The Man Who Wasn’t There: North By Northwest Review

Classic from the Vault

North by Northwest (1959)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

By Alex Watson

The cinema of Alfred Hitchcock is legendary for countless reasons. Firstly he was a great story teller, secondly he always chose the right leading man and finally, his choice of scenes gave us some of the most memorable images ever brought to the screen. All these elements were present in his masterpiece North by Northwest. Hitchcock brought us many classic thrillers during his time, such as Vertigo and the chest tightening, Rear Window. These films are regarded as timeless examples of this genre. But none of his films have had the slick style of North by Northwest, in screen legend Cary Grant, Hitchcock found the perfect muse for his tale of mistaken identity.

The story centre’s on a high flying Madison Avenue executive, Roger O Thornhill (Cary Grant), who is mistaken for being a spy named George Kaplan by the shadowy Philip VanDamm (James Mason). Despite his pleas that they have picked up the wrong man, Thornhill soon finds himself being wrongly accused of murder! Soon he is chased across the United States by both VanDamm and the other members of his mysterious organisation! Meanwhile he comes to attention of the attractive Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), who helps aid him as the law officials close in!

North by Northwest’s story absorbs our attention from the very first reel. Hitchcock sets things up so that only Thornhill and the audience know of his innocence.  The story that surrounds him is so bewildering; we know that he won’t be able to convince anyone! Themes like this were similar in Rear Window, where the lead character, L.B Jefferies (James Stewart) was convinced his neighbour had murdered his wife, but had to prove it to everyone else. This is the dynamic force of the film and Hitchcock once again succeeds in building up the tension. Particularly the iconic scene when Thornhill comes under attack from a plane whilst stood in an isolated cornfield. Even with the vast set of locations; it appears that Thornhill has nowhere to run!

Another very Hitchcockian theme in North by Northwest is another identifiable everyman character. Roger O Thornhill is a very likeable character, with his charming smile and smooth personality it’s hard to believe he would harm anyone. Thornhill’s life though is imperfect; the man is twice divorced and has an overbearing mother. But after he is wrongly accused, a new stronger man emerges. Cary Grant’s troubled life behind the scenes mirrored these elements slightly. But at the movies progresses Thornhill, turns into a reluctant detective. It is through these turn of events that he emerges more resourceful.

Cary Grant proves to be the perfect choice as Thornhill, a real charmer of the classical Hollywood era, he drives the picture and through him we firmly root for his innocence to be proven. James Stewart actively campaigned for the role, but Hitchcock in the end gave the picture to Grant. The gamble paid off because this role needed the velvet touch of Grant’s charisma. James Mason makes a very cold and merciless villain. His presence is felt on screen and we question throughout who he really is? One of the under-rated greats of the screen Mason proves his legacy is not forgotten. Eva Marie Saint is both enchanting and mysterious as Eve, the girl who willingly helps Thornhill. But is she all that she seems? The chemistry between Saint and Grant is very amiable and we hope and fear the results of what it could lead to.

This kind of thriller is a great example of the reputation that Alfred Hitchcock left behind. His confident and stylish direction always kept the viewers engrossed. With North by Northwest, this was the final film in his trilogy of thrillers. Like Vertigo and Rear Window they all shared the same appealing lead characters, and tense story line. But where the others kept our nerves on edge, this one leaves us wanting to stand up and cheer at the final frame. The standard for the wrongly accused man has been set, time will be tell if it can be raised.

The Intimidation Bureau: J Edgar Review

J. Edgar

Director: Clint Eastwood

By Alex Watson

J. Edgar Hoover, is one the most recognised American figures of the twentieth century. His running of the FBI was notorious, yet effective. Intelligence to Hoover was always vital to success; and for this he kept close tabs on some the nation’s most powerful people (including several Presidents).  He was a man who truly feared no one and some might say; he was the man who really ran the United States!  But who was the man behind the portrait? Hoover’s life was always something of a mystery and in previous films that documented him; we have yet to learn about the man himself. We turn here, to Clint Eastwood, himself an icon of American cinema. Does one legend, bring the other one’s story to fruition?

