Memento (Pathe/20th Century Fox Home Ent.): The classic 2000 thriller with an ingenious flashback structure about a man suffering from a memoray condition (Guy Pearce) trying to find out who killed his wife with the aid of a police officer (Joe Pantoliano) and a bartender (Carrie-Anne Moss) who may or may not be out to help him.
Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, it firmly established him as a major talent with its clever narrative structure: one happens in reverse chronological order whilst the other shows Leonard in a hotel room on the phone as he explains more about his condition.
Although on first viewing the structure can be disorientating, the effect puts us in the position of the protagonist and also – like much of Nolan’s work – repays repeated viewing.
But aside from the cleverness of the construction, the film isn’t just a technical exercise and is a compelling tale of death, grief memory and revenge.
For only his second feature, after the low budget noir Following (1998), it was filled with technical expertise. Wally Pfister‘s cinematography created a distinctive blanc-noir look, Dody Dorn‘s editing made the fractured narrative run smoothly and David Julyan’s synth-heavy score established a moving sense of loss.
It is easy to forget just how good the performances are: Guy Pearce is outstanding in the tricky lead role, painting a riveting portrait of a haunted man adrift in a sea information he can’t process; Carrie-Anne Moss is a convincing femme-fatale with a twist, whilst Joe Pantiolano is wonderfully smarmy as the cop who may or may not be trusted.
A major independent hit that crossed over into the mainstream, it firmly established Nolan as a talent to watch before he went on to bigger Hollywood blockbusters such as The Dark Knight (2008) and Inception (2010).
The special features on the Blu-ray include extras from previous DVD versions but add a few more (most notably the Anatomy of a Scene and the Memento Mori video):
Audio Commentary by Christopher Nolan
IFC Interview with Christopher Nolan
Interview with Guy Pearce
Anatomy of a Scene Featurette
Shooting Script to Film Comparison
Memento Mori video narrated by Writer Jonathan Nolan
International Trailer
Production Skills and Sketches
Props Gallery
International Poster Art
Production Journal
Blogs
Tattoo Gallery
Easter Egg: The Beginning of the End
It is notable how well the film still stands up ten years on, with Nolan’s attention to detail apparent in both the script and visuals.
A film almost designed for repeated viewing, despite a lot of articles purporting to explain the conclusion (e.g. this Salon article), there is something tantalising out of reach about the climactic revelations, as though Nolan wanted us to be like the central character: confused and grasping about small details.
Despite all of Nolan’s Hollywood success since, this remains his most fascinating film and ranks amongst the very best of the decade.
Seven (Warner Home Video): One of the landmark thrillers of the 1990s, Seven was a dark and uncomprimising serial killer film that also turned out to be an unlikely box office hit.
Set in unnamed modern city where it is perpetually raining, Det. William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), a veteran about to retire has to solve one last case with a rookie partner, David Mills (Brad Pitt).
Mills is ambitious and has come to the city with his reluctant wife, Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow), to solve important cases, but his first is a puzzling and gruesome one involving a killer who chooses his victims according to the seven deadly sins.
Brilliantly scripted by Andrew Kevin Walker, it not only reinvigorated the serial killer genre but also established David Fincher as a great visual director, after the misfire of his debut on Alien 3 (largely due to studio interference).
He cranks up the tension wonderfully and paints a hellish picture of a modern city infected by evil, indifference and corruption.
Darius Khondji’s cinematopgraphy was also first rate, creating a dark and moody look which accentuated the films themes and subject matter.
A lot of the violence is implied rather than shown, although this actually has the effect of making the film more sinister as it slowly reaches its bold andĀ unusualĀ final act.
Although bleak and disturbing for a mainstream release, it became a major hit and ended up earning $327 million worldwide.
The special features are terrific and include the following:
The Stars: David Fincher, Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman Audio Commentary
The Story: Richard Dyer, Andrew Kevin Walker, Richard Francis-Bruce, Michael De Luca, and David Fincher Audio Commentary
The Picture: Darius Khondji, Arthur Max, Richard Francis-Bruce, Richard Dyer, and David Fincher Audio Commentary
The Sound: Ren Klyce, Howard Shore, Richard Dyer, and David Fincher Audio Commentary
Exploration of the Opening Title Sequence
Deleted Scenes
Alternate Ending
Production Design Featurette
Stills Gallery
The Notebooks
Theatrical EPK
Theatrical Trailer
Mastering for the Home Theatre: Audio, Video, Colour Correction & Telecine Gallery
Original Opening
Seven is exactly the kind of well-crafted film that looks fantastic in HD, with Fincher’s visuals and the production designĀ benefitingĀ from the Blu-ray format.
This disc duplicates a lot of the extras from the DVD, which is welcome since they were excellent, but it is still an essential purchase for any true cinephile.
Opening with Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) getting out of jail in 2001, the story quickly moves forward to 2008 where a trader, Jake Moore (Shia LeBeouf), is looking for revenge after his firm is taken over by a ruthless rival, Bretton James (Josh Brolin).
Enter Gekko, the author of a new book warning of the market meltdown. Jake happens to be dating Gekkoās estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan) and agrees to help him reconnect with her, in return for information about Jamesā firm.
Given that 23 years have passed since the original film, it is remembering that its cultural status built over time. Although Douglas won an Oscar, it was not a huge critical or commercial hit and it took time for his phrase āgreed is goodā to enter the lexicon.
Gekko was loosely based on disgraced figures such Michael Miken and Ivan Boesky, but gradually became a hero over time to a generation of financial workers who helped stoke the boom years under Clinton and Bush Jnr.
LeBeouf noted that for this film, Stone and Douglas were treated like royalty whilst filming on Wall Street because of the impact of the 1987 film – a cautionary parable about greed that ironically inspired a generation keen to emulate the villain.
The new film has a promising concept: what would Gekko himself make of the financial crises of 2008 and the bailout of Wall Street banks by the taxpayer?
On the plus side, the return of Douglas as Gekko is actually the most enjoyable aspect of the film. Not only does he paint a convincing portrait of a disgraced titan looking to get back in the game, but he balances genuine emotion with sly humour.
Where the film is less successful is the way in which it crams in too much domestic drama alongside the Gekko narrative.
The screenplay by Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff is weaker when it comes the emotional conflicts of Jake and Winnie, which feels stodgy and undercooked, and it never really nails the extraordinary events of the last 2 years.
Although Le Beouf is agreeable in the role, his characterās passion for green technology seems forced and Mulligan is almost completely wasted in a one-dimensional role.
Brolin is suitably menacing as the natural successor and rival to Gekko, but there is a curious lack of drama to scenes involving his bank and a global financial apocalypse.
The actual news bulletins from 2008 felt more exciting than the dull sequences here where bankers gather round tables and spout dialogue like it is some kind of TV reconstruction.
Roderigo Prietoās visuals are curiously muted and also feature a bizarre amount of old school split-screen effects (some not seen since the early days of MTV) and an overuse of graphics which donāt actually explain that much.
At around 130 minutes, it lacks the spark and fizz of the original and by the end credits audiences may be wondering what Stone was thinking as it flounders towards an unsatisfactory conclusion.
