are tended to mean that Leslie has little to do apart from relaxing and enjoying life while her adoring husband makes sure the plantation is ticking over. She is adored by one and all in the area and part of the very cream of high society, so everyone is shocked when she admits to killing one of her neighbours, a man both her and her husband had known for some time, in her own home in the middle of the night. However, as she is a trusted and well-loved member of society people are also more than ready to believe her word on what happened. The man was drunk, had showed up unannounced, was making unwanted advances and she was alone in the house. She defended herself. She is of course put on trial – but it really seems to be little more than a formality – everyone fully expects life to return to normal very, very shortly. Except… There is talk of this letter… A letter written in Lesley’s own hand and that could turn this idyllic world upside down… Her lawyer seems to be the only one who can help her… Stuck between his loyalty to his client and his loyalty to his vocation, Howard is in a very tight spot indeed… But he must choose carefully, for no matter which way he turns, his actions will have grave consequences…

It’s an interesting combo, the film noir. Becoming popular, and holding a lot of its roots in the Depression era the genre takes a step away from “classic” Hollywood. You can definitely sense the general disillusionment with the establishment and the “system” (whatever that may be) as criminals who get away with murder (among other crimes), officers of the law who fully believe that “everyone has their price” but who have lost all faith in justice they are meant to uphold are prominent along with the dark and striking photography that owes a not a little to German Expressionism but doubtless also contributes to the atmosphere of the film and the constant sense of “something bad being about to happen”.

The Letter is a textbook example of all of the above, but don’t think for a minute it is a hard tale of doom and gloom that you will find difficult to “get into”. In fact this film, as do a lot of its genre, relies a lot on emotions and feelings. In fact I couldn’t help but smile as I watched Bette Davis; as an actress she is as brilliant as always, however there are times when you note a gesture or a pose that is so exaggerated you can very clearly see the lingering effects of the pre-sound era of cinema. It is literally the kind of stuff I do today when I’m clowning around and want to give a sense of an “overly exaggerated” whatever it is… Oh you’ll recognise it. You really, really will. But you have to remember that cinema is an art form like any other, and it grows, changes and develops. Find it funny or not, The Letter is one of the great-grandparents of the crime dramas we watch today. And visiting your grandparents (or indeed your great grandparents) can be both fascinating and great fun… If you can find time in your “modern existence” to actually do it that is… ;) 

REAL LIFE ONLY NOT QUITE... "THE MAN WHO SMILED"

You will have figured out by now, I imagine, that as a family we are rather partial to our crime dramas. This is why detectives of many different nationalities, ages and time periods parade regularly on our screens no matter where we are in the world. Well, I was indulging in this particular piece of “police work” the other evening when I realised, to my dismay, that I have not yet introduced you to Wallander.

I mean, maybe he needs no introduction as far as you’re concerned. But the thing is, I do enjoy the Wallander films/series so much that it is quite shameful he has not made an appearance here before. And I enjoyed this particular example of Wallender so much that I thought, you know what? I have to give him a spot this week. Because EVERYONE likes a good session of cops and robbers, right? Right?

In this particular episode, it all starts off pretty much like a routine if rather tragic accident that kills an old friend of Inspector Wallander’s.  Wallander is saddened by this, but to be fair they hadn’t been in touch for a while and there seems to be nothing “wrong” with the death so he is ready to move on. The victim’s son, however, is most definitely not. He is insistent that there is more to the death than would appear and implores Wallander to look into it, to no avail. Things start to hot up  (or cool down, depending on which way you look at it) when the son also turns up dead – and this time it is VERY clearly not an accident. It will quickly transpire, however, that this double murder is only the tip of a rather large and particularly unpleasant iceberg. Wallander is going to need all of his wits about him to truly take this case on. Which is why it is a crying shame his personal life – that seemed to be going so well -  is also taking up a rather large portion of his mind…

First of all, one footnote. This particular film is the Swedish adaptation of Wallander. This makes sense to my mind, because to the best of my knowledge the original series itself is also in Swedish and set in Sweden. I have always had the deepest respect for Scandinavian art and cinema (much to the horror of a lot of my friends and acquaintances, who find it insufferably sad). But my appreciation of their ability to write /film crime dramas has gone up recently. I mean think of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. I mean I grant you, the rest of the series didn’t, to my mind, match up with the first book but still, what a storyline, eh?

Anyway. To return more specifically to Wallander himself, I love this series – especially the Swedish version – simply because all the characters are so… Real. I mean you know there are two “basic” cop types. Either the cop is the charismatic if slightly dysfunctional hero, handsome and almost impossible to trick. Or he is a good, old-fashioned copper whose private life is an utter mess and is almost unable to function outside the walls of the precinct (think Dalziel for Dalziel and Pascoe). Wallander is something in between. And this is why I find him a lot easier to sympathise with. He is very much a real man, with real feelings and real issues. He acts like a fool, he makes mistakes but he can apologise and make amends too – or at least he can try. I think it is the Scandinavian penchant to keep things a lot closer to real life that makes me enjoy Scandinavian art so much. I mean, they don’t say the truth is stranger than fiction for nothing. Sometimes we are so busy escaping life that we don’t really make the time to truly observe and / or enjoy it. There is, of course, a subtle irony to the fact that I am writing these words under the review of a crime drama film which is one of my prime modes of escape from my day’s troubles…  But see, the film has a double function. It helps us escape our lives for a bit – but helps us think about it too. A non-escapist form of escapism, if you will. That’s my story anyway, and I’m sticking to it. Now, pass the popcorn.  

AN EARLY MEETING OF "LIKE MINDS"

What is it with our fascination with psychopaths? I guess it has something to do with the fact that they are the closest thing we have to an alien species. Seeming like any one of us in so many ways, and yet not quite the same. I think it also has something to with the charisma often associated with psychopaths as well. I mean, I have not (to my knowledge) ever met a psychopath but they do seem to put across a bit more of a certain something than your average guy (they generally are guys. Female psychopaths exist but are much rarer). I mean, to the point that I did read an article somewhere that analysed the common traits between psychopaths and successful entrepreneurs, which in itself tells us something or other about the state of the business world today. But I digress. Well, not really.

Like Minds is the story of a psychopath in the making. Alex, the 17 year old son of the headmaster of a very privileged school is being held in custody at the local police station. The charge? The murder of a fellow student, Nigel and possible links to other heinous crimes committed in the area. However, the explanation he provides for the death of his friend is so bizarre that a forensic psychologist has to be brought in. The police chief is sure he’s as guilty as sin but Susan, the psychologist is not that sure. Alex’s tale is one of those yarns that is so tall it just might be too fantastic to be imagined up. He speaks of a world marked with mind games, manipulation and obsession. And as Susan plunges deeper and deeper into this case, one thing becomes painfully clear. Finding the identity of Nigel’s killer is not going to be as easy as it seems. 