The story documents J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) working on his memoirs about his rise from being a determined law student, to becoming the authoritative head of the Bureau of Investigation. This film documents the people in his life that made him what he was, including his mother (Judi Dench), and his number two man, Clyde Tolson, (Armie Hammer), who might have been his lifetime love! As well as the event that shaped his job. But as he dictates his story to numerous agents, it becomes clear that Hoover’s story might not be truthful!

Clint Eastwood on paper was the perfect man to bring J. Edgar to the screen. In previous years no one has better captured a person’s spirit and struggle than old Clint. In films such as Changeling and Gran Torino, we have engaged with the central character, and been with them until the end. But in J. Edgar, we never truly get to grips with his character.  The film, rather than solving the mystery of who Hoover was just adds more questions to it. Through un-linked flashbacks the audience often loses it ways in the story line and we feel we have to retrace our steps. Eastwood tells a fast paced tale. As skip through the Palmer Raids of 1919, the Lindenbergh kidnapping, to finally, the Kennedy wire taps, you feel your brain almost overloading!

Hoover’s sexuality is one of the key points of J. Edgar; it is implied right through that the man possibly harboured feelings for his deputy director, Clyde Tolson. Feelings that he could never act on. It is through this portion where the story sparks an interest. Through un-spoken words, and gentle touching of hands, we feel the conflict within Hoover. The stand out scene that demonstrates Hoover’s sexual confusion is one where he tries to explain to his mother, that he feels no attraction to women. His mother tells him a story of a boy called Daffodil, who killed himself after being revealed to be homosexual. She then tells him,

“I’d rather have a dead son than a daffodil!” it appears then, that his repression will always be a permanent part of him.

Leonardo DiCaprio makes for an interesting choice as Hoover. Although he bears no physical resemblance, DiCaprio captures Hoover’s fierce spirit. He plays him as a real control freak, a man driven by his sense of destiny and all the while, under the guidance of his overbearing mother.  Judi Dench is disappointingly underused in this role. Her scenes with DiCaprio are among the stand out of J. Edgar, and through Dench’s bitter performance, we feel her influence over Hoover and her guiding him to be the man at the top! Armie Hammer also gives good support as Tolson, a man who was with Hoover until the end.

It appears that J. Edgar Hoover’s story will forever remain a mystery; he was a man of two faces. The first was the man in the office, and the second is the one we are still trying to find. J. Edgar should have been one of the stand-out films of this year. With Eastwood and DiCaprio, it should have been a winning combination. But sadly it doesn’t really crack the surface of the story. But however, it still adds intrigue to Hoover and no doubt someday the answer will be revealed!

Fire on Babylon: Review of Mississippi Burning

Classic from the Vault

Mississippi Burning (1988)

Director: Alan Parker

By Alex Watson

Many films have explored the effects of racist cultures and the fierce outcomes of narrow minded idealism. Pictures such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry Freedom and A Time to Kill, demonstrated this. But few have truly delved into the soul of what causes the problem, and what influenced people to take up these opinions? The human soul’s nature is un-predictable, and it can take us to incredibly dark places! One film brings these questions to light, is Alan Parker’s film Mississippi Burning. A film based around a real FBI investigation that occurred in 1964.

The story follows the investigation of two FBI agents; charismatic Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) and straight laced Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe). The pair are investigating the disappearance of three civil rights workers in Jessup County, Mississippi. From the moment they arrive, they are given a hostile reception from both the law officials and the townspeople.  As their investigation continues, tensions increase between the local Ku Klux Klan members and the town’s African American population, leading to many violent situations! Also the two agents are facing difficulties due to their vastly different approaches to solving the case. But it becomes clear to Ward and Anderson must work together to bring down the people involved!

Mississippi Burning’s tension is made apparent from the start, the opening shot displays a church being burned to the ground!  With the pulsating, electronic score by Trevor Jones, we feel the heat rising between the KKK and black population. The retaliations each time are more brutal than the last and this feeling of fear never relents. Through Alan Parker’s direction, we are brought into the heart of darkness- a world filled with cruelty and burning crosses. In Jessup County, they are threatened by the presence of outsiders. Because of this they stick to the old values bestowed upon them, and will even kill to keep their society decent. God has long since departed, and now there is no one to pray to!

