Patriot Games.

Review #1847: Patriot Games.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Jack Ryan), Anne Archer (Cathy Ryan), Patrick Bergin (Kevin O'Donnell), Sean Bean (Sean Miller), Thora Birch (Sally Ryan), James Fox (Lord William Holmes), Ellen Geer (Rose), Samuel L. Jackson (Lt. Commander Robby Jackson), Polly Walker (Annette), J. E. Freeman (Marty Cantor), James Earl Jones (Admiral James Greer), Richard Harris (Paddy O'Neil), Alex Norton (Dennis Cooley), Hugh Fraser (Geoffrey Watkins), Alun Armstrong (Sergeant Owens), and David Threlfall (Inspector Robert Highland) Directed by Phillip Noyce.

Review: 

In 1984, Tom Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October, the first novel in what became his most notable line of books with the character of Jack Ryan, one that saw him take a "play by the rules" approach to showing and getting certain details correctly that he felt was a moral obligation to his readers that made him one of the noted espionage writers of his time. Up until his death, he wrote sixteen further novels in what is referred to as the "Ryanverse" (Patriot Games, published in 1987, happens to serve as a "prequel", oddly enough); the book series has been continued by further writers with the support of the Clancy estate. That first book was adapted into a film in 1990 with Alec Baldwin as the lead character and John McTiernan as director that was most noted for its other main star in Sean Connery. At any rate, the success of the film meant that the filmmakers (producer Mace Neufeld, who optioned the first novel after reading proofs in 1985) wanted to make another feature quickly. However, Baldwin elected to star in a Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire rather than reprise the title role (which he did not regret, as Paramount producer David Kirkpatrick forced him to pick between the two, for which Baldwin later described him as a "beady-eyed, untalented fool"). Phillip Noyce was recruited to direct the film to replace McTiernan, who wanted to adapt Clear and Present Danger with a script by John Milius; he apparently felt uncomfortable as an Irish American directing a movie with IRA characters (he proceeded to direct Medicine Man instead). He was known for films such as Newsfront (1978) and Dead Calm (1989), but Ford's appreciation of seeing the former film is what got him to endorse Noyce. W. Peter Iliff and Donald E. Stewart (who had wrote the screenplay of the first film) wrote the film, with later un-credited rewrites done by Steven Zaillian. A cursory reading will reveal gradual differences: for one, the assassination attempt involved the Prince and Princess of Wales rather than a fictional lord (complete with Ryan getting a knighthood) that sees him deal not only with a splinter group of the Provisional Irish Republican Army but also "the Movement" (a black domestic terrorist group). I guess having a climax involving Ryan and company (including the Prince!) fighting a kidnap attempt at his house that sees the authorities round up the remaining terrorists for arrest seemed just a tad much (the earlier movie was mostly faithful despite considerable technical changes). 

Before release, Clancy denounced the changes made from adapting his book to film but seeing a rough cut had him say that there was “some good things in the movie"; on June 5, 1992, the movie came out to considerable box office success, which meant that Noyce and Ford would return for Clear and Present Danger (1994). Whether one has watched The Hunt for Red October or not doesn't really matter much, as one would hope from a film series with a sense of calmness and tension about international affairs (a professor and analyst played by Ford? No sweat). For a 117-minute trip, it generally works out for the best with a useful cast and semi-solid plot foundation. If you didn't know, the character of Jack Ryan in his appeal is the fact that he is an everyman kind of lead focus, an analyst rather than an action hero who only gets involved because his family is involved (the assassination attempt in the beginning of the film happens to occur when Ryan is with his wife and kid, for example). In that sense, Ford (approaching the age of fifty at the time of production) is appropriate here, because he gets to play family man alongside the occasional action beat without seeming hamstrung by boredom, while Archer and Birch make for fair contributors to a solid family triangle. Bean makes a decent adversary to go alongside him, filled with fanatical energy that (intentional or not) overshadows anything done by his adversary partner in Bergin or with Geer. Others are there for cursory moments here and there, whether that involves a young Jackson or Jones returning from the previous 1990 film or Harris, a bewildering choice. The use of technology with survey satellites and heat-sensitive photography when scouting the camp is fairly interesting to see play out among other scenes of "analysis" and thriller parts (the assassination scene along with the rescue of Bean from a van are noteworthy, even if the latter might be privy to realism). Of course, the climax is a bit forced, because the studio had them change the original intended climax of an underwater fight near rocks to what became a boat chase, which is only slightly easier to see when one is fighting someone in a rainstorm. Really it just reminds me that even Thunderball (1965) knew better than to have a boat-fight be in the dark. At any rate, the movie doesn't lose its footing when sticking the general landing, setting the stage for other possible peeks into the Ryan window without begging for anything.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