Now you might, as I was, be slightly sceptical as to how many more psychopath movies you can take. I mean, yes, we are rather fascinated by this particular kind of killer, especially in harmless movie form. However, this also means that the market is fairly saturated with films about them. And not all of the “saturation” is of the same quality. In this cinematic multitude however, Like minds stands out as certainly a lot more than “just tolerable”.  The performances by the two leads, Eddie Redmayne – who later edged into the limelight with My week with Marilyn among other films and Tom Sturridge are quite superb. And the film gives a rather spine chilling “blow by blow” (if you pardon the pun) account of how a psychopath is born. How, if you will, the step is taken from “tendency” to reality.

I mean yes, it has to be said, there are bits – especially towards the end – that unfortunately slip into the slightly stilted. There were bits where a little originality (though of course I couldn’t say what – but that’s originality for you!) would have been very welcome indeed. Then again though, like I said, Like Minds, for all its original features, is a member of a large extended family, as we have just discussed, so I guess there is bound to be a “family resemblance”. I only wish it wasn’t from the “cliché” branch of the family. But nonetheless, I was easily able to overlook them and have a positively nail-biting time. And that says something, given the quantity of crime drama I watch. Let’s see what you lot make of it. 

RE-VISITED : "THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATOO"

I understand. With a best-selling series and more than one film adaptation floating around one needs to specify a tad-bit more which one I’m talking about. It’s the 2011 film adaptation directed by David Fincher that I want to look at this week. Now, at the time, I was a little bit pissed with this film. Well, mainly because there already was a Swedish adaptation. This kinda made sense, seeing as this is a Swedish book and all. Does Hollywood have to go poking its nose in and re-adapting every little thing going? Not necessarily. But credit where it’s due. I haven’t seen the Swedish version (yet) but Fincher has definitely done one heck of a good job. Then again, I would say that, he’s one of my favourite directors ever. Before I get any further with my rant, I’d do well to put some reasoning behind that sentence methinks…

So, for those of you who missed it, this is a story of skeletons in the closet and deception spanning decades. Michael Blomkvist is a renowned journalist. However, he is not having the best period of his career, as allegations he has made against a powerful businessman have turned out to be false, ending in him being dragged through courts and losing almost all his life savings. In the midst of all this however, he is offered an unlikely lifeline. Old-fashioned family patriarch Henrich, head of one of the most powerful family businesses in Sweden contacts Blomkvist. He has a personal assignment for him. Years ago, 40 years ago to be precise, his great niece Hannah has disappeared. Quite suddenly and with no trace whatsoever. Henrich is dying. And he is convinced his great niece is dead. But he wants Blomkvist, who has proved himself as an above-average investigator before, to look into it. Blomkvist begrudgingly accepts and teams up with the anti-social yet supremely talented hacker / investigator Lisbeth Salander to uncover secrets that have lain hidden for over 40 years. It may have been wiser to leave some secrets where they were…

Now, the story, I cannot find fault with. Lisbeth, the unlikely heroine of this series is a brilliant character, the epitome of an anti-hero if there ever was one. And honestly, there are not enough anti-heroes about for my liking. Even fewer “anti-heroines”. Blomkvist is a bit bland but realistic. You know, believable – which often is more than can be said for a lot for a lot of characters in this kind of story. And the story… I mean wow. I have seen a few detective / crime stories in my time but this deserves to be among the classics. It is both imaginative and exciting.

However the problem I found with the book is that well… Not to speak ill of the dead – the author of the book – but I really, really don’t think he could write well. I mean the story, the concept was great. But the book was far too wordy. Full of descriptions and explanations that were just… Well, surplus. That led nowhere. The book was full of good intentions but way too… Crowded.

Fincher has put an end to that problem. Quite unlike the book, the film cuts back on words and concentrates on visuals. And you know what Fincher is like with this kind of thing. Striking pictures, ominous, an underlying sense of danger. And silence. For anyone who has read the book, this fits S much better with Lisbeth’s character, don’t you think? Having been cut back and streamlined, the film flows like silk. And succeeds in putting your heart in your mouth within minutes. I knew the whole story and still I loved it. I seriously hope you don’t miss this one!!

IN MEMORIAM OF TONY SCOTT : "DEJA VU"

Well, I would be no kind of cinema lover if the (newly) late Tony Scott didn’t get a mention in the blog sometime soon now would I? Think what you will personally of Tony Scott, the man was one of the greats. He is one of those rare gems who can actually walk the thin line between art pieces and popular cinema (I think we’re all in agreement that these are two totally different things, right? Right. ). Now, for some, this means that Tony Scott’s films were neither one thing nor the other, making him sort of a Jack of all trades  / master of none kinda guy. I think those who support that idea need to think twice about that statement. If you’re a creative person, it is hard enough, on some level, to constrain yourself to the “rules” of classical filmmaking (Oh come on, you DO know what I mean). But then again if you adhere too closely, chances are you’re going to be able to pay your rent and all that but just fade away as a filmmaker. It is notoriously hard to show originality without going off on a tangent. It is, as I said a very fine line. And Tony Scott, God rest his soul, was an artist and an entertainer who was able to revolutionize classic genres (notably the action film) AND create perfect art pieces at the same time.  I strongly feel that this film was one of his best, so here it is. 

Our story starts in New Orleans, when a ferry carrying the crew and families of a navy vessel is blown up. Among the first on the scene, is BATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is among the first on the scene.  But if you thought all that can be done at that point is piece together the clues left behind to catch the culprits, you are mistaken. There may actually be a way to save them. Carlin learns this when he becomes attached to an as yet experimental FBI unit. The methods they use are dangerous and even the most brilliant scientists are unsure as to the full capacities of their machinery but the lives of hundreds are at stake. And among those hundreds is the woman Doug has fallen in love with. Without ever having met her… I would like to close my summary with the film’s tagline, which I find particularly poignant: “If you thought it was just a trick of the mind, prepare yourself for the truth”…

And if at this point, you’re going “Oh, so what, they’ve invented time travel” err, no. It’s a tad more complicated than that. What the heck do I mean by that? You’re simply going to have to watch the film and find out. First of all, respect for Tony Scott. In the first place, the film is a class A action film. All the ingredients are there, charismatic hero, wild chase sequences, the pyrotechnics, special effects… Every box ticked. Then, there’s the sci-fi part of it. Now, like I said, it’s not just about sending agents back in time “Terminator” style. It’s more complicated than that. And Scott does NOT just gloss over the explanation. He actually explains it. I mean, we watched the film as a group, there were moments (more than one – and we’re all postgraduate students by the way) where serious explanations to the question of “what just happened??” were necessary. So it’s a genuine, serious and intelligent sci-fi movie too. And on top of that of course, there is the romantic angle. And I mean, first of all , come on peeps, it’s love. That’s NEVER a cliché. Secondly, Denzel Washington and Paula Patton (who you may remember from such films as Ghost Protocol and Precious amongst other things) are spot on with the chemistry. For one minute I want you to now stop and think about how hard it is to take three almost completely unrelated genres (not two, three. Two might work – it usually does. Three is where it gets complicated) and mix them in such a way that the result is smooth, classy and nail-bitingly, arm-of-the-chair grippingly exciting. Just “sticking them together” simply does not work out. You have to watch this one to know what I mean. 