The morality of what the town’s people are doing is always in question. The audience knows this isn’t an ordinary missing person’s case. The three men have been murdered in the opening moments of the film! This sequence is hidden from us as the opening credits roll, from behind them we hear the mocking laughter of people involved as the horrific deed is carried out. This moment, displays the inhumanity of man and how sinister the soul can be.

The narrative of Mississippi Burning is bolstered by the teaming of the two agents. From the very start they are problems between them. Ward is naive and inexperienced in the field, and therefore is accustomed to procedure. Anderson however, is a former Sheriff from a town in Mississippi. As knows the ways of the old country, he realizes these murderers cannot be broken by rules. Their investigation is faulted by Ward’s liberal approach, people are afraid to talk and when they do, the consequences are severe! It’s only when Anderson’s more ruthless methods take over that investigation makes progress. Although they are not much different from the Klan’s! Anderson and Ward are in some ways, the odd couple. The two carry a completely different set of ideals and appear to be mismatched. But in the end, they are able to put that aside to work together. Because of this, we root for them to bring this circle of hate to justice.

The performances of Mississippi Burning are superb; Gene Hackman is both charming and cold-blooded as Rupert Anderson. As a veteran of the old ways, he knows his way around. When his charms don’t work on the townspeople he turns to his other specialty- intimidation. Hackman holds the screen and gives the film its human feel. Willem Dafoe is also gives a good performance as career driven Alan Ward. The man is shown to be out of his depth and is continually perplexed as to where the hatred comes from.  Because of this he is the moral voice of the film.

This film is up there with the very best civil rights dramas, it has a moral story and give us two solid central figures. We can feel the hate escalating throughout the film, and the dilemma of the agents face trying to fight the flames! Alan Parker gives us a godless society where immorality is all around. And through this we see the horrors that follow the KKK’s rule. This film is highly recommended and it is one of the most claustrophobic viewings you will experience!

Fists of Fury: Review of Goon

Goon

Director: Michael Dowse

By Alex Watson

Once more we turn towards the sport of Ice Hockey. As I mentioned before in my review of Slap Shot, this game is largely un-noticed in the United Kingdom, and will most likely never truly catch on. Here we have another attempt at marketing this sport to another audience. The blood will spill, the punches will be thrown. And somewhere there will be some goals. This week we turn to Michael Dowse’s comedy Goon.

The story sees loveable, yet dim witted Doug Glatt (Seann William Scott), who whilst watching a minor league hockey game knocks out one of the players when he jumps into the crowd to attack his friend, Ryan (Jay Baruchel). This in turn gets him noticed by the hockey coach, who hires him as an enforcer. His job is to basically pulverise the opposition and protect his team mates. Before long Doug’s name becomes notorious and he finds his fists! But at the same time, he comes to the attention of notorious hockey hard man Ross ‘The Boss’ Rhea (Liev Schrieber).

The film’s intent is clear, it wants to be the new Slap Shot of the millennium, the funny, yet brutal punch up scenes demonstrate this, and there are many laughs as a result. But the story doesn’t really conjure up anything new in terms of sporting films. Doug is a loveable loser and we root for him all the way. However, he appears a little too stupid for his own good.  It’s here that the emotional connection lapses slightly. Dowse’s command of the ice hockey scenes is well done, but it lacks sharpness and we never truly feel the heat of the punches thrown.

But Goon does have its charms; the side story of a love interest for Doug does bring a sparkle to our hearts. We can all relate to the awkwardness of trying to impress the girl you like. His band of misfit team mates also hits home, although a lot of them are real losers. But we feel connected to them as they begin to win. This feeling was much the same with the Chiefs in Slap Shot. The real drive of the film however, is the inevitable show down between Glatt and Rhea. The tension circulates as in the final game the two of them stare at each other from inside the penalty box! Here it will truly be the master versus the rookie!

Performance wise Seann William Scott is on familiar ground with this performance. We’ve seen him do this many times and as usual he is solid. But as Doug, I feel he could have stretched further and brought another layer to the character. In more skilled hands this could have been better. The real star performance in Goon goes to Liev Schrieber, who has a ball playing the vicious Ross Rhea. Rather than playing the stereotypical villain, Schrieber brings a human side to his veteran player. Rhea is a man whose chance has come and gone, and now he must go out doing the only thing he knows how to do- using his fists. Schrieber is a criminally under-rated actor and it would be nice to see him take centre stage soon.