The biggest strike against the film is that itĀ doesn’tĀ place the 2008 crash in proper context. Although a few neat lines are offered as explainers, it should have gone deeper in to why the Clinton and Bush years led to the current disaster.
Strangely for the Oliver Stone, there is little of his energetic anger or style, and he seems more concerned with sentimental family drama than the underlying social issues, which must rank as a massive missed opportunity.
DouglasĀ ultimatelyĀ provides a reason for watching, but it seems like this film will have a much more muted cultural impact than the first, asĀ it fails to form an effective response to the current financial meltdown.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps opens on Wednesday 6th October
The US remake of the Swedish vampire classic manages to confound expectations by actually improving on the excellence of the original.
For those unfamiliar with the story, it involves a lonely young boy (Kodi-Smit McPhee) struggling at home and school, who befriends a mysterious girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) who moves in next door with a older guardian (Richard Jenkins).
Relocating it to Los Alamos, New Mexico in early 1983, it begins with a police officer (Elias Koteas) investigating a mysterious death which we later find out is just one of many plaguing the area.
Shooting mostly on location, Reeves and cinematographer Greig Fraser have crafted their own visual style which keeps things atmospheric and murky, referencing the original but also defining its own visual palette.
It is no coincidence that we see Regan as a background presence on TV denouncing the Soviet Union as an āevil empireā and generally contributing to the dark mood throughout.
Reeves doesnāt shy away from the darker elements of the material: the school bullies are depicted as unremitting monsters (as they can seem to a child) and the violence hasnāt been curbed to get a softer rating.
McPhee and Moretz are excellent in the lead roles and have a rare emotional chemistry for actors of their age. Their relationship is all the more moving because of the danger at the heart of it.
As a horror remake this is light years ahead of the horror junk that has been seeping out of Hollywood recently.
For those unfamiliar with the original, it will be a rare chance to appreciate a well crafted and emotionally effecting horror film.
But how will this play to audiences who have already seen the original Swedish film?
It is a difficult question to answer. Some will see it as redundant, others might even refuse to see it at all.
As a big fan of Tomas Alfredsonās movie, it seems odd to confess that Reeves has actually made the creepier film.
It doesnāt have quite the same mood or crisp visuals and will inevitably be seen by some as the lesser work because it is a remake.
But it feels like Reeves spent a good deal of time going over the original novel, as well as the first film, and worked hard to create something that can stand on its own.
The horror genre has seen too many bad remakes over the last decade, along with films that omit genuine scares for voyeuristic sadism.
Let Me In is a rare exception, a film which builds on the original and makes for an unsettling horror which affects the head and the heart.
Let Me in is out at UK cinemas on Friday 5th October
Ben Affleckās second film as director is a satisfyingly lean crime drama about bank robbers in Boston.
The town of the title refers to theĀ Charlestown district of Boston which provides the setting and, as an opening title informs us, has produced generations of thieves.
Adapted from Chuck Hogan’s novel āPrince of Thievesā, the story sees Affleck plays the leader of a gang who play cat and mouse with a local FBI agent (Jon Hamm) keen to bring them to justice.
After a heist goes slightly wrong, they fear that a hostage (Rebecca Hall) may have recognised one of them behind their masks. To complicate matters further, Affleckās character soon falls for her which creates tensions with his fellow gang member and friend (Jeremy Renner).
Whilst not as strong as Affleckās first outing as director, the quietly brilliant Gone Baby Gone, it nonetheless establishes him as a confident storyteller who can get draw compelling performances from his actors.
Affleckās acting performance is also solid, cutting a likeable but anguished figure in the lead role whilst Renner has a scene-stealing supporting turn as an unpleasant, edgy sidekick.
Hamm is good value as the driven FBI agent. Even though at times his character feels a little too close to his Mad Men persona, he gives his role here a sense of gravitas and bite as he pursues Affleckās gang.
The female parts are a little undercooked, as is often the case in male dominated crime dramas, although Hall does her best in an underwritten role and Blake Lively manages a major transformation for those that know her from the television show Gossip Girl.
The script ā co-written by Affleck, Aaron Stockard and Peter Craig – feels like it has been forged in a good deal of research.
The local slang the characters frequently use and the little details of the robberies all add help to paint a convincing world, even if a couple of major plot points stretch that credibility.
Affleck has also cannily recruited some first-rate talent behind the camera: cinematographer Robert Elswit shoots contemporary Boston with a gritty but vibrant look, whilst editor Dylan Tichenor gives the pacing an extra snap and crackle during the set pieces (it is worth noting that both regularly work with Paul Thomas Anderson).
The score by Harry Gregson-Williams andĀ David Buckley also adds to the overall mood, with the strings and piano giving certain scenes an extra emotional kick and at times it is reminiscent of the excellent Gone Baby Gone score.
When it comes to the fundamentals, The Town is a highly watchable and pleasingly old-fashioned piece of work. There is no CGI, no pandering to the geek crowd and the characters, dialogue and action are all executed without bluster or excess.
That said, this is very familiar territory for anyone who has seen crime dramas such as The Departed (2006) and Heat (1995).
In fact the parallels with Michael Mannās film are striking to the point of distraction: a head to head battle between a cop and a thief; bank robberies involving automatic weapons; romantic entanglements; a protagonist struggling to escape his past; and the now-familiar āone last jobā.
It doesnāt detract from the overall qualities on display, but for viewers familiar with Mannās film, it lingers like a ghost over stretches of the material.
That said The Town still has many qualities to admire. Even if it isnāt especially groundbreaking, it holds the attention and is packaged with skill and efficiency.
Affleck has certainly had his fair share of ups and downs as an actor, but on the evidence of his first two films, he is quickly maturing in to a very fine director.
The Town opens in the US today and in the UK on Friday 24th September
A skilful blend of performance art, documentary and elaborate hoax, Iām Still Here is a clever and frequently hilarious deconstruction of Hollywood celebrity.
Iām Not There is the end result, a spoof in the vein of Borat and Bruno, that goes behind the scenes of Phoenixās supposed life and blends it with media coverage from the time.
Beginning with some intriguing home movie footage of Phoenixās childhood, it is essentially a raucous fly-on-the-wall document of Phoenixās apparent ‘career suicide’ over the last two years.
The actor has clearly put a great deal of effort into creating a sublimely horrible alter-ego.
He has grown a beard, put on weight and not been afraid to perform this role in public, which gives the film an extra post-modern flavour.
We see him meeting with his publicist and agent, attempt to hook up with Sean āDiddyā Combes, berate Ben Stiller about the script of Greenberg, get life advice from Edward James Olmos, rap at a hotel in Miami, take copious amounts of drugs, abuse his assistants and generally act like a delusional celebrity ogre.
The film gets really meta when it incorporates the very idea that this whole project as a hoax.
Phoenix gets paranoid that his assistant ‘Anton’ has been leaking information to the media, which leads to a particularly messy confrontation.
Throughout Phoenix arguably gives the performance of his career in playing this twisted version of himself, in which he toys with the audienceās expectations of who and what he is. It is compelling and ludicrous in equal measure.