A BLEND OF BRITISH FACT AND FICTION : "THE BANK JOB"

As you know by now, I’m all for innovation and trying new things. Be it different genres, directors or countries of origin, variety is the spice of life and never more so when it comes to movies. But then again… There’s nothing really like re-visiting old favourites is there? I personally think that old favourites in matters such as this are specifically to be re-visited not “had” every day. First of all, if you consume said favourite every day (in whatever form it happens to come in), it will be “the everyday” thing. Part of your routine almost. And slowly, it will cease to be a favourite. You will, undoubtedly, become bored of it. However,  if you have it there, shining like a gem in a whole selection of different  “things”, it will always be special, your enjoyment will always have that edge to it. For me, as you know, there are several favourites. But nothing really beats a good old gangster movie. Especially a heist. I don’t know what it is about them, especially because the element of surprise is not always at the forefront of the creators minds.  (And I mean, let’s be fair, there are only so many directions the plot can go in, right? Actually wrong when it comes to this film, but you know what I mean. ) But anyhoo. That’s my guilty little treat. A bit like that totally kitch ‘90s tune you have on your mp3 player that you only play on the train when no one can see your screen (come on, you KNOW the one I mean…). And I’ll tell you something else. I don’t even care if its stars Jason Statham. Again. Because he is good at heist films. Period.

The Bank Job is based on a true heist. Of course “based on” means that there is a significant amount of truth in it with some imagination to fill in the gaps thrown in. This is the story of a group of petty criminals (the leader of the gang being, as always, Jason Statham) who are handed the opportunity of the bank job of a lifetime by an acquaintance (Saffron Burrows). The idea is to tunnel into the bank from the empty shop that they have leased almost next door and empty out the safety deposit boxes. This is, of course, a brilliant opportunity to get rich quick for the friends because, as the acquaintance points out, a lot of people hide compromising stuff in there. They may not even want to risk reporting it stolen. The friends think about it for a minute, and then pounce on the idea. But there are complications. First of all, the acquaintance is not as innocent as she may have first seemed; she is acting on the part of MI5 (or is it 6??) because there are some VERY compromising pictures of VERY important people that need to be got back NOW.  Secondly, like we said, there indeed is compromising material in the bank, put there by rather unpleasant people. And while it is true that they will never report it missing, this does NOT mean they will not come after it themselves... Have our friends finally bitten off more than they can chew? Will this heist actually turn out to be (literally) the last thing they ever do? You’ll have to watch and find out.

Now, I did a bit of research on this one as I jotted down my thoughts and considerations. First of all, the heist bit, as far as we can ascertain, is spot on. Down to the details. It occurred in 1971 and there was, according to one website, actual talk of compromising photos being found but of whom they were and how they compromised them remains a mystery to this day. I will not go into the details of the robbery as yet seeing as you haven’t watched it yet (probably) but I found it especially amusing to find out that the “discovery of the walkie talkies” as it were was also spot on the money. Nothing as queer as folk, eh?  All other connections (including “the photos” and the connections to the intelligence services) are more a matter of speculation but still, stranger things have happened in life…

The film itself is about as British as they come. Not surprising since, it turns out, it was written by the co-creators of British classics like “The Likely Lads” and “Porridge” (I apologise if that means nothing to you, but Porridge is one of my favourite sit-coms and I had to give it a plug). The humour is British, the characters are VERY British and well, it’s a 1970’s period film to boot. Now, this is my filmic equivalent of chocolate cake with chocolate-fudge sauce (and if, like my mother, you hate chocolate, I mean this as a compliment). But if it isn’t yours, I have to add that the combination of extraordinary real life events and some really creative writing and directing has meant that this is one heist movie you will NOT see coming. The plot twists come left and right when you least expect them and the characters are so charming, you end up rooting for them without quite understanding what happened. I mean, I started watching this after a very tiring shift, just to unwind for half an hour with every intention of leaving it half-way and going to bed early. I ended up watching the whole two hours and completely upsetting my own sleep patterns for a week. Totally worth it. 

SOME MURDER MYSTERY WITH : "THE BLACK DAHLIA"

Ok, back to civilian life now. Well, in fact, not quite. Anyone vaguely familiar with the work of Brian De Palma will know that he is mighty fond of his cops and robbers. Now the robbers we are all very much aware of, Scarface, Carlito, they have all gone down in history as the biggies of their time. So let us turn our attention to the cops for a second. If only because none of them has even come close to achieving the notoriety that Al Pacino has given the bad guys mentioned above. Los Angeles, 1940’s. Two ex-boxers Bucky (Josh Hartnett) and Lee (Aaron Eckhart) are partners in the police force. But they have quite a bit more than their careers tying them together. They are known as Mr. Fire and Mr. Ice; Lee; Mr. Fire is the emotional, out-going and gregarious one of the two, also a heavy-weight boxer and the one with more of a “glistening” career. Mr. Ice, Bucky, is calmer, quieter a lightweight (literally) and the more junior cop of the two. But all their differences don’t stop them forming a bizarre ménage a trois with Lee’s girlfriend Kay (the enigmatic Scarlett Johansson). Their private arrangements are a little strange (I will let you discover them precisely as the film goes along) but they are good at what they do and have quite average lives until the “Black Dahlia” murder. Lee becomes slowly obsessed by the murder, ignoring duty and Ray and devoting all his time to obsessing about it. All Bucky can do is follow in his wake, the thing is, he must be very, very careful as he navigates his way; both Lee’s past and the Black Dahlia murder contains more dark secrets than he can possibly imagine. The end credits inform us that the murder that takes place in the film really happened but the film itself is a concoction of this and a novel by James Ellroy named The Black Dahlia. This is one of the things I like the most about Brian De Palma. A lot of his film tell a story that is – or at least contains an element of – true life. I’m not quite sure why this is such an important thing for me, but I truly feel that life is often much stranger than fiction and it enriches me to find out the most I can about it. The Black Dahlia is a true – blue nail biter. Stylistically it is brilliant. And even though it is a full two hours long, the minutes will, I promise you, fly by. The only thing is, the story does get a tad convoluted here and there.De Palma does give clear explanations and reminders but if, for example, you watch the film when you’re feeling rather tired and preoccupied (as I did) you will have a few “Wait, what?? Well who was… Oh… Right.” Moments. And again, the ending. *Sigh*. I mean, it’s ok. It is Hollywood I guess. You know what, in fact I need to say this, the film is so close to perfect I shouldn’t nit-pick. There. Enjoy.