This Sporting Life.

Review #1792: This Sporting Life.

Cast: 

Richard Harris (Frank Machin), Rachel Roberts (Margaret Hammond), Alan Badel (Gerald Weaver), William Hartnell ("Dad" Johnson), Colin Blakely (Maurice Braithwaite), Vanda Godsell (Mrs. Anne Weaver), Anne Cunningham (Judith), Jack Watson (Len Miller), Arthur Lowe (Charles Slomer), Harry Markham (Wade), George Sewell (Jeff), and Leonard Rossiter (Phillips, Sports writer) Directed by Lindsay Anderson.

Review: 

"I suppose I'm the boy who stood on the burning deck whence all about he had fled. The trouble is I don't know whether the boy was a hero or a bloody idiot."

The British New Wave may have been just another style of films released in the 1960s reflecting its country, but it surely merits interest for the directors and stars that came out of its brief wake. Sure, it had similarities to the French New Wave (features imitating documentaries trying to capture a form of real life not seen in prior films in its country), but there is still something worth looking into when talking about British voices, particularly Lindsay Anderson. Anderson was born in British India in 1923. He had a scholarship for classic studies at Wadham College, Oxford before he took service in the Army as a member of the 60th King's Royal Rifle Corps and as a cryptographer. He returned to Oxford after the War and shifted his studies to English before graduating in 1948. He took up writing around this period, which included founding a magazine dedicated to film journalism in Sequence alongside people such as Karel Reisz. In the next decade, he would develop a philosophy of cinema that is referred to as "Free Cinema", in which they advocated for a British cinema that focused on being free from the constraints of demands for documentary filmmaking of the time (i.e. one that aimed for the working class to be seen on screen). From 1948 to 1967, he directed a handful of documentary short films (through funding from sources like Ford of Britain), and his earliest noticed short was Thursday's Children (1954), which he did with Guy Brenton about deaf children and their education. The two were awarded an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short. He also started doing work in the theatre in 1957, which he would do on-and-off for the next three decades. Anderson had his feature directorial debut with this film, and he would follow it up with six further features and two documentaries before his death in 1994.