When this fake Joaquin isĀ placed in real situations such as concerts, press junkets, airports filled with paparazzi and TV chat shows, the results are hilariously awkward.
But unlike Borat or Bruno, in which we know Baron Cohen is playing a role, this has the added dimension of Phoenix playing a version of himself, which has led to a debate about the authenticity of the film.
It seems absolutely clear, to me at least, that this whole project is an elaborate joke in which reality has been cunningly blended into the overall mix.
But does anyone actually believe that he wanted to give up acting to become a hip-hop star?
The idea that journalists and critics are actually taking this idea seriously seems like a joke in itself.
Certain sequences, especially the one with Stiller, seem staged and the parts with Diddy are also debatable.
The rapper was either duped or has impeccable comic timing. One line in which he declares an Affleck film (possibly Gone Baby Gone) to be āwhackā is priceless.
But there are certain scenes where the mask of the film drops (perhaps intentionally?).
At one point his publicist is caught grinning backstage at the infamous Letterman taping, another features a seemingly scripted gag about Revolutionary Road and there is one piece of dialogue that seems to have been dubbed in post-production.
The conceit of the film is cunning as it plays around with our perceptions of who, or what, a celebrity is and gets added spice from Phoenix continuing his performance in areas where other actors wouldnāt normally dare.
Certain moments hold a brilliantly awkward mirror up to modern celebrity: concerts featuring audiences filming everything on their phones, DIY paparazzi posting commentary on the web and a press junket for Two Lovers where Phoenix is āoffendedā by journalists.
The bit where Phoenix announces his retirement to an entertainment reporter from Extra is pitch perfect, as it cuts the TV footage which ran that night with Affleckās footage from a different angle.
This is almost the film in microcosm. By contrasting the nonsense world of showbiz journalism with the fake world of the documentary, Affleck has created a hall of mirrors in which one reflects the other.
By feeding the media machine deliberately confusing information during the making of the film, it seems like some outlets have been unable to process the overall joke, as part of the narrative involves their own reporting. Bamboozled? That was probably Affleck’s intention.
The director himself has been supremely coy about all this ā his interviews at Venice were brilliantly evasive – and Iām not sure how far they are going to take the concept now that the film is out in the U.S., albeit in limited release.
Iām Still Here could be a performance art experiment where even the filmmakers have lost track of the monster they have created.
Phoenix is apparently going to return to Letterman next week, so Iām sure that the debate will rumble on (even if he does or doesn’t turn up).
Either way, the nature of the material has given what is a fairly low-budget film a lot of free publicity.
The chatter will no doubt continue, especially amongst audiences, but the bottom line is that this is still one of the funniest portrayals of celebrity in recent memory.
Since attracting controversy and acclaim with Irreversible (2002), Noe has returned to similarly grandiose themes and, like his previous film, presented them within a contemporary urban world.
Set in contemporary Tokyo,Ā Enter The Void focuses on a young American drug dealer (Nathaniel Brown), his sister (Paz de la Huerta), and the various people he comes across whilst peddling his wares.
When a deal goes bad in a night club early on in the film, Oscar is shot and becomes a disembodied soul who can observe his loved ones and acquaintances like a ghost.
As this spectral journey progresses, we also get flashbacks of Oscarās childhood and numerous other meditations on his life and ultimate death.
Much of the film is a master class in cinematography, visual effects and editing, to the point where it could become a case study in film schools for those curious as to how various sequences were executed.
However, theĀ stylisticĀ virtuosity is matched by a grimy setting: a dank, urban underbelly filled with dirty toilets, strip clubs and all manner of shifty people doing dodgy things.
Although likely to turn off some viewers, as a depiction of that world it is convincing, despite all the visual trickery used to present it.
The performances are solid: Brown makes for a sympathetic protagonist, with a performance heavily reliant on his voice work, whilst del la Huerta portrays the emotional and physical demands of her role with considerable courage.
Clumsy references to The Tibetan Book of the Dead and the loose nature of the narrative means that after about an hour the film starts to splutter and fracture.
But despite this, long stretches of the film are a remarkable assault on the senses.
Filled with strobe lighting effects, hypnotic sounds and even sequences set inside the human body, it is arresting, hallucinatory and disturbing, sometimes all at once.
This is precisely the kind of film that should be experienced in the cinema for the full effect and some sequences linger long after the end – one recurring scene was so effectively shot and edited, it jolted me out of my seat more than once.
Some will dismiss the ideas presented in the film as drug-fuelled pretension, but as a visual representation of what could happen when we die it is a fascinating and bold exploration of what is still a taboo subject in Western culture.
Compared to how many mainstream films feature death as something to be laughed at or perversely enjoyed, especially modern horror franchises, this makes the film all the more unusual.
A more definitive directorās cut might surface in the future, but it is rare for any modern filmmaker to attempt this kind of material, one of dazzling technical skill and intense philosophical ambition.
It might not always work, but the finished film is unlike anything Iāve seen in recent memory. For that, at least, it deserves considerable credit.
Enter the Void is out at selected UK cinemas on Friday 24th September
What follows is an action-comedy hybrid in which director Edgar Wright throws a barrage of visual artillery at the screen in order to recreate the look of comics and computer games.
This means when characters ring a doorbell we actually see the sound visualised with a āDing-Dongā and when characters are punched we see āKa-Pows!ā like the 1960s Batman series.
A bewildering array of techniques are employed throughout: split-screen, aspect-ratio shifts, zooms, CGI, animation, super-quick edits, Manga-styled transitions and laugh tracks are just some of the tools used in dramatising Pilgrimās journey.
In some ways the ambition of the film is admirable. Like The Wachowski Bros’ Speed Racer (2008) it tries to do something genuinely different with the visual language of cinema.
But also like that film, it remains a hollow exercise in cinematic technique that contains little emotion or charm beneath the endless layers of visual distraction.
Compared to Wrightās previous work, the central characters are surprisingly hard to care for. The protagonist is a dull, self-obsessed narcissist, whilst the girl he is fighting for doesnāt seem to care all that much. As for the exes they are just levels to be completed.
Michael Cera now seems entombed in the nebbish screen persona audiences first saw in Superbad (2007). That splendid breakout performance has now become a depressing template for his subsequent career.
The exes he does battle with (including Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Jason Schwartzman) are little more than one-note jokes and the whole narrative feels like TV episodes stitched together to resemble a feature.
Wright has previously managed to combine visual flair with genuine heart. With the TV series Spaced (1999-2001) and his last two films, Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), he managed a great balance of humour, brains and genuine emotion.
This film has many surface similarities with Spaced: twenty-something slackers, a frenetic editing and shooting style, numerous pop culture references and a slow-burning romance.
But in Scott Pilgrim the techniques are turned up to such a degree that they squeeze the life out of the core story and it is hard to care about anything on screen.
The one noticeable improvement over Wrightās previous films is the clarity and crispness of Bill Popeās cinematography, but that only comes across in the more realistic scenes, which are frequently intercut with a barrage of hyperactive effects.
Certain sequences feel like a visual dirty bomb has gone off in the cinema. But for what? A romantic story with little romance and characters on screen who are almost literally cartoons?