"SNAKE EYES" - THE HOUSE WINS

Ok, actually let’s stick with the theme of cops and robbers. Only this time the cops and the robbers are far more intertwined than before. Brian De Palma has a certain liking – and a flair – for convoluted stories where nothing is quite what it seems and surprises lurk around every corner. I find that his films start out like oh, any old film you can slap on after a tiring day at the office and chill to. Er no. You have to be alert and have your wits about you for this one. Not least because if you’re not following it, you will miss more than half the enjoyment, the best part of it for me is the way it all comes together. Ritchie Santoro (Nicholas Cage) is living the good life. He is a cop, with a wife, a son and a girlfriend. He has grown up in this town. He does what he likes, he rules the block, everyone knows him, life is basically one big day out, a really good time. Then, it is the night of the big fight. Not only is the fight itself big – it’s the world heavyweight championship – but it’s also big because the U.S. Secretary of Defense is attending the fight. And Ritchie’s childhood friend Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinse of CSI fame) is in charge of the security. It actually seems to be a party night like any other but then, an attempt is made on the Secretary of Defense’s life. Kevin seems to be in trouble because as the head of security he is the one whose career will be in line for this. This is when Ritchie steps in, to save his friend. But the deeper he gets into this affair the more convoluted everything around him seems to become. Evidently high politics and murder are an explosive mix… Ok, I loved this film on many different levels, but technically alone it was just brilliant. The opening tracking shot for example is quite legendary, it goes on and on for about ten minutes without a cut and is a joy to watch – if this kind of thing affords you joy that is, and to me it does. Secondly, De Palma doesn’t fail to amp up the suspense at any point. My particular favorites are flashbacks of different characters that are presented directly from the points of view of the character so when the switch happens you are never entirely sure whose point of view you are looking from until you here a chance remark or pass an opportune mirror. The energy of the film is absolutely mind-blowing and technically it is absolutely brilliant. I mean yeah, it’s the age-old story, good against evil etc. – and I still maintain that Mr. De Palma’s endings are a little too Hollywood for my liking but still. The film has so much going for it, it even cancels out this pet peeve =) P.S. For those confused by the title - it's a line from the film. The boxing match takes place in a large casino, hence the reference...

A TRUE STORY ABOUT THE DEEP AND SCARY THINGS IN LIFE : "INTO THE ABYSS"

Werner Herzog has always been a filmmaker I have greatly admired. I am especially impressed by his documentaries and the original way he approaches rather original and out of the ordinary topics. I had watched Grizzly Man with these feelings and so was looking forward to watching Into the Abyss that, on a primary level appealed to my (admittedly rather bizarre) love of true crime, and on a secondary and far more important level was, as you can either guess or already know, a consideration on capital punishment, a subject I feel strongly about (as in I am strongly against it). I was, therefore, interested in seeing the take Herzog had chosen on the topic, even though I could well imagine it wasn’t going to exactly be a “happy” filmgoing experience… And I must say, Into the Abyss could not be more aptly named. The “topics” of the documentary are two young villains; Jason Burquett and Michael Perry. Their crime, murder of three people, one woman and two 16 year-old boys. The motive? The theft of a car. Yes, the only reason three innocent people had to day was that Burquett and Perry wanted the red Camaro belonging to a woman they barely knew. It would, in this story especially, be very easy to argue a case for capital punishment in the face of this rather senseless triple homicide. When we talk to the surviving family members, the devastation brought upon them by the loss and their pain, we cannot help but sympathize. But then, we turn to look at Burquett and Perry’s lives. The two young men were about 18 at the time of the murder. 10 years have gone by when the documentary is being filmed. Jason Burquett is serving a life sentence without parole for at least 40 years, Michael Perry has been sentenced to death, and has literally days left to live – all channels of appeal have run out. Burquett comes from a broken home in a poor neighborhood, his father is a habitual criminal, his mother is disabled and can barely look after him and his siblings. Of course this is no excuse for the crime, but you can see quite clearly that the chances of his growing up to be a lawyer or an engineer were pretty darned slim. Burquett is a little more frank about all that has happened. Perry claims to the last the murders were Burquett’s doing and he had no knowledge of it – even though DNA evidence claims otherwise. Herzog backgrounds all of this against testimonies from the prison chaplain and an ex-captain of an execution team and in the end leaves us, staring into what is in effect an abyss of hard lives, wrong choices and the unnecessary loss of innocent life that is followed by great pain… Herzog himself is quite frank about his sentiments on the matter right from the first moment of the documentary. He doesn’t like Perry – he says this to his face in an interview. And yet he is strongly against the death penalty. And he does a wonderful job of showing us why. One of the most touching testimonies comes – somewhat surprisingly – from Jason Burquett’s father. Mr. Burquett Sr. is in the same penitentiary as his son – although in different units – and is serving what is, in effect, a life sentence. Jason’s older brother Chris is also in prison. Mr. Burquett Sr. tells us how much he regrets not having been a proper father to his children. He talks of the day he testified for his son during the sentencing and recalling a moment when he was handcuffed to his own son so they could be both transported he points out of his own accord that “one doesn’t sink much lower than that”. On the other hand we have the testimony of someone like ??, the mother and sister of two of the victims. Their death was the last straw in a series of family tragedies that have shaken her so fundamentally that I cannot begin to imagine how she will ever be completely healed, and for what? Simply the theft of a car… The prison chaplain’s testimony makes up the “prologue”. I will not give too much away on that, but I will say this much; you have to have a heart of stone not to cry at least a little… And the end of the film shows the “nitty gritty” of an execution as told by the former execution team captain; former, as a nervous breakdown forced him to leave the job at the cost of his pension – he had started off life accepting capital punishment as just another fact of life, but had ended up vehemently opposed to it… So what is the solution? What is the answer? These are all, of course, questions to be debated in discussed in all countries that still have the death penalty. But Into the Abyss is a frank look at the pain that surrounds this sad affair and reminds us quite clearly that the whole thing is a tad more complicated than “some people just don’t deserve to live”.