You have to understand that the film wasn't exactly a roaring success upon release, since producers saw that people likely preferred escapism more so than gritty or bleak realism movies. This New Wave wasn't exactly long for the world, starting with stuff like Room at the Top (1959) and ending with this film and Billy Liar (1963), all with their varying levels of "kitchen-sink realism". Of course, the British New Wave just happened to come around in the time of "Angry young men" era of playwrighting (well, sort of, since that term was coined to promote John Osborne's 1956 play Look Back in Anger). The movie is adapted from the 1960 novel of the same name, with its author David Storey (generally considered one of the writers in the "Angry young men" group) serving as screenwriter. Storey was a former rugby player before he became a novelist and playwright (incidentally, Harris was also a rugby union player in his native Ireland). Consider it like this: "kitchen sink realism" might not have rocked all of British cinema, but it did influence future directors over the next couple of decades, most notably with Ken Loach. The movie is essentially the story of a blunt instrument more than of a man. We are talking of someone who tries to express feelings with sensitivity yet can only respond with a punch for anything. It doesn't compromise at any point in its 134-minute run-time because anything else would seem like a great lie, particularly since it wants to capture what it means to see such raw emotion pour out on screen, whether on or off the rugby pitch (being familiar with football before seeing rugby being played is interesting though). It captures such a unique dynamic between Harris and Roberts, one that teeters between stormy and clumsy when it comes to the idea of togetherness. Harris (who in later life stated once that he would trade all his accolades to play with a senior team back home in Ireland) fits the bill for everything that Anderson wants from him in terms of a brute that is always fascinating to view in his attempts in bravado or even when he is clenched when singing in public (it is easy to see why he moved from supporting roles to star with this performance). He tries to move in romance like he does on the pitch in terms of force, if only because the pitch is the only place where he is in control of himself (working class or not, this is something one can see quite clear). Roberts and her balance between melancholy and abrasive when one sees her on screen against Harris, one made quite clear in the dinner scene when it comes to seeing just who they are in public. Badel and the other castmates are fairly effective in their contrast to the main two, if only because one isn't watching a movie bound to only to the rugby pitch or bound to sentimentality (Hartnell is the warmest of the folks, and it was this role that helped cast him for his most famous role in Doctor Who). The editing by Peter Taylor and cinematography by Denys Coop help in making such a starkly effective film come through in all the layers required, one that is bleak but always on the level in worthwhile entertainment. Dour or not, the best thing that can be said for this film is that it has managed to endure so well for itself in how it doesn't flinch at looking within misery that makes a winning feature film after a half century.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Putney Swope (1969).

Gladiator (2000).

Review #1524: Gladiator.

Cast: 
Russell Crowe (Maximus Decimus Meridius), Joaquin Phoenix (Commodus), Connie Nielsen (Lucilla), Oliver Reed (Antonius Proximo), Derek Jacobi (Senator Gracchus), Djimon Hounsou (Juba), Richard Harris (Marcus Aurelius), Ralf Möller (Hagen), Tommy Flanagan (Cicero), David Schofield (Senator Falco), John Shrapnel (Senator Gaius), Tomas Arana (General Quintus), Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius Verus), and David Hemmings (Cassius) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, and #1076 - Thelma & Louise)

Review: 
"I'm a yarnteller. My job is to engage you as much as I can and as often as I can. I love the process and still continue to adore the process, actually. I don't get attached to anything. I'm like a good antique dealer. I'm prepared to sell my most valuable table."

A director of many trades in genre can be a valuable voice worth seeing their vision. In the case of Ridley Scott, he has managed to do a variety of interesting films within science fiction, adventure, and drama. After all, Scott started with a historical drama in The Duellists (1977), a culmination of having spent years making television commercials in his native United Kingdom and graduation from the Royal College of Art (where he made his only short in 1965 in Boy and Bicycle). One surely must hope to find inspiration in paintings when it comes to creating something of their own. In this case, it was the painting Pollice Verso (Gérôme) by Jean-Léon Gérôme that was shown by producers to Scott that inspired him to do the film before they even handed him a script, as he felt that image spoke to him of the glory and evil of the Roman Empire that interested him in its duality of grace and savagery. There were three writers credited for the film, with David Franzoni having the initial pitch that became the first draft of the script done in 1998, which was inspired by Daniel P. Mannix's 1958 novel Those About to Die alongside reading history about Roman emperors while doing travelling across the world. Scott and Franzoni looked into films besides the traditional "sword and sandal" movies of the past, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) while citing Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960) as influences on his youth Numerous re-writes would be done during the production, with even cast members providing input. A second writer was brought in with John Logan that dealt mostly with the first act and increasing Maximus' motivation through the death of his family. William Nicholson was brought in a little later on in order to make the main character more diplomatic.

There is a mix of history and fiction as one could expect from an epic that wants to stick out from previous films of its kind like The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964). For example, Maximus is fictional but is inspired by several figures of history. Commodus really was a loon who actually fought in the arena, although his end was strangulation by Narcissus (which was the name the first draft used for its lead). Of course it still quibbled enough with clothing and weaponry that one historical consultant hired for the film quit. I guess for me it is like Titanic (1997), with its attempts at sweeping away quibbles of history with intensity and ambition, which may work better or worse depending on one's preference for sword combat over romance (which is the case for me). The Colosseum is shown here as a mix of fragmented reconstruction of the first tier of the famed building for filming in Malta while using CGI (as done by The Mill) to finish the rest. Other effects to note involve composited tigers on bluescreen, mixing real and CGI for crowds, and a digital body double for Reed after his death in May of 1999 (at the age of 61) before his scenes were all finished.