Part of the wider problem is that the whole film is played as one long, fantastical joke, but there isnāt really much at stake when humans explode into coins and produce flaming swords from their chests.
All the gaming references are a little misleading. Although it certainly tries to co-opt the feel of them, games have rules and logic, two qualities which are mostly absent here.
Are the fights on which the film hinges meant to be extended fantasies? It isn’t really clear, although by the middle of the film I no longer cared as nothing is ever really at stake.
The notion that the ‘evil exes’ are some of metaphor for the baggage of previous relationships is never really developed amidst all the glib chaos going on.
The whole film has seemingly been designed to play like a trailer: fast paced to the point of blurry incoherence and packed with moments to excite an expectant fan base.
Mainstream Hollywood needs directors like Edgar Wright as he is a genuinely fresh and talented voice, but Scott Pilgrim vs The World is major misstep.
There are some who will lap up the deep layers of sarcasm, Nintendo-nostalgia and cooler-than-cool vibes in this film.
A loyal, cult-like audience may feel it was made for them ā in many ways, it was ā but for those who arenāt blinded by the aching hipness of it all, it is likely to prove a shallow exercise in geeky nonsense.
Aimed squarely at the generation who grew up watching action movies in the 1980s, The Expendables is ultimately a disappointing exercise in nostalgia.
The story involves a group of ageing mercenaries (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lungdren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture) who accept a missionĀ in a South American dictatorship.
It has the well-worn tropes of a genre picture, such as a gang of misfits, swarthy villains and a damsel in distress, whilst combining screen personas from different sub-genres.
Principally, we have Stallone (Rambo), Li (martial arts), Statham (the Transporter and Crank series) and various tough guys associated with wrestling or UFC.
We first meet them on a mission hunting pirates in Somalia and they are soon hired for a mission in South America where they come across a dictatorship run by a general (David Zayas) and a ruthless former CIA rogue (Eric Roberts).
After initially deciding they want no part of it, their conscience gets the better of them when they feel they have abandoned the general’s rebel daughter (Giselle Itie) and decide to return for a final showdown.
In a sense this follows on from Stalloneās last two pictures: Rocky Balboa (2006) and Rambo (2008), which were designed for the star to revisit his most famous screen roles.
Both had a certain low-rent charm but The Expendables is a different beast: a sprawling, messy quilt of a film stitched together with little craft, wit or intelligence.
The whole project reeks of laziness: hire some famous action stars, blow stuff up and throw in some jokey cameos (notably Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger) and everything will be cool, right?
Well, it isnāt. For a film with a reported budget of $85 million, this looks and feels too much like the low-rent stuffCannon Films pumped out during the 1980s.
Not only do we have some shoddy direction and editing, even the action set pieces are a let down.Ā The use of CGI for blood, explosions and background is overused and often glaringly obvious, whilst the more reflective moments are cringe inducing.
The best thing that can be said about the film is that the pacing is mercifully quick, although anytime the film pauses for some male bonding gags is often a cause for concern.
At the screening I saw, there were people cheering the opening credits as they popped up, as if this was a reunion concert for a super group of veteran action stars.
This of course is precisely the thinking behind the film, which is a curious hybrid: a low rent action film puffed up on steroids to resemble a modern action picture.
In effect, it is the first karaoke action film, aimed at a male audience eager to see stars of yesteryear kick some old school ass and blow stuff up all whilst winking at the audience.
Some have already said this is a male version of the Sex and the City movies, in that it is a familiar story with ageing stars, packaged for a specific demographic.
That is not a bad comparison and like those films there is a hollow, unimaginative core beneath all the elements that certain viewers will gobble up like comfort food.
Potentially, there is a sizeable audience for The Expendables, who not only love the idea of revisiting part of their youth but will also cut the film a lot of slack because it isnāt meant to be taken that seriously in the first place.
But this is part of the problem. It feels tired when considered on its own merits, but more so in a summer where we have already had two other misfits-on-a-mission movies (The Losers and The A-Team).
It is a comedy about two Washington gym employees (Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand) who stumble across a disk of sensitive material written by a disaffected CIA analyst (John Malkovich).
After their triumphant dramatic success with āNo Country for Old Men,ā the Coen brothers revert to sophomoric snarky mode…
…the short, snappy picture tries to mate sex farce with a satire of a paranoid political thriller, with arch and ungainly results.
A seriously talented cast has been asked to act like cartoon characters in this tale of desperation, mutual suspicion and vigorous musical beds, all in the name of laughs that only sporadically ensue.
Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter is more positive:
It takes awhile to adjust to the rhythms and subversive humor of “Burn” because this is really an anti-spy thriller in which nothing is at stake, no one acts with intelligence and everything ends badly.
As a follow-up to last year’s multiple-Oscar winner “No Country for Old Men,” Joel and Ethan Coen clearly are in a prankish mood, knocking out a minor piece of silliness with all the trappings of an A-list studio movie.
Those who relish this movie might treat it as the second coming of “The Big Lebowski”; those who don’t might wonder at a story in which no character has a level head.
The end result will probably not mean a return night out to the Academy Awards for anyone involved, yet Burn After Reading is a terrific entertainment: fast-paced, inventive and relentlessly amusing.
The Coens have taken a sledgehammmer to the notion, advanced in film after film, that espionage is a business pursued by grim-faced people blessed with total competence.
Burn After Reading is a tightly wound, slickly plotted spy comedy that couldn’t be in bigger contrast to the Coens’ last film, the bloodsoaked, brooding No Country for Old Men.
Burn, in comparison, is bit of a bantamweight: fast moving, lots of attitude, and uncorking a killer punch when it can.
Burn After Reading may also go down as arguably the Coens’ happiest engagement with the demands of the Hollywood A-list – but this bit of career development may also be contributing to a diminishing of their particular film-making strengths. Or perhaps they are simply evolving.
The ultimate question, from this admirer of virtually all the brothers’ work, from the early Blood Simple and Miller’s Crossing to their previous Clooney collaborations O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty, is a plaintive “What the heck kind of film is this?”
… The movie’s glacial affectlessness, its remove from all these subpar schemers, left me cold and perplexed.
…Either the Coens failed, or I didn’t figure out what they’re attempting.
…Burn After Reading is a movie about stupidity that left me feeling stupid.
The attention to detail is impeccable: the Coens can even raise a laugh with something as simple as a well-placed photograph of Vladimir Putin…
If the film does lack something, itās warmth. The affection you felt from the Coens for the misguided fools in Fargo or Raising Arizona is lacking here for everyone except Jenkinsā hapless and hopelessly love sick gym manager.
And while the film carries the audience with its entertaining, if somewhat ludicrous, blend of high level espionage and ab-toning exercises, it would perhaps be more rewarding if we could like the characters as well as laugh at them.
Unwittingly, the Coens have delivered the most convincing argument I’ve heard yet against 9/11 being a US government conspiracy – and there are a lot more laughs here than in your average neocon documentary.
All in all, it’s a treat to see such a good cast messing around with comedy material that’s both goofy and insightful.