A CRIME DRAMA WITH A TWIST: "ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA"

I have, I am pretty sure, written about Nuri Bilg Ceylan before. I have said, if I recall that his art is very much an acquired taste. Back in the day, I hated his films; they seemed to me rather pretentious, without much content, just one of those films that perhaps win so many awards because people cannot really understand what’s going on and thus assume whatever it is, is deep. The thing is, what is going on IS deep. It is just not immediately obvious to the untrained eye. The same goes for all brands of minimalist cinema. It’s a bit like plunging straight into Goethe’s Faust the moment you learn German. However, once you have acquired said taste this film is definitely the one for you. Or even if you just want to try something a little different. I have seen quite a few of Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s films – if not all of them – and I personally feel that this is his best film yet… Our setting is a small town in the middle of central Anatolia. The steppes stretching out seemingly endlessly look very much like one another, life is tough and the men living there are even tougher. Two cars are driving through a dark, unlit night. But nothing two shifty is afoot. Two men, brothers, have been convicted of murder. The older brother – seemingly more intelligent than his rather “slow” younger brother anyway – has confessed to the murder, all this is fine but there is one small problem. They seem to be unable to locate the body. The suspect claims he buried it somewhere out of town so the police chief, the coroner, the prosecuter (increasingly irritated by the whole affair dragging on so late) the gendarmes and the suspects are rattling on through the night trying to make sense of the older brother’s rather vague description of where the body was buried. “I had had a bit to drink” he mutters apologetically. This is not so much a murder mystery - or rather not the kind of murder mystery you think it is, but I’ll let you discover that as you watch the film – but an occasion to take a closer look at the hearts of men, life in small towns and how very ordinary people cope with extraordinary things that happen in their lives. These lives are not exactly populated with extraordinary happenings, thus the coping mechanisms developed can be… Well you’re going to have to watch and see. First of all, rest assured, there is nothing neither gory nor sinister and supernatural about this film. Well, nothing more sinister than the contents of the human soul and that, I have to agree, can be pretty bad at times. The poignancy with which Ceylan paints emotions and the unexpected places and contexts in which these emotions emerge in all their glory is quite amazing. Of course this poignancy is partly due to Ceylan’s own experience, he himself is a small town boy, the son of a government official so I assume this coupled with his powers of observation warrant largely for poignancy of the film. And something simply has to be said about the cinematography. Ceylan was originally more interested in taking photographs and this is very, very obvious from the beauty of some of the scenes and the framing. There are haunted, beautiful portraits of Anatolia dotted among this very human tragedy. The secret of watching and enjoying this film is to not get stuck on the whole murder thing. Of course the murder (or murders, but like I said I don’t want to give too many details on that one) are important but they are far from being the main thing. Focus on what is going on around them, the characters, their reactions, the mood created. If you do, a whole different film is going to emerge for you, and you will be able to follow the “real” story as it were. I concede that it is slightly hard going, almost 2 and a half hours long and in Turkish but I sincerely hope you give it a spin. There really was a reason for it winning the Grand Prix at Cannes…

WHEELING AND DEALING FOR THEIR LIVES : "LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS"

Yes, another epic / infamous Guy Ritchie – Jason Statham extravaganza. And yes, I know, all this is not actually considered much more than just entertainment. But then again, I reckon we need to be entertained from time to time, right ? And if this entertainment basically comes in the form of a successful, if slightly violent comedy concerning the crime world, well, all the better. On the back of the copy of the film that I watched, the DVD company had opted not to put much of a synopsis, just a lot of visuals and comments from critics. I found this a bit odd but carried on watching the film regardless. It turned out there was a reason for this. Although the film starts off on quite simple premises, it grows and grows, adds in characters left, right and center, strands of the story interweave when you least expect them too, in short it all gets so convoluted and the film is such a comedy of errors that I have actually now written half a paragraph about it without being able to tell you the story itself. So go figure… =) Ok seriously though, here’s my stab at it without giving the plot away. So, 1, 2 3 and 4 are four mates. They make their living in various forms of shady business, 1 shifts stolen goods, 2 cheats in high stakes card games etc. It’s a bit of a risky business but they seem to be basically getting on alright, until that is, 2 (who is not, naturally, the only person cheating at high stakes poker) ends up owing a notoriously ruthless crime boss half a million pounds. Now this involves his three mates as well, as they helped him get the money to join the game together and the crime boss is well aware of this. So the giddy foursome have a week to get the money together or… Er you know. Apart from the obvious, the crime boss has also declared he will take 2’s father’s bar – not exactly a clean slate himself – which complicates matters. Now, it seems pretty straight forward – and a tad boring – up till here. It is precisely at this point that things start to get “complicated”. It all starts, as you can imagine, with a cunning plan – a heist no less – to get the money together. It goes totally AWOL from thereon in. I will say no more, but believe me, it’s absolutely brilliant. Guy Ritchie has two main assets in my book. Firstly, the two films of his that I have seen – Snatch and this one – both contain, clean, snappy editing that is especially well suited to their genres. The editing is also very fast – paced and innovative, keeps you on your toes throughout. Ritchie then couples that with snappy dialogue. It’s a very British thing really, you either like it or you don’t; I personally love it. Snappy, sarcastic, but creative and hilarious with it. Throughout the film, like Snatch, there are a few clichés. But I mean, as long as you’re not looking for anything life-changing you’ll be fine. Ritchie also is very good at getting together an absolute plethora of bizarre characters. They may or may not be clichés, my point is there are so many of them you would never really expect them to work well together. Funnily enough no, everyone has just the right amount of screen time and although they seem disparate they work really, really well together. In short, yes, a very fun and funny movie. Plus, I really cannot over-estimate the success of the script in weaving all manner of bizarre storylines together. I mean if you watched Snatch and thought that was convoluted… You really ain’t seen nothing yet…

CRIME AS AN ART FORM : "LE SAMOURAI"