Sure, Crowe (known previously for rising roles in Australia and abroad) may have had his trials and tribulations with handling a main role that requires brooding intensity and a tough hand without an immediately satisfactory script to start. But he manages to do well here, hefting the film along with dignity that commands our curiosity in resonating stature that handles a sword and others quite well as a noble warrior. Phoenix delivers a great intensity on the other side of things, one hungry for power and love with the talent required to make his presence quite convincing in all that is needed, particularly when it comes to the final battle between the two of them. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with decent results in what is needed when doing a double act of protector and advocate with care. Reed does well with a crucial segmented role, capturing gravitas with appropriate gruffness required. Jacobi and Hounsou each lend a bit of measured interest to the proceedings within bureaucracy and combat, while Harris lends momentary experience suited for the first quarter of the film.

Undeniably, this could have been a long slog at 155 minutes with a lesser director (while also perhaps being thought of as a worse Braveheart (1995), as opposed to just being thought of as at least close to its level). But with Scott here, he manages to cultivate a tale of vengeance and what it means to be a man of the people in the time of mob rule that generally hits the mark fine. What we have is a film that blazes through brutality and spectacle without too many stumbles in plot detailing, where the experience of believing one to be entertained or wincing in feeling like one is in Rome is likely enough to win over a few narrative stumbles. On the whole, I quite enjoyed the film for what it aspired to do in a sword-and-sandal epic with capturing excitement and the terror that could come from making a mythic tale of Rome. Scott and the cast do well enough with capable effects and music to back them up enough to inspire further films in the decade. If it doesn't quite reach the peaks of the great sword films of the past, it at least does its part in setting a new century on a good start for film with worthwhile ambition.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Here we are again, the ninth edition of Tribute to the Decades. We welcome the 21st century with 30 films for the month, which I hope you will enjoy.

Unforgiven.

Review #1501: Unforgiven.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (William "Will" Munny), Gene Hackman ("Little" Bill Daggett), Morgan Freeman (Ned Logan), Richard Harris (English Bob), Jaimz Woolvett (The Schofield Kid), Saul Rubinek (W. W. Beauchamp), Frances Fisher (Strawberry Alice), Anna Thomson (Delilah Fitzgerald), David Mucci (Quick Mike), Rob Campbell (Davey Bunting), and Anthony James (Skinny Dubois) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, and #1476 - Pale Rider)

Review: 
"Gene Hackman was interesting because I gave the Unforgiven script to his agent and he said no, he didn't want to do anything violent. But I went back to him and said, "I know where you're coming from. You get to a certain age and I'm there too, where you don't want to tell a lot of violent stories, but this is a chance to make a great statement"

It's easy to make a lasting great Western when it is going to be the last one you make after a long career defined by them. Eastwood had at least one defining Western that he was featured in, whether that involved television with Rawhide or with films such as A Fistful of Dollars, Two Mules for Sister Sara, or Pale Rider. This was his 17th directorial effort (and fourth involving the Western), and it surely proved a fitting last hurrah for Eastwood to declare as his last Western so as to not repeat himself or others (which has proven correct in for over two decades). The script for this film was written by David Peoples (who prior to writing had been a editor for TV and news programs) in 1976, with one development title being "The William Munny Killings", and one inspiration for him when it came to the depiction of violence was Taxi Driver. The script languished for years while Peoples wrote for other films such as The Day After Trinity (1980) and Blade Runner (1982), with Eastwood having waited around for years to do other projects first. Eastwood thought of making changes to the script, but he changed his mind because of how he saw the script was better without it (minus one thing, which involved having the opening having a text crawl rather than a voiceover). The result was two Academy Awards for Eastwood (for direction and Best Picture) and one for Hackman alongside one for editing.