Burn After Reading will have its North American premiere at the Toronto Film Festival on September 5th before opening in the US on September 12th and coming out here in the UK on October 17th.
Made in 1981 it imagines a futuristic New York where crime has spiralled out of control to the point where Manhattan has been turned into a maximum security prison.
The major snag is that he has less than 24 hours to complete his mission and must survive in a completely lawless and hostile environment.
Although the premise stems from anxieties about New York that now seem dated, the film holds up remarkably well with the visuals, acting and a pulsating electronic score all adding to the mix.
The extras on both releases include:
Return to Escape from New York: A 23 minute featurette on the making of the film with interviews and insight from cast and crew.
John Carpenter Interview: A new and exclusive 30 minute interview with the writer-director about the film.
Snakes Crime: The deleted opening scene where Snake robs a federal bank.
Commentary: John Carpenter and Kurt Russell, which is highly engaging and informative.
There are also three theatrical trailers including this one:
When he visits a company who can offer him a virtual holiday by implanting memories it inadvertently unlocks his ‘real’ past as a secret agent and he then has to escape to the red planet for real.
Directed by Paul Verhoeven (after the success of RoboCop in 1987) it is definitely the best of Schwarzenegger’s films between the two Terminators and contains some interesting ideas, even if the emphasis is skewed towards action.
The production design is still impressive and the visual effects by Rob Bottin still stand up very well – in many ways they foreshadow how SFX as a whole would develop in the 90s with films like T2 and The Matrix.
One of the highlights on the extras is an excellent commentary with Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger recorded for the previous Special Edition, as they complement each other very well.
Arnold seems especially amused at some of the more gruesome scenes whilst Verhoeven has many thoughtful riffs and views on the plot twists and themes of the story.
The director also frequently reveals that he wanted the film to be even more violent (one scene in particular sent the MPAA crazy) which is saying something, as it is probably one of the most brutal mainstream action films of its era.
That said it is still a solidly entertaining and at times surprisingly clever slice of sci-fi.
The other extras include:
Imagining Total Recall: A fine 30 minute featurette exploring the original Philip K Dick story and how it came to the screen. Paul Verhoeven, screenwriter Ron Shussett (who also write Alien) and Schwarzenegger all give solid contributions.
Making of Total Recall: A more modest 8 minute on set making of feature from 1990 that was presumably a TV promo from 1990.
Vision of Mars: Another short piece (5 mins) on how Mars was visualised for the film.
There are also storyboard comparisons and the requisite trailers and TV Spots.
However, it doesn’t feature any of the extras on the regular DVD disc, so unless you are desperate for the HD version of the film I think the regular DVD with the extras is much better value.
I realise it may be a space issue on the discs but if Blu-ray is going to take off as a format, extras are an essential part of any DVD package.
The DVD highlight of the week is this special edition re-release of The Elephant Man – the superb 1980 period drama about the life of Joseph Merrick.
Based on the real story of a man so disfigured he was dubbed ‘the Elephant Man’, it explores how he was taken in by a doctor and his struggle to be recognised as a dignified human being in Victorian London.
However, in the lead role John Hurt is mesmerising, despite being buried under a lot of (quite brilliant) make-up which took hours each day to apply.
Although he would go on to have considerable success as an actor – often in supporting roles – this perhaps remains his greatest screen performance.
It is also a moving study of an individual struggling to come to terms with deformity and being a social outcast.
Another interesting aspect of the film is that it was produced by Mel Brooks, who became instrumental in getting the film made after his wife Anne Bancroft gave him the script to read.
When viewed in the context of Lynch’s career it has may seem different to his darker films such as Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart or Mulholland Drive but it demonstrates his early skills as a filmmaker and his taste for the fringes of society.
The extras include the following:
Joseph Merrick – The Real Elephant Man: An highly informative 20 minute featurette on the real life of Merrick introduced by Jonathan Evans, an archivist of Royal London Hospital Museum. He describes the historical context but also explores the differences between the film and Merrick’s actual life. One of the most interesting snippets is that Merrick sought out his career in a freak show as a way to make money and that he was not such a victim as the film presents. It also speculates what disease Merrick was actually suffering from, a question that continues to baffle medical historians.
Interview with John Hurt: In a 20 minute interview, the actor describes various aspects of his experience playing the role: how he based his physical movements on a corkscrew; the unlikely success of the film in Japan; working with fellow actors Anthony Hopkins, John Gielgud, Michael Elphick and Hannah Gordon; the difficulty of the shoot, how he completed all of his work in between making Heaven’s Gate in two parts (he notes that the whole of The Elephant Man cost less than the prologue of Heaven’s Gate!); the studio exec who didn’t know how to sell the film and how he kept some of the props from the film.
Interview with David Lynch: Another revealing 20 minute interview, this time with director David Lynch. He reveals several things about working on the film such as: his struggles after Eraserhead when he couldn’t find financing for his own script called ‘Ronnie Rocket’; how the pitch for The Elephant Man immediately appealed to him; the initial resistance to the project from studios; how Anne Bancroft loved the script and gave it to her husband (and producer) Mel Brooks; how Brooks loved Eraserhead and supported Lynch throughout the production; the origins of the script; the ‘beyond-the-beyond great’ cast who Brooks helped recruit; the importance of veteran cinematographer Freddie Francis in shooting the film in black and white; the makeup for Merrick, which Lynch actually worked on in a garage Wembley for a time before makeup artist Chris Tucker took over; how Hurt underwent 6-8 hours of makeup every day to become Merrick; the importance of visiting an old Victorian hospital and how only wants to work on digital film.
It also contains the original theatrical trailer:
Overall the extras are very good without being spectacular but this remains an excellent film, well worth checking out if you don’t already own it.
One of the most accomplished films of the last twelve months was The Orphanage, an intelligent and highly effective supernatural thriller from Spain.
I thought of describing it as a ‘horror’ film, but this is much closer in style on tone to Pan’s Labyrinth or The Others and a world away from the glut of remakes that have been clogging up multiplexes of late.
Along with her husband (Fernando Cayo) and son SimĆ³n (Roger PrĆncep) things seem to settle down well, but things take a darker turn when their young boy says he has an imaginary friend.
To say much more about the plot would be to spoil a beautifully crafted script that not only satisfies connoisseurs of atmospheric ghost stories but also those in search of something more emotionally involving than the standard horror movie.
It is a highly impressive directorial debut for Juan Antonio Bayona and after premiering at the Cannes Film Festival last year it went on to win considerable critical acclaim in limited release.
Guillermo del Toro helped bring it to the screen in his capacity as producer and the film bears some similarities to Pan’s Labyrinth with the exploration of parallel worlds and the importance of a child’s perspective on the cruelties of the adult world.
If you didn’t manage to catch it at cinemas then the DVD is well worth catching up with, especially as Optimum Home Entertainment have done a fine job with a very tasty 2-disc package.
Disc 1 includes:
The Main Feature: The transfer is presented in the original aspect ratio of 2.35:1 and is anamorphically enhanced. There are two Spanish language tracks, in Dolby Digital 5.1 and Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo.