It is unlikely that Goon will bring Ice Hockey to any further attention, the story is one we’ve all seen before and will again for many years. But it does give a good underdog story with some funny punch up scenes in between. Although it won’t achieve legendary status, it will bring the audience in for a solid night’s entertainment. Get your skates on and judge for yourself.

Black Gold: There Will Be Blood Review

Classic from the Vault

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

By Alex Watson

The films of P.T Anderson are among the most celebrated of modern cinema. From the daring Boogie Nights, to the twisty story-line of Magnolia, to the under-rated Punch, Drunk, Love he has always found new ways to draw the viewers in. When it was announced that he would be undertaking a loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel Oil, many wondered where he would take it. What we got was one of the most beautiful, and striking films of the new millennium, his film, There Will Be Blood.

Set in the oil boom era of the 1920’s, the story features a silver prospector- turned- oil baron, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) who continually seeks to buy up drilling land. He is successful, but in the industry is still a minor presence. His luck turns however, when he is approached by Paul Sunday (Paul Dano), to buy information about a large stretch of land in a town called Little Boston. Unknown to the owners there is an ocean of oil underneath! Plainview and his adopted son H.W (Dillon Freasier) travel to Little Boston to swindle the land from the Sunday family. While there, he comes into contact with Eli Sunday (Also Paul Dano), an ambitious preacher and faith healer. Soon a battle of wills ensures as each man fights his own battle for land!

There Will Be Blood is a modern, dark American tail. As Plainview breaks away the earth to make way for his next fortune, we feel that the towns money is being drained dry. Anderson paints a very bleak picture of the old times. In his film we see an America which is owned by Capitalist culture, where each man fought his own territorial battle. Anderson shows this by the battle between Plainview and Eli. There is also a very alpha male feel to the story line. Both main characters feel threatened at the presence of another and throughout the film both men work to squash the power the other has.

The main theme of the movie is corruption. In There Will Be Blood both Plainview and Sunday represent both capitalist and religious corruption. Plainview on the surface plays a well meaning fellow. In his interactions with others, he presents himself as a family businessman, and compels to their nature. Soon they are manipulated ruthlessly! The man is truly, rotten to the core and will step over anyone in order to obtain the land he desires!  Eli’s religious corruption is demonstrated in his speeches to his church. Through these, we observe his shrieking and fiery type of faith and feel his strong hold over them. Eli bullies his flock in accepting his seemingly, unquestionable faith. His desire for a better life is driven by greed, not the faith that he preaches. While Plainview is forthcoming in his greed, Eli hides behind a wall of hypocrisy and is seems unable to accept there is another presence that may make his flock stray!

In this piece, the real driving force is a stunning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. The man is one of this centuries true greats, and is one of modern cinema’s most memorable turns.  Plainview holds the screen with such force that it is impossible to take our eyes off him! It’s a chilling portrait of a dangerous man, and we learn there is no depth he will sink to. His characterisation is fascinating; does Plainview truly lack any feeling towards others? Or is it all strictly business?

Paul Dano also rings in a commanding supporting role. Eli is a complex character, a man who appears devoted to his cause but in reality seeks the same riches as Plainview. At moments he is a frightening presence, but he is even more fascinating in his quieter moments. In these moments it seems as if Eli is working to win Plainview’s soul! The final scene between Dano and Day Lewis’ is a legend of cinema as the tensions all boil into a climatic showdown! It also brought us the oft quoted line “I… DRINK YOUR…. MILSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!”

Paul Thomas Anderson proves that he is still one of the most skilled directors of our time. Although his work is infrequent, we always anticipate it highly. There Will Be Blood does nothing to dent our expectations, and we are rewarded with a fascinating piece of American cinema! I longingly await his next film and I can only hope it brings us a performance as strong as Day Lewis’!

Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Review of The Artist

The Artist

Director:  Michel Hazanavicius

By Alex Watson

If someone had told you that one the front runners for this year’s Oscars, would be a French, silent movie. You would have laughed and asked them to move along. This year such a film exists, and it’s called The Artist. Silent films have been out of vogue since the “talkies” arrived in the early 1930’s. There have been references to their era, in such classic films as Sunset Boulevard and Singing in the Rain. Does director, Michel Hazanavicius, bring this genre back to life?