At last, a Western great enough for the 1990s to deserve. It proves to be a riveting and somber ilm with its subversion of the Western and the myths that could make outlaws famous with whatever exploit could be covered fast enough. Sure, there have been quite a few films that have played with the clichés and traditions of what we saw in the Western in the classic era (with one slight resemblance being The Shootist, for example), but this one handles itself with a great elegiac quality in its direction, characters, and pace that make it one for the ages. It lives and moves with a great patience for making its surroundings resonate with its audience, with a false note never happening as more characters come and leave the picture as reflections of the time and place, whether that means a once-removed killer/farmer, or a savage outlaw, an outlaw with publicity, or even a sight-challenged kid with reputation. The easiest strength of the film lies within its main trio of actors, starting with Eastwood. No one ever fit the mythic mold of the Western hero ever so much in the last few decades of the 20th century film era like Eastwood did, who resonates in pained grit that reflects past and present with no contrived frills as a man with shades of gray. Hackman proves just as worthy in matching up to Hackman on the other side of the hill, tenacious and dedicated in intimidation and order (one of the people Hackman drew from was a police chief, for example) that lend excellence to small moments, such as a conversation with Harris and Rubinek involving the nature of fact and fiction with outlaws turning into a quiet showdown of chicken. Freeman (in the midst of a deserved rise in prominence with supporting and lead roles in the late 1980s) fills in the main details with resonating nerve and conviction that we come to depend on in a careful balancing act between him and Eastwood that make for useful time spent. Harris, despite being in the film considerably less than the others (and only having time with just Hackman and Rubinek) does a resoundingly good job in playing the part of the myth of a refined killer come out splendidly when faced with Hackman and his own interpretation of killers and those who write about them. Woolvett is the key supporting piece to encapsulate the film, brash but quite convincing as the lasting piece of the dealings of myth and reality when it comes to bits of amusement and action between him and Eastwood, never grating on one's patience. Rubinek and the others prove well in filling the town with interest and the dealings that come with conflicting view of justice and morality. What we have here is a film to stamp out the myths that came from films about a time as myth-inducing as the Old West with a wise one at the hand behind and in front of the camera in Eastwood to do wonders with for 131 minutes. This is a well-done piece of subversion and execution on a variety of levels that range from its cast to its look (done entirely in Alberta, Canada) that make the grand myth of outlaw one to look closer into and care about with flourish and satisfaction. It isn't the first Western one might view for themselves, but it sure is the one deserving of being up there to see time and time again among the classics.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Review #118: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Kenneth Branagh (Gilderoy Lockhart), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Toby Jones (Dobby), Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), David Bradley (Argus Filch), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, and #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

Review
The film has good acting and an alright story, filled into...2 hours and 40 minutes. The lesson is that a film does not need that much time to make a film unless you have an excuse (Ben-Hur), or else you get an overstuffed film. My point is that this film is a bit overlong (The longest in the series next to Goblet of Fire), with a weird and partially grating character that is Dobby. The film is decent as it follows the book as usual. The reason that this film is not better then the first is because it feels similar with partially different things with longing length that still has a bit of charm. It's a good film, just not as great, but it at least sets the tone for the next film...This ends Part II of Harry Potter Week. Stay Tuned for Part III...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Review #117: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ian Hart (Professor Quirrel), Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), John Hurt (Mr. Ollivander), Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief)

Review
The film is of course based off the highly popular book series by J.K. Rowling, this being the first. As such, the film is a bit light hearted in tone for bits of the film, with some allright action, as it then gets dark in the later parts, where it gets better, with good acting along the way (A rare sign of good child acting) The film has a sense of wonder, with a bit of magic in the first scene (Rule of films to have something big in the beginning scenes) to help get the film started. The film omits a bit of the book, but it does a good job overall. This film begins The Chosen O- I mean Harry Potter's years of his tales and such. This begins Harry Potter Week. Part I is done. Stay Tuned for Part II....

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.