Disc 2 contains all the extras, which feature the following:
UK Exclusive Q&A with Bayona at Curzon Mayfair in London: This is video footage from a Q&A session held after a screening around the UK theatrical release. Hosted by Mark Kermode, it features Juan Antonio Bayona, sound designer Oriol Tarrago and a translator (Corrina Poore). It lasts about 40 minutes and covers some interesting points, such as: the origins of the project; the role of Guillermo Del Toro in getting the film made; the sound design of the film (and how hearing horror movies on TV as a child influenced Bayona’s work); whether or not the story is especially Spanish, the importance of suggestion over showing horror and a few other things as well. My favourite bit is when they discuss the proposed Hollywood remake and Bayona asks why people in Hollywood don’t like subtitles, to which Kermode gives the simple but immortal reply: “Because they are thick.” Disappointingly though, the sound feed wasn’t taken from the mixing desk so it sounds a little echoey, but nonetheless it is a solid discussion of the film.
The Making of The Orphanage: A general 12 minute promo that covers the making of the film, featuring talking head EPK bites from the cast and crew.
The Set of The Orphanage: A short 2 minute featurette on the set, which shows how they built the set of the orphanage in an enormous set.
The Sound of The Orphanage: A 6 minute featurette with commentary by Oriol Tarrago, showing the scene with the parapsychologists, but adjusting the sound to demonstrate how vital it was to the film.
Interview with Bayona and Del Toro in Budapest: An 8 minute interview with director and and producer in Budapest (or as Guillermo calls it ‘the porn capital of Europe’). I guess Guillermo was shooting Hellboy 2 in Hungary and bayona joined him out there to film this discussion of the film. It focuses on the themes and issues deep within the film and is an interesting – if brief – conversation.
Lighting the Darkness: A 5 minute piece on how the film was lit and how atmosphere was created without resorting to obviously ‘big’ effects. The mix and match of shots is also quite interesting as all the interiors were shot on a set and had to blend with the exteriors, shot on location.
Roger Princep – The Casting: An interview with the young actor who plays a key role in the film and is surprisingly lucid for his age.
Alternative Beginning and Alternative Ending: The alternative ending is more of an extra scene that was cut, it doesn’t really replace the original end in any big way – however, the final shot is very nice. The alternative prologue is a different matter, as it is quite a detailed sequence that foreshadows a lot of key developments in the plot. Bayano explains that he wanted to keep things simpler and that it was ultimately too complicated a sequence for the opening of the film.
Deleted and Extended Scenes: The deleted scenes vary in interest but most of them are very intriguing, especially one involving a face-to-face meeting with two important characters.
Storyboards for 3 scenes: The storyboards for the seance, treasure hunt and appearance of Tomas offer the early visual conceptions of these scenes and are played parallel to the final cuts.
Shooting the Credits:A short piece on how the credit sequence was designed using footage of real children then mixed together with digital footage.
Animatics:More storyboards showing how they previsualised scertain sequences in the film.
Trailer: US theatrical trailer with the requisite deepthroated voice over.
Projections: Appears to be handheld test footage of characters from the film.
So all in all a highy impressive DVD package for what was one of the best films to come out in the last year.
Watch the trailer here:
The Orphanage is out now on DVD from Optimum Home Entertainment
Franklin is the young guitar player, Wishaw the budding poet, Bale the folk icon (and later the born again Christian), Blanchett the iconic 60s rock star, Gere the actor on a Western and Ledger the disillusioned 70s celebrity.
Although this approach might seem a little esoteric it has the effect of tapping right into the themes and brilliance of Dylan’s music, which is plastered all over the film.
The performances are excellent with Blanchett in particular standing out as arguably the most famous version of Dylan – the jaded, chain smoking iconoclast familiar to viewers of D.A. Pennebaker’s 1967 documentary Don’t Look Back.
Perhaps most poignant section, given his untimely death in January, is the section with Heath Ledger portraying the Blood on the Tracks-era Dylan. He again demonstrates what a fine actor he could be given the right role.
The soundtrack is also similarly inventive, with the likes of Sonic Youth, Cat Power, Yo La Tengo, The Hold Steady and Antony & The Johnsons all contributing cover versions of Dylan songs. It also features a previously unreleased Dylan recording of the title track ‘Iām Not There’.
The DVD includes over one hour of special features, including a tribute to the late Ledger, a conversation with the director and a look at the making of the soundtrack.
They include:
2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
English DD5.1 Surround:
Introduction to the Film
Commentary by director/co-writer Todd Haynes
A Conversation with Todd Haynes (40:50mins)
Making the Soundtrack (20:15mins)
A Tribute to Heath Ledger (3:09mins)
Dylanography (Character galleries, discography, bibliography and chronology)
Check out the trailer here:
I’m Not There is out now on DVD from Paramount Home Entertainment
Dirty Harry is one of the most iconic cops in the history of cinema and Warner Bros have just released a DVD box set of all five movies entitled The Dirty Harry Collection.
It is a pretty lavish affair and if you are a fan of the character or Clint Eastwood then it is well worth purchasing.
WARNING: There are spoilers in this review, so if you haven’t seen any of the films then be warned.
The first and best of the series saw Clint Eastwood take on the role of Harry Callahan – a no-nonsense cop in San Francisco who has to deal with a rooftop sniper named Scorpio.
The success of the film took his career to another level, establishing him as one of the major box office stars of the 1970s.
It remains a landmark cop film that influenced a generation of filmmakers with films like Lethal Weapon, Die Hard and Speed all being inspired by it to some degree.
Revisiting the film is interesting experience – the craft of the film is quite striking and for director Don Siegel it was the high watermark of his long collaboration with Eastwood.
As a police procedural thriller it is is slick, absorbing and tightly plotted. There is very little narrative waste here but visually it is interesting too. Cinematographer Bruce Surtees and director Siegel make great use of the fabulous San Francisco locations.
The low lit night time sequences are also unusually dark – an interesting foretaste when you consider Eastwood’s fondness for low lighting as a director in later years.
As an actor Eastwood brings the same dry, distant quality that he brought to the Man With No Name in Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy. The loner cop figure can be seen as an extension of the bounty hunter figure from those films – a violent avenger who understands the blurry differences between justice and the law.
As for the villain, Andy Robinson is remarkably creepy as Scorpio, with his childlike insults and temper tantrums. The clash between the cop and the sniper is interesting as it is Harry who behaves in a way that is deemed unacceptable in the eyes of the law.
It was this sense of moral ambiguity and the underlying rage at bureaucracy in the wake of the Miranda andĀ Escbedo rulings in the 60s (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney) that gave ammunition to the films’ critics.
Most notably, Pauline Kael of The New Yorker loathed the film, denouncing it as a:
“right-wing fantasy [that is] a remarkably simple-minded attack on liberal values”
Viewing the film now, these criticisms seem a little outlandish, but there is no doubt that the film does touch on the cultural conflicts of the times. Scorpio abuses Harry as a ‘pig’, wears a CND peace sign on his belt and also knows the rights that have been given to him by the liberal 60s.