The main story is set in 1920’s Hollywood and involves silent movie legend, George Valentin (Jean DeJardin) who is promoting his latest film. At the premiere he has a chance encounter with up-and-comer Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). It is clear from the get-go that the two are very much attracted to each other, and love might be on the cards! But gradually, their careers take opposite turns as the introduction of the talking picture slowly kills Valentin’s career, and Miller rises up the ranks and becomes a serious rival! But the burning light of love never quite dims.

The Artist; reminds of a classic era of cinema which has gone, but is never forgotten. It was a time where actions drove the picture and the star gave the film its feel. Here, we are reminded of the old physical comedy that the greats such as Keaton, Chaplin and Harold Lloyd brought us memorably. Through Hazanavicius’ great visual eye we are brought a love letter to the very idea of cinema. 1920’s Hollywood is stunningly re-created and from the very beginning there is a child-like excitement in the air. It is as if we are re-visiting a former time in our lives and feel the magic nostalgia that goes with it.

At the centre of the film, there is a love story in the grand tradition. George and Peppy, are the original on-screen love story:  a pairing that seem destined for success together and perhaps a little more! But they are torn apart by the passing of time.  This relationship brings across many different emotions such as love, guilt and finally remorse of for what could have been. As time passes, we feel the pining of the two principle characters and all the way through the movie we are praying for their re-union. Never before has love been so sentimentally portrayed. No over-long and corny speeches; just painful, longing eyes.

More than anything, The Artist focuses on just how cruel the end of the silent era was. Actors were thrown on the scrap heap and forced aside for the ‘new meat’. Valentin’s career decline and Miller’s riserepresents the change point.  At the beginning of the picture we see a happy, smiling man who is riding high. At first he laughs off the talking picture. But the more popular they become, the less his films are seen. His refusal to talk in the film is symbolic of him clinging to his silent success. One key scene that demonstrates this- is when Valentin is sat in his dressing room with a glass of whiskey. As he puts the glass down, a sound is heard for the first time! Suddenly, all kinds of sounds filter in. We see him try to cry out but no words can be heard. Thus showing a silent man trapped in a world where sound is king. This gives the indication for later events.

The real success of The Artist; is down to its charming leading duo. Jean Dejardin holds the screen with effortless charisma. We see a real star of the old times, stripped of his dignity and reduced to the shadows. His brilliant expressionist acting conveys all the emotions we feel and sharing is all the more devastating. Berenice Bojo makes for a graceful leading lady, a girl with all the new talents that illustrate Valentin’s demise. The chemistry between them brings a sparkle to the screen and truly warms our hearts.

While some might look down upon The Artist and its silent, expressionist  idea, others will embrace this welcome return to the silent era. It is a fitting tribute to the golden age that truly captures the spirit. For anyone who truly loves cinema, this is a picture that needs to be seen.  Dejardin, Bojo and Hazanavicius make a creative and artistic trio and I am very excited for the work they bring in the future. Silent lovers rejoice; the age is revived!

The Dragon’s Breath is Fierce: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Review

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Director: David Fincher

By Alex Watson

Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy has caught the attention of readers worldwide. The gripping plot and its heroine Lisbeth Salander has assured the book best seller status. The question of a film adaption was never in doubt and in Sweden all three have already been made into internationally acclaimed thrillers. Now we turn to the inevitable US adaptation of the first novel The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Remade by David Fincher- who brought us Seven, Zodiac and The Social Network, we see a Hollywood re-telling of the story. The big question is; how will it compare to the original made by Niels Arden Oplev?

The story follows journalist Mikhail Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) who has been convicted in a libel suit against business supremo Hans-Erik Wennerstrom. With his reputation destroyed, he is hired by elderly industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to assist with his memoirs. But upon his arrival he discovers the Vanger really wants him to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet over forty years ago! Blomkvist is delved into a dark and seedy family history, all the while coming into contact with hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara).