Ok, this one is definitely one for the more “art film” genre. Dating from 1967 and directed by French director Jean-Pierre Melville, Le Samourai is a wonderful example of “film noir”, right from the days where it was at its most famous. But be warned, it is a French art film of a film noir, so although all the elements are there, if you are not a fan of art cinema you may want to give this one a miss. Yet, if you think you can see it to the end, go for it, it’s such a classic example of its genre that it’s a real education to watch it. Our hero is Jeff Costello (played by a young, and in my opinion very dashing Alain Delon). Jeff is a hitman. He is one of the best there is. His services come at a price but he is discreet and efficient. Jeff has an on again-off again girlfriend. She doesn’t mind when he doesn’t come around though. She is just happy to see him when he does. His life is mostly taken up by his work, his home is Spartan, in fact to look at him, Jeff seems half man and half machine – and more of the machine than the man at that… But one day an error, a tiny error will upturn Jeff’s carefully planned life. He is spotted while committing his latest murder, starting a city-wide manhunt. Jeff is suspected but with no evidence left behind he is let off – for now. The police chief however, is pretty sure Jeff is up to no good and will keep on his trail. This turn of events does not sit well with Jeff’s shady bosses, who reckon that the only way to solve this mess, now that Jeff is a liability is to bump him off. Thus, caught between a rock and a hard place; Jeff will have to use all his skills and ingenuity to come out of this alive. Now, like I said, this is a classic film noir. Not a lot of dialogue – heck, not that much in the way of props either in places – hardly any exposition and a typical “antihero” who is very hard to sympathize with at first (apart from the fact that he is Alain Delon and in my view drop dead gorgeous). But if you persevere and get past the initial exposition plus murder that starts the film proper; the tension begins to build. With two different parties chasing him and various shady plots intersecting Melville’s reticence to give out information works to his advantage because landmark events start rolling and we begin biting our nails because we as the audience have literally no clue as to how the film will go on, in fact as he is more experienced in this field we can never quite be sure what Jeff is going to do next, and believe me he is full of surprises… As I said though, this is basically a typical film noir, complete with a femme fatale and a not so happy ending (don’t be mad, I didn’t actually give it away!). I’d say, look past the fact that it is a French art film apart from being possibly one of the most suspense filled films you have seen in a while, hunker down and watch it. You will not regret it.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING A BIT DIFFERENT : "HANA BI / FIREWORKS"

Having just reviewed a French film called “Le Samourai” that has categorically nothing to do with Japan; I thought it was only fitting to review a Japanese film that… Well actually has nothing to do with samurais either… If you are confused as to what the film is doing here however, not only is it an excellent crime film, it is also a masterpiece from an auteur, Takashi Kitano. Now Kitano’s films also have a slight reputation of being hard to watch. This reputation, I have to say, is justified in pieces. But to be fair, it is all about being used to watching a certain type of film. True, the use of dialogue is minimal, true there are VERY long pauses in dialogue and in action. However the cinematography is so masterful and the way the story is told so touching that once you get out of the “mainstream mindset” there is no reason why you shouldn’t love this film as much as I did. Nishi (Takeshi Kitano himself) is a veteran police officer who is going through an extremely rough patch. His wife is dying of Leukemia, but that’s just to start with. One evening, when his partner of many, many years and close friend Horibe sends Nishi off early so he can spend time with his wife, Horibe is attacked and shot, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down and confined to a wheel-chair for life. Horibe’s wife abandons him and Nishi is racked with guilt. But he doesn’t have the time to help is partner as much as he would want because his wife is going downhill very fast. Nishi then looks back at his long, distinguished career and makes a decision. Sometimes, to be able to do what is morally right, one has to transgress the law. This may be particularly hard for an officer of the law, but Nishi has decided that he will do what he has to do. The associations writing this blog has thrown up for me are quite extraordinary when I think about it. Looking back at Hana bi and comparing it with Le Samourai (see above) one can’t help but notice the similarities in layout. In effect, yes, Hana bi is a Japanese film noir. It is, however, a modern film noir and so heavily influenced by Takashi Kitano’s very original and personal style that it may be a bit tough to recognize it as such at first. Yet there it is. Nishi is hard not to sympathize with, despite the fact that he is a man of very few words indeed and a rather disturbing penchant to sudden outbursts of violence. The story is sad, violent in places… Yet with all these familiarities there is something different. And the biggest difference I would suppose is Kitano’s own style. The long silences are never awkward; they are often pregnant with emotion; so much so you may not even “notice” they are silent in places. The other thing is the cinematography. Kitano is, among other things, a painter. And his “painters eye” is very obvious in his beautiful frames. While we are on the subject it is also worth mentioning that all the artwork we see in the film is Kitano’s own artwork. Now, yes, we all have to admit, he is “plugging” himself ever so slightly. But the pictures are so good and the artwork is so appropriate in the film, I honestly think we can give him that one…

THE TITLE SAYS IT ALL FOR THIS ONE : "THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE WIERD"

This is yet another film I have taken an embarrassingly long time to get round to. It was shown – and I purchased it – in the Istanbul Independent Film Festival a couple of years back, and then literally forgot it existed for about four years (Yes, that IS how big my film archive is). I came across it just the other night, it was one of those nights when, you know, you want to watch something, and you just have no idea what you want to watch. Five minutes of this… Nah… Ten minutes of that… Mm, maybe later… At around my eleventh try – and I was on the verge of considering a very early night at this point – I randomly started watching this one. Now, you know that, with classic films, usually the first 15 minutes of a film is exposition – setting the scene – then “something exciting” that starts the ball rolling usually begins (wise men and women have discovered that if the exciting thing takes longer than that to happen we tend to get bored. Usually. The Godfather, for example, is an exception to this, but then again it is an exceptional film). Anyway, so I start watching this film, right? 15 minutes in, I am excited, invested in the story – and yet I have no idea what is exactly going on!! The adrenaline (and there is A LOT of it in this film) and intrigue – kept me glued to the screen. By the time I had figured it out completely, it was about 40 minutes into the film and I simply had to watch it. Because I HAD to know the end of the story… Awesome, exciting and funny, if you need something to pep up a boring Sunday night, look no further!
Ok, so, the context of the film is so crazy and complicated that I actually needed to go online and check when the damn thing was set. It’s 1940’s Manchuria. (Manchuria, for those not in the know, is a region comprising Korea and China). Anyway, in the 1940s, Manchuria was occupied by the Japanese army. In this confusion lawlessness was pretty much rife. In the midst of everything, a mysterious map appears on the “Ghost Market” (market for stolen goods) one day. It disappears pretty quickly, because everyone – Chinese bandits, the Japanese army, the Korean resistance movement, not to mention any number of Korean gangsters and ne’er do wells are all after the map. No one is quite sure what it is a map of, but rumor has it, it’s a great buried treasure dating from the Qing dynasty. Thus starts our story. But where will it go? How will it end? You will have to watch the film itself to find that out…
First up, if the name wasn’t a big enough clue, yes, this is basically a western set in Korea, and made by Koreans. Now, don’t wrinkle your nose up at it; like I just said, it’s one of the most amazing things I’ve seen lately. The Western themes are skillfully mixed with a very specific brand of Eastern humor. There is a whole plethora of characters (I mean, I have been a bit sketchy about that part but it’s on purpose; I want you to go through that bewilderment and excitement of trying to figure out what the f..k is going on in the first half hour too. It’s not confusing at all, it’s great fun and I literally couldn’t stop laughing. My point is, there are actual protagonists. Three actually. Yep you got it : The Good, The Bad and the Weird. Just like the classic movie hehe). Oh I seem to have forgotten half a sentence at the beginning of that parenthesis. I’ll start again shall I? Ok, there are a plethora of characters and yet each is distinct, memorable and once you actually figure out what the heck is going on the story isn’t difficult to follow at all. The one thing I may “knock” about it, is the fact that the whole historical context of the thing is not actually explained until well into the second half. In fact, I got the year it was set in by checking online, the whole thing is very ambiguous and they use horses one heck of a lot for transport so I actually thought it was set a lot earlier, like turn of the century or something. But even without context, it’s just such fun and so funny that really, you can’t find fault with it. One of the funniest films I’ve seen in a long, long time.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT : "THE TERRORIST"