But the film and the central character are more libertarian than right wing: Harry hates the complacency and opportunism of his bosses; is perturbed by the lack of concern towards the victim’s rights; plus, there also seems to be a lingering class resentment towards his superiors, especially in the scene where he argues with the District Attorney and a Judge.
Another aspect of the film that doesn’t often get talked about is the violence. Although by today’s standards the acts depicted on screen seem relatively tame, the sadistic behaviour of Scorpio is disturbing. He shoots a young black boy in the head, leaves a 14-year old girl to suffocate to death, hijacks a school bus and revels in his own cruelty.
Although based on the Zodiac killer, he seems to represent a new kind of murderer ushered in by Charles Manson – one who was concerned with their public notoriety as much as they were with brutalizing the innocent.
But interestingly the film points out parallels between cop and killer – they both loners who hate authority and they both break the law, albeit to very different ends. It is worth noting that Harry only brings Scorpio to justice when he is on leave and effectively outside the law.
It is also fascinating to view this film after Zodiac, the film which last year explored the killings that inspired Dirty Harry.
There are a number of intriguing parallels: Don Siegel’s film contracts to a vivid resolution whilst David Fincher’s keeps expanding to an inconclusive mystery; Harry and Scorpio represent two different sides of the same violent coin whilst Dave Toschi, Robert Graysmith and Paul Avery form a triangle of characters obsessed by a lone killer who is never truly revealed; and whilst Dirty Harry is a thriller with political overtones, Zodiac is a drama with existential vibes. Both are very different but still somehow connected.
Like a lot of first films in a series, it remains the best and none of the successive Harry films could match it.
As Harry foils the bank robbery near the beginning of the film, he walks past a theatre showing Play Misty for Me, which Eastwood directed and starred in.
Writer John Milius made a major contribution to the film (as well as Dirty Harry’s mystique). He wrote the lines Harry quotes to punks about “Did he fire six shots or five?” and the immortal “Do you feel lucky, punk?
The Smith & Wesson Model 29.44 Magnum revolver Harry uses is not actually considered a practical weapon for police officers due to the excessive recoil which makes re-aiming at the target difficult.
When director Don Siegel fell ill during the shoot, Clint Eastwood took over and directed the scene where Harry rescues a would-be suicide jumper and the encounter with a homosexual in Mt. Davidson Park.
Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood cast Andrew Robinson for the role of Scorpio after seeing him in a production of Fyodor Dostoevsky‘s The Idiot – Robinsonwas so convincing that he received death threats after the film was released.
The line where Scorpio says “My, that’s a big one” when Callahan removes his gun was an ad-lib by Andrew Robinson. The crew cracked up laughing at the double entendre but the line stayed.
Scorpio’s real name is never revealed through out the entire movie – the end credits simply list him as “killer”.
The gravel pit at the end of the film was a place Clint had gone to as a child with his parents.
The final scene where Harry throws his badge in the river is a homage to a similar scene from High Noon but Clint was uneasy about doing it until he was convinced otherwise by Siegel.
Albert Popwell who plays the ‘punk’ Harry taunts in the bank sequence would go on to appear in every “Dirty Harry” film except The Dead Pool – playing a different character in each movie.
In what seemed to be a reaction to the criticisms of Dirty Harry, the plot of Magnum Force saw Harry dealing with evil inside the police force as a group of vigilante traffic cops take the law into their own hands by killing criminals who seem beyond the law.
The film was directed by Ted Post, who also directed Clint in TV’s Rawhide and Hang ‘Em High. Although it isn’t as good as the first one, it is still of some interest.
Although it was probably a coincidence, in retrospect the plot seems to tap into the distrust of authority in the early 70s with the Watergate scandal about to end the Nixon presidency.
More interestingly, the screenplay was written by John Milius (who worked uncredited on the original film) and Michael Cimino – two writers who would go on to direct war movies that some found to be conservative (The Deer Hunter) or right wing (Red Dawn).
The vigilante officers or Magnum Force of the title also feature actors who would go on to greater fame such as Tim Matheson, David Soul and Robert Urich. Hal Holbrook also turns up in a memorable role as Harry’s boss Lt Briggs.
It moves along at a fair pace although the editing and direction are not in the same class as the first film.
Here are some facts:
At one point when Harry is in his apartment by himself, he looks at a photo of him and his wife: the only time the audience ever gets to see the late Mrs. Callahan who was mentioned in the previous film.
Harry’s tagline for this film was “A man’s got to know his limitations”, or variations on this phrase. This replaced the line from the first film “Do you feel lucky?”.
David Soul‘s performance as one of the vigilante cops, led to his being cast as Detective Ken Hutchinson in the classic cop series Starsky and Hutch (1975).
According to writer John Milius, the reason the sex scene with the Asian woman is in the script is because Clint Eastwood received many fan letters from Asian women that contained sexual propositions.
The final Dirty Harry film of the 1970s sees Callahan take on a group of left wing revolutionaries called The People’s Revolutionary Strike Force, who start to terrorise San Francisco.
It also sees Harry team up with a female partner, Insp. Kate Moore (Tyne Daly), so whilst the film was swinging back to the right politically, it also made concessions to feminism in the 70s.
Directed by James Fargo, it is a much more perfunctory film than it’s predecessors although it does have some memorable moments, especially the climax on Alcatraz prison.
Here are some facts:
Originally titled ‘Moving Target’, the script was left for Eastwood at his Carmel restaurant, The Hog’s Breath Inn, by two aspiring screenwriters, (Gail Morgan Hickman and S.W. Schurr). Ā Eastwood was interested enough to turn it over to two of his favorite script doctors, Sterling Silliphant and Dean Riesner
The two militant organizations depicted in the film – the People’s Revolutionary Strike Force and Uhuru – were modeled after two real-life militant groups, the Symbionese Liberation Army (which kidnapped Patty Hearst) and the Black Panthers.
In the 80s, Daly was cast as detective Mary Beth Lacey in the hit TV show Cagney and Lacey.
Father John Voss – the priest who shields the gang – is played by M.G. Kelly – in real life a noted DJ and radio personality.
3 years later Eastwood was back on Alcatraz for the prison drama Escape from Alcatraz (1979)
Although the series was meant to end with The Enforcer, the popularity of the character was such that Warner Bros persuaded Clint to do a fourth film.
This one sees Harry forced to take a vacation after a run in with a local gangster. There he comes across a vigilante (Sondra Locke) who is trying to get revenge on the criminals who raped her and her sister.
Although it is a weak entry to the series it became famous for a catchphrase that people often (wrongly) attribute to the first Dirty Harry: “Go ahead , make my day“.
As for the film, it is watchable with the usual funny one liners but is fairly pedestrian as a thriller.Ā The reason for it’s commercial success would appear to be the presence of Eastwood and the public’s nostalgia for a cop like Harry in the Regan era.
Here are some facts:
This was the highest-grossing of the Dirty Harry film series.
It is the only Dirty Harry film not primarily set in San Francisco.
The reason the film was made at all had to do with a survey Warner Bros did for the Sean Connery Bond remake Never Say Never Again (1983). They asked movie goers to name an actor and a famous part that actor played. Clint Eastwood as “Dirty Harry” scored so high in the survey results, the studio told Eastwood it would be “open” to making another and Eastwood made this film as a result.