Knives were out by the novel’s die-hard fans when this project was announced. They believed that the original should be left alone and that Noomi Rapace’s turn as Salander was the definitive one. David Fincher was well aware of this and one of the main strengths of his Dragon Tattoo is that it doesn’t try to imitate the original. Fincher’s direction gives this film has a far darker feel than its predecessor. In doing so it captures the cold feeling that surrounded Larsson’s novel. As we enter the snow covered Hedeby island- we feel all kinds of secrets are hiding underneath it!!  Writer Steven Zaillan sticks the whodunit story line and allows the mystery to unfold as Blomkvist unravels the twisted tale!

Characterisation in Fincher’s Dragon Tattoo feels more genuine, Blomkvist is portrayed as ruined man. The trial has cost him more than his money and he has nowhere to turn. Through Craig’s performance we see a normal everyman that is in over his head! This character in a normal Hollywood film could have been over played. The Vanger family’s history of hate and loathing has more icy chill to it than Oplev’s version. In particular Christopher Plummer’s excellent turn as Henrik. We see him as a tired old man who is weary from years of internal war; also we feel the restlessness of his soul as he describes to Blomkvist what the story of his family will involve:

“Thieves, misers, bullies, the most detestable collection of people you will ever meet- my family!”

This feeling of brooding family hatred was lacking in the original and didn’t feel expanded and because of this the sense of danger was absent. But here in Fincher’s version the bitter feud goes to a far deeper core.

But in any adaptation there are going to be numerous compressions to the book’s storyline. This is one area where Fincher’s film falls down slightly. It feels overly long and is trying to include too much. The narrative sometimes stays perfectly in line with the novel, but at others deviates completely from the path. In particular the third act, which although it makes for greater drama, the story seems a little lost! Also the violence in the film feels overdone; the book pulls no punches when it comes to this subject. But here the brutality is at times un-viewable. The prime example in is the vicious rape of Salander by her piggish guardian, Bjurman (Yorick van Wageningen).  In this scene it is not just Lisbeth being defiled, but our minds are also a victim! But in this version her revenge is swift and far more brutal. Fincher’s representation of violence is both a blessing and a curse, as the images stay with you after the end credits!

Overall, this is an excellent adaptation of Larsson’s first novel. The performances give the film another level, in particular Rooney Mara, who gives a mesmerising central performance as Salander. The casting for this role was a subject long debated, but they cannot have chosen better than Mara. She’s what you expect Salander to be- cold, calculating, and most of all, resourceful.  When compared to Rapace, she doesn’t however, have the same presence! Craig does well as Blomkvist and easily elevates his performance above the original actor Mikhail Nyqvist.  The strange bond between the two main characters is well summed up- and, here, we care more for them!

Will this version make everyone happy? Opinions will be divided here because each version is very different. But it seems that David Fincher’s critics have been silenced and now we can await the next chapter in this pitch black trilogy!

Jungle Fever: Review of Platoon

Classic from the Vault

Platoon (1986)

Director: Oliver Stone

By Alex Watson

The Vietnam War is a conflict that has been well covered over the years. With big emphasis on the massive defeat inflicted to the United States, caused by vicious guerrilla warfare waged by the Viet Cong. One particular issue; was the significant psychological trauma caused to the US soldiers by their war in the jungle. There have been many examples of this conflict and its effect over the years, most notably Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. But none have summed up the tension and the loss of youth like Oliver Stone’s, Platoon.

Central to the story is young Private Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), who has dropped out of college to serve in Vietnam. While initially enthusiastic, Taylor is gradually worn down by the intense heat and poor living conditions. Very soon, he becomes disillusioned with life in the bush! After a time, he gradually finds acceptance from a group of tight knit soldiers. But things in the unit become tense when a conflict breaks out between the two veterans soldiers, humane Sergeant Elias (Willem Dafoe) and the ruthless Staff Sergeant Barnes (Tom Berenger) who begin to wage their own personal war within the company.

The film’s tag line reads ‘The First Casualty of War is Innocence’, this is a theme that runs throughout the film. A classic example of the horrors the young soldiers await is shown in the opening scene as they arrive, cleanly cut in the airport at Vietnam.  The first sight they are greeted by is the sight of body bags and burned out soldiers! With the dust swirling in the air, the look of  horror on Taylor’s face tells us he won’t be an innocent for much longer! The young men of Vietnam are portrayed, as Taylor describes it,

“They’re poor, they’re the unwanted, yet they’re fighting for our society and our freedom.” These soldiers have no identity outside of the conflict and without this war they would be nothing. But in order to gain acceptance they must go through a rigorous dehumanizing process where their minds are geared to war and thirsty for blood! The message is clear, kill or be killed! Taylor is a key representative of this point, as the film develops he goes from being the fresh faced rookie to mindless killer!