Don’t let the name of this film irk you. It is neither a dodgy action movie nor some sort of propaganda film. It is, on the contrary, quite a respectable art film. It’s respectability extends to the point that on viewing it in a festival in India, John Malkovich was so impressed by it that he personally took on its distribution, thus kick-starting novice director’s career – it was, in fact, his first feature film. On viewing the film, I cannot in all honesty say that I can see what impressed him in the film… Whether I would be THAT impressed by it, is another matter altogether.
The story takes place in a terrorist cell in the south of India – a Tamil terrorist cell to be precise. Malli is the one-woman-wonder in of this particular cell, her renown for bravery and devotion to the cause is a thing of legend. Her fame is pushed even further by the fact that her brother has actually died for the cause. So, as you can imagine, she is greatly honored when she is selected for a suicide mission that will kill a high-profile political figure. She travels to the location the “operation” will take place and begins to await her big moment. But the few days between her arrival and the event itself will prove vital; on the one hand there is the old couple, blissfully unaware of her intentions, who are her acting landlords and who have taken to her almost like a daughter. On the other hand there are the memories of true love back at her initial camp. But on the other side of the scales there is the cause she believes in and her family honor to keep to the standard her brother has set. Although this seems unthinkable at the beginning, the main question has soon become, will she be able to go through with it?
Now, after having created such suspense I hate to give the answer so quickly, but it is only to point out that the film is based on real events; notably the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indra Ghandi. But don’t forget, that was real life and this is a film, who knows, maybe the director has used some artistic license? Besides, it is not always the suspense of not knowing what is going to happen next that keeps us watching a film. This is just one of the tropes; the most commonly used in the west but by far not the only one. One can also empathize with the protagonist and “root” for him or her, getting carried away by the story and our emotions and being a little more benevolent than maybe we would have as far as plot twists and clever narration is concerned. The story of The Terrorist does, I have to say, loose its originality after a certain point (I will not give that point away though, you’ll have no trouble spotting it if you watch the film) but you have somehow become so emotionally involved in the story that by the end, the suspense alone is almost literally killing you.
And if the narrative has its defaults, I can find nothing to say against the photography. Some of the moments captured on film are brilliance themselves. If ?? lacks originality in his message he has without a doubt found a unique way of conveying this message so much so that some of the visuals by themselves are enough to make the film “watchable”. Yes, The Terrorist is a very good example of art cinema, and highly recommended to all who don’t particularly mind watching films in foreign languages =)

ARE YOU READY FOR THE RUSH ? "POINT BREAK"

I’m pretty sure I made my opinion concerning Kathryn Bigelow pretty clear earlier in this blog. Like a lot of women who are also cinephiles, I too did a little jig of victory when finally a woman walked off with the Oscar® for Best Director. I was a little disappointed with The Hurt Locker though. Not a bad film in my opinion but still, it could have been something else. My course demands (or demanded at some point) that I educate myself a bit more on Ms. Bigelow. This is how I have ended up sharing my impressions with you today. I have incredibly mixed feelings about Ms. Bigelow. This usually disqualifies whoever it is from actually making it to the blog. But in this case I’ve made an exception, not least because the good bits – the bits I liked – were actually very good. I mean credit where it’s due sort of thing. I mean I wish I could gush about it, I really do. But the best I can manage under the circs is “meh, well…”
Point Break is basically a cop drama. It has the large benefits of being able to keep the adrenaline pumping from beginning to end, and the looks of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (who, let’s face it ladies, was quite something back in the day). Keanu Reeves plays 25 year old brand-spanking-new FBI agent Johnny Utah. On his first day on the job he is paired up with veteran cop Angelo Pappas who is eccentric – to put it mildly. The division is bank robbery and Pappas can actually use all the help he can get because a gang calling themselves the “Ex-presidents” has robbed around 30 banks in three years without getting caught. Pappas has a hunch. He is pretty sure these men are surfers. Johnny, eager to earn his stripes on his first day, goes undercover in to the surfing community to try and see if he can root out who is behind these robberies. One of the people he meets undercover is Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) adrenaline junkie and surfer extraordinaire. Bodhi’s charisma, coupled with the charms of Tyler, Bodhi’s sexy ex-girlfriend with whom Johnny begins to grow quite close, after a while surfing becomes more than just an undercover mission for Johnny. On the other hand, the operation seems to be closing in on the gang… Will Johnny be able to choose the right side when the time comes?
Now let me tell you what this film is really about. It’s about the choice between a 9 to 5 job and a conventional life or doing something different. It’s all about that moment, about a month or so after you start your first job when you look back on your day - usually on a particularly bad day – and ask yourself with sincerity and openness whether or not you have made a terrible mistake. Now this may or may not be the case depending on your personal talents and abilities. Your vocation may actually be as a musician or a fire-eater and you may never know it. Alternatively, you may just be having a bad day, nothing a drink with mates after work can’t solve. Now, as I said this is very obviously what the film is really about; but I do wish Ms. Bigelow had made the choice a little more ambiguous. I get what she means by the surfer lifestyle - and Bodhi / Patrick Swayze puts the case very eloquently and with a lot of charisma but at the end of the day, there is no choice to be made, not really. There are some interesting plot-twists and some very solid, innovative camera-work. The story never loses momentum for a minute, if that is, you are willing to push the fact that it is chock-full of every single Hollywood cliché you can think of to the back of your mind. I won’t say it’s predictable from beginning to end, but it comes pretty damn close. I mean, I like this theme, it’s deep, and in the context of policing and crime something “heavier” could have been done with it – and it has been done too as a matter of fact – I honestly feel that this film was a missed opportunity… Enjoyable yes, but cannot go beyond the banale…

LOVE, FEAR AND "BLUE STEEL"