Oliver Stone was no stranger to Vietnam; he dropped out of Yale University and served three tours. It could be said that Platoon is his own documentation of what he experienced. Through Taylor’s haunting voice-over (reminiscent of Martin Sheen’s in Apocalypse Now) we hear Stone describing the action he has witnessed. His direction is gritty, un-relenting and authentic. There are no fancy camera effects through this, just basic storytelling and allowing the images to speak for themselves.

The most apparent theme of the movies is the conflict between good and evil, best shown through the internal conflict between Barnes and Elias. The two men represent the duality of war. Barnes is the ultimate killing machine, a man who delivers horrific brutality to both the enemy and his own soldiers! No matter what the cost he feels his actions are justified. Elias represents the more compassionate side of war. Like Barnes he is also a dedicated soldier, but unlike him recognises the men under him are human beings and not robots!  Between them they mirror the different sides of Chris Taylor.

The performances in Platoon are some of the finest ever seen in this genre, led by Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe. Berenger, playing the war scarred Barnes is a terrifying presence on screen. He is a soldier so well adjusted to death and violence that everyone quivers in his presence! Dafoe as Elias is compelling. His character is the voice of reason, a free thinking individual that has been forced to fight. Also the iconic shot of his demise is a memorable image as any! Charlie Sheen however, is the real star of the show. As Taylor we share his journey, from being a scared young man to in the end being the killer that war wants him to be! It’s a shame that his later career didn’t follow the same path because here we see the real star he could have been.

In the end, the most notable message in Platoon is that in the jungle there are no heroes and in war no one comes away innocent. Stone point on this is clear and this will always remain a memorable and powerful vision of war!

In Cruise Control: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol Review

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Director: Brad Bird

By Alex Watson

So once again the exploits of Agent Ethan Hunt and the IMF crew hit our screens. These films have provided many thrills and spills over the years, with many classic set pieces as they seek to complete the latest, Mission Impossible!  With the emergence of such thrillers as the Bourne series and the ever reliable, James Bond, the Mission Impossible series has still proved to be box office gold. And with a valuable star in Tom Cruise, it has kept many of us glued to the screen.

This time around we see the team tackle their most difficult mission yet in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. The story, once again sees Hunt, (Tom Cruise) in a tricky situation as he and the new team (Paula Patton, Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner), while on a mission in Moscow are framed for a terrorist bombing on the Kremlin! As this is seen as an act of terrorism, the IMF is forced to declare ‘Ghost Protocol’ which disbands the entire network! Out on their own and out of options, Ethan and the rest are forced to go on their own and clear their names. With days to spare they are faced with preventing terrorist, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyquist) from starting a nuclear world war!

The film certainly stays with what it does best; delivering another set of breath-taking set pieces. In particular, Cruise’s single handed climb up the notoriously tall Burj Khalifa in Dubai. The thought that than man himself performed his own stunts adds the sheer amazement! Director Brad Bird is an unknown quality. The man who brought us Pixar’s animated classic The Incredibles proves a steady hand in the action department. His overall execution of each piece is very impressive and keeps the audience on the edge of the seat!

However, it isn’t all plain sailing with the film. The plot feels a little familiar, and in a lot of ways doesn’t really test any new ground. Lest we forget, in the first film, Hunt and co were framed for a mission gone wrong and had to prove their innocence- spot of the similarity! Also the joining of the story together as the team searches for Hendricks feels messily put together! This isn’t to say this film was a disappointment. But after giving the Ethan Hunt a romance side in the under-rated, Mission Impossible 3, it appeared the paying audience wasn’t interested in Cruise wanting to find his lost love. The low box office total spoke very loudly there! So for the fourth instalment they went back to basics, by delivering a big, silly blockbuster for all to enjoy. So far the high box office totals for this film have proved this theory to be a worthy decision.