I am reliably informed that this is a bit of a historical little number too. It’s a shame that what it started – if this is indeed the case – turned out to be so solid that it was repeated ad nauseum. I mean Dexter – the popular TV series – ended up devoting an entire season to it. The film is admirable in many ways, but others did so much better with the theme that, even allowing for the fact that the film dates from the early ‘90s it loses some… Ok lots of its charm…
In the meanwhile, it is Meagan Taylor’s first night on the job. And on her very first night, she witnesses an armed robbery, intervenes and in the heat of the moment kills the robber. This is done in a justifiable manner but then a seemingly innocent – but actually quite disturbed witness to the robbery picks up the suspects gun, makes off with it, and starts committing murders all over town. With Meagan suspended pending an enquiry on use of excessive force, she is put squarely in the spotlight. But what is worse is, the murderer, Eugene (played by Andy Garcia, one of my personal favorites) who in normal life is a very personable trader on the stock-exchange has fallen for Meagan. Not only that, he also enters her life and they begin a relationship… Meagan now must piece together the pieces of the puzzle, accept that they lead to her new boyfriend, and then convince her superiors of the whole matter… The question is will she be able to do this before Eugene goes off the rails completely?
Fans of Dexter will quite see what I’m talking about. You remember that season when Debby turned out to be engaged to the “Ice Truck Killer”? Who was also Dexter’s biological brother? Yep, that’s it. The difference being that the producers had the common sense to eke the suspense out over a couple of months with a T.V. series instead of cutting it off in one movie. I mean true, we have to bear in mind that this film is a precursor more than anything else. Meagan is commendable in that she is a very believable, down to earth, normal heroine. She is not “overly” sexy; she is not

A REAL CLASSIC FOR THE CLASSICALLY MINDED : "THE BIG SLEEP"

Confession time. I have a major soft spot for the classics. You know what I’m talking about, black and white film, old world Hollywood glamour… I mean as you may have gathered by now I enjoy a lot of things cinematically speaking but nothing really beats settling down with an old favorite – preferably with a hot drink, something sweet to go with it and your other half or good friends nearby to share the experience – of an evening and just getting lost in the experience. This is what I did with The Big Sleep last night. I mean ok, technically I was alone in my dorm room but green tea was involved so I reckon that counts…
Those of you a little more involved in the history of films may know that The Big Sleep directed by Howard Hawks is pointed out in textbooks as one of the best examples of classic Hollywood cinema. And starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, really, how could the film be anything except brilliant? The good thing about these movies is that even if you have, technically, seen it a million times before, they’re still good. This one is no exception to that rule; Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) is a private eye based in L.A. He’s an ex-cop, kicked off the force for insubordination but brilliant at his work. One day a wealthy General hires him to get to the bottom of a blackmail case. But the deeper into the case he gets the more dead bodies seem to pile up. Plus, it seems that the General’s lovely daughter Vivian (Lauren Bacall) is also mixed up in this whole dastardly affair, making the whole affair deadlier and more dangerous than ever…
I must say, the film can’t be faulted on tension or acting. Bacall and Bogart are absolutely electric, and if you let your sympathies and your love of the genre get in the way of artistic temperament for a second you will see that the cuts that don’t quite match, the (by our standards) incredibly unrealistic backdrops and even the slightly stilted acting style that pervades the whole film (it was 1946 don’t forget) don’t matter at all. No sir, not one little bit. And to be fair, the film has quite a few redeeming features. For starters the story. Not only is it absolutely and mind-blowingly exciting, it is also sophisticated. And in places complicated. To the point that Bogart’s “in case you didn’t get that” explanations to random characters in the film actually come very welcome indeed. So if nothing else you will put some serious effort into following it. Then there is Bogart’s character who is charismatic (well when isn’t he), witty and always ready with a snappy answer, will undoubtedly regale you (and make you a might weak at the knees). As for the legendary Bacall – Bogart chemistry, all I can say children is that it is legendary for a reason. Yep, this is definitely good quality Saturday night entertainment. Keep for a rainy night; and enjoy!

A UNIQUE STORY OF : "HEAVENLY CREATURES"

Did I ever mention I rather liked true crime? I know, not a very appetizing introduction for a person. Nevertheless I feel by this time you all know me well enough for me to be able to risk telling you this. It’s not that I am a particular fan of gore and blood and such like – if anything I’m a complete lightweight as far as that sort of thing goes. But I guess part of the “fascination” is the fact that I do find killing and murder so abhorrent, films or books of true crime, if they’re well executed of course, tend to give interesting insights into the minds of the killers, which I find particularly fascinating. I am also greatly interested in human psychology, I guess this is another reason I cannot resist a peak into “the mind of the killer”. Heavenly creatures, despite its name, is particularly well executed and thus particularly sad example of the genre. One of those films that gets its claws into your gut and twists and twists, right till the very end. Even if you do know the ending – not a tough thing to do, this being a true crime story…
So the true story that inspires Heavenly Creatures took place in New Zeeland in the early 1950’s. Pauline Parker is a shy, quiet girl, not too many friends in school, grades not overly brilliant… She comes from an underprivileged family, nothing in her life is especially brilliant or original until Juliet Hulme arrives in town. Juliet is the daughter of a celebrated English scholar, outgoing and vociferous, in short many things Pauline was not. But the unlikely pair strikes up a strong friendship very, very quickly. Their friendship only intensifies with time, growing to include an imaginary world called The Fourth World where their favorite stars and singers are worshipped as saints and magical adventures are plentiful. In time, it becomes obvious to everyone, the girl’s parents included, that they are a lot more than just friends. At age 15 the girls are undoubtedly in love. The only problem is, you mustn’t forget, this was the year 1954. Homosexuality was still considered some kind of mental disorder. The parents – well-meaning but misguided - decide it is best to separate the girls indefinitely. For Pauline and Juliet, both of whose grip on reality has significantly loosened, not to mention blinded by passion and fear of separation, there seems to be one way out of this… Murder.
Ok, so at least I managed not to tell you who got murdered. But I mean, I did know who got murdered and even so watched the film with baited breath. One fact worth mentioning maybe, is that the director of this film is Peter Jackson – yes, you know, the one who directed The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong. I personally thought he would turn out to have more of a talent for epics and not the more sentimental stories, it turns out I was very, very wrong. And the actresses, well, Juliet Hulme is none other than a young Kate Winslet! And Pauline is played by Melanie Lynsky, who we have later seen in secondary parts in films such as Up In the Air and The Informant! And TV series like Two and a half men. So all in all it’s quite a little cluster of talent. When you couple this with such a heart-rending story the film can’t not be a success really. Personally, it hit me like a freight train. Of course when you have such a striking story at the heart of it you know you’re on to a winner. Heavenly creatures is intensely sad and thought provoking without being “cheap” or a tear-jerker. Good quality stuff. Enjoy.