But in spite of what errors it may have, Ghost Protocol is still an enjoyable ride with an assured central performance from Tom Cruise; his character in recent times has appeared a little lost. But here he is back in the saddle, and boy does he mean business! Jeremy Renner gives solid support as mysterious agent Brandt, with his robust physic and his smouldering pose he could almost be the perfect replacement in the future! His star is on the rise after the brilliant film The Hurt Locker and I’m looking forward to what he brings in the future. Simon Pegg, however, fares less well. Benji was a good, small character in MI:3, but upgraded as a field agent he feels a little annoying and his comic fodder at times falls flat!

So another mission in accomplished for the team, but how will this series fare in years to come? It has had its ups and downs, but overall it is a noted entry into the action series genre. It seems Cruise’s star power hasn’t faded just yet!

Blood on the Ice: Slap Shot Review

Classic from the Vault

Slap Shot (1977)

Director: George Roy Hill

By Alex Watson

Ice hockey is a game that has never truly caught the attention in the United Kingdom. In the USA and Canada it is an institution and the die-hard fans love the fast paced action and the physical violence that follows it. In some ways it is a shame that this sport is unrecognised in Britain as it is a brilliant sport to watch. Fear not, your education shall begin here with the Paul Newman classic Slap Shot.

The story revolves around the ‘Charlestown Chiefs’, a fictional third rate hockey team slumming in the minor leagues. The team is player/coached by Reggie Dunlop (Paul Newman) a man who is too old for the game and is considered a joke by many fans. The team is on a constant losing streak because of its band of misfit players and is on the verge of folding. In a moment of crisis Dunlop throws in the Hanson Brothers (not the band), three bespectacled thugs with child-like brains. However, their style of violent play thrills the crowd and the Chiefs begin to win.

This film is homage to the roughness of the NHL in the 1970s; a time more known for punch ups than play. The Chiefs are like the 1975 champions the Philadelphia Flyers of celluloid: a team of goons beloved for being brutal by their fans but hated everywhere else! The violence in the film is delivered with great humour. This brings up memories of such scenes as the football game in MASH, which mixed slapstick with gruesome violence. This fits perfectly with theme as the Chiefs become a brute force in the league with the play begin second. As former NHL defence-man Jim McKenny once said, “Half the game is mental, the other half is being mental”

Director George Roy Hill is one the great names of US cinema with his classics such as The Sting and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. He was a director able to carve out a suave yet gritty feeling to all his films. With Slap Shot this effect is ever present. Paul Newman starred in both The Sting and Butch Cassidy with Hill. He proved to be the perfect foil for his work. Here he gives one of his most under-rated performances. Reggie Dunlop is an intriguing character; it is obvious from the start that he isn’t good at skating or managing. Reggie, however, is a brilliant con man and uses this skill to make his players perform.  But off the ice his life is a shambles, he is separated from his wife and seems to be disliked by the players. Newman plays him as a typical washed up playboy whose manhood has passed him by. But, in some way is looking for redemption.

There are also strong turns from Michael Ontkean as star player Ned Braden, the lone player who is appalled at their goon tactics and refuses to fight. Ontkean portrays a conflicted man who alongside dealing with his team has problems with his alcoholic wife (Lindsay Crouse). Finally the real star turn is saved for the Hanson brothers (Jeff Carlson, Steve Carlson and David Hanson) – the trio provide the comic relief for Slap Shot with their youthful naivety and free-flowing fists.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is that the script was written by a woman, Nancy Dowd! Dowd had a brother playing in the hockey leagues. Through this insight she was able to bring her knowledge of the game to the screen. The woman’s perspective is an interesting approach; Dowd views the hockey players as men who have lost their way. The manner is treated with understanding. The men, including Dunlop are being slowly deprived of their masculinity due to the failing team. Their wives are becoming un-interested and so are their fans! But slowly they are gaining it back by bowing to the audiences need for blood and guts!

Slap Shot is one of the great sports classics of years gone by and is a prime example of how humour can be found in the most strangest of circumstances. Hockey is a sport that is by no means a laughing matter, but Slap Shot reminds that the game is very much a spectator sport and the violence has become viewing pleasure! For a reminder of what a great icon Newman was then please check this out!