Although Clint Eastwood made the phrase “Go ahead, make my day” famous, it was originally used a year earlier by actor Gary Swanson in the movie Vice Squad (1982). Swanson, who played a Hollywood vice cop, said the line, “Go ahead scumbag, make my day,” to actor Wings Hauser, who played a pimp, during a bust.
Bradford Dillman is seen in the film as Captain Briggs; in the previous film, The Enforcer, he portrayed Captain Jerome McKay. It is unknown if McKay and Briggs are distant relatives. Hal Holbrook played Lieutenant Briggs in Magnum Force.
The fifth film in the series is almost a homage to the character – a film who’s enjoyable moments are guilty pleasures rather than anything especially substantial.
The plot sees Harry drawn into a murder plot as a serial killer bumps off several people connected with a death pool run by a film director (Liam Neeson).
The main motivation for this film being made would appear to be the fact that Warner Bros needed a reliable title for the summer of 1988.
It also coincided with a relative creative slump in Eastwood’s career when he was making too many average films (such as Pink Cadillac and The Rookie) before his renaissance in the 90s with Unforgiven.
The main pleasures here are seeing a 26 year old Jim Carrey play the obnoxious rocker who is the first victim and the presence of Guns N’ Roses on the soundtrack.
Welcome to the Jungle was chosen as the tie-in track for the film and by 1988 when the film was released they had become massive.
This was the only Dirty Harry movie not to feature Albert Popwell. He played a robber in “Dirty Harry”, a pimp in “Magnum Force”, a militant in “The Enforcer, and Horace King in “Sudden Impact”.
The extras on the DVD are extensive and are spread out on each of the discs.
Dirty Harry – Special Features:
A fine and informative commentary by longtime Eastwood associate/biographer Richard Schickel
The Long Shadow of Dirty Harry: New featurette on the influence and legacy of Dirty Harry
Dirty Harry: The Original: with Clint Eastwood and the film’s creators looking back at the creation of the Dirty Harry character
Dirty Harry’s Way:Ā A promotional short focusing on the toughness of the movie’s main character.
Interview gallery: With Patricia Clarkson, Joel Cox, Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Evan Kim, John Milius, Ted Post, Andy Robinson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Urich
Clint Eastwood: The Man from Malpaso: A 1993 TV program on his life and career, including scenes from his work and interviews with friends, fellow actors and crew members
Trailer gallery: Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, The Enforcer, Sudden Impact and The Dead Pool
Magnum Force – Special Features:
New commentary by director and Magnum Force screenwriter John Milius (in which Milius – within the first 10 minutes – appears to call for the vigilante style execution of Enron executives – I assume he is joking!)
A Moral Right: The Politics of Dirty Harry: Another featurette with filmmakers, social scientists and authors on the politics and ethics of the Dirty Harry films.
The Hero Cop: Yesterday and Today: Another featurette
The Enforcer – Special Features:
New commentary by Enforcer director James Fargo
The Business End: Violence in Cinema: Featurette on the violence in the films
Harry Callahan/Clint Eastwood: Something Special in Films: Another featurette on the character.
Sudden Impact – Special Features:
New commentary by filmmaker and Eastwood associate/biographer Richard Schickel
The Evolution of Clint Eastwood: Featurette on the film in the context of Eastwood’s career as a director
The Dead Pool – Special Features:
New commentary by Dead Pool producer David Valdes and Dead Pool cinematographer Jack N. Green
The Craft of Dirty Harry: Featurette on the cinematography, editing, music, and production design of the Dirty Harry films.
The box set also contains:
Clint Eastwood: Out Of The Shadows – On a separate DVD this is a fine feature length documentary from 2000 about Eastwood’s career, narrated by Morgan Freeman.
A 44 page hardcover book on the films.
A Dirty Harry wallet with metal badge and removable Inspect. Harry Callahan ID card
Five 5″ x 7″ lobby poster reproduction cards and an exclusive Ultimate Collector’s Edition card
A Scorpio Map: 19″ x 27″ map of San Francisco detailing Harry’s hunt for the killer in the first film
A one-page personal note from Clint
Reproductions of telegrams from Warner Bros to Clint (and vice versa) throughout the making of the series.
Overall this is a highly impressive box set, even if the films themselves do decline in quality somewhat.
That said, Warner Bros deserve great credit for the care and attention they have put into this set of films from one of their most consistent and legendary stars.
Plus, as a studio they deserve special praise for allowing you to skip straight to the menu instead of being forced to watch godawful piracy ads or trailers of upcoming films. Why can’t other major studios be like this?
Anyway, the Dirty Harry Collection is highly recommended as a package, especially at the reasonable price of under Ā£30.
Will Eastwood ever return to the role? Let’s leave the last word to him:
Set in West Texas during 1980 and is the story of a hunter named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who comes across on a suitcase full of cash at the scene of a drug deal gone horribly wrong.
Taking the money, he is then relentlessly pursued by a sinister hitman named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who has been hired to retrieve it.
As Moss tries to evade Chigur a local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) tries to keep pace with both men and protect Moss’s wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald).
No Country for Old Men was not only a startling return to form, but scooped the Best Picture Oscar earlier this year and saw them awarded writing and directing honours too.
Often the winner of the Best Picture at the Oscars is a case of the Academy ignoring the better film in favour of one that makes them feel good.
But the last couple of years has seen a different mood at the Academy with The Departed winning Best Picture last year and now this dark tale taking home the gold statuette.
The performances are outstanding: Brolin is a revelation as Moss, Jones gives a career best performance as Bell and Bardem deservedly won Best Supporting Actor for his chilling portrayal of Chigur – one of modern cinema’s most memorable villains.
Kelly MacDonald and Woody Harrelson also chip in with fine work, whilst regular Coen collaborator Roger Deakins captures the dark, harsh beauty of West Texas with some truly stunning cinematography.
Paramount’s DVD release for the UK is mostly very. The transfer is excellent, capturing the original colours and tones with precision and care.
The extras are solid, if not spectacular, and contain the following featurettes:
The Making of No Country For Old Men: This is a making of featurette that runs for about 24 minutes. It contains interviews from the set with the filmmakers and cast and most of it provides a good insight into the production and how certain sequences were put together.
Working with The Coens: Although shorter at about 8 mins this section features Bardem, Brolin, Jones, MacDonald and exec producer Robert Graftalk about working with the Coens and their working methods.
Diary Of A Country Sheriff: Another short featurette (about 6 mins long) that focuses on the importance of Sheriff Bell, Anton Shigur and the Texan landscape to the movie. The actors and the Coens discuss the importance of these elements to the film.
I’m guessing that a 2-disc edition with more beefed up features may be a possibilty somewhere down the line but for admirers of the film, this is still an essential addition to anyone’s DVD collection.
I spoke to Kelly Macdonald about about the film back in December and you can listen to the interview here:
There were quite a lot of films about the current war on terror to come out last year but the best from a major Hollywood studio was In the Valley of Elah.
Written and directed by Paul Haggis it is the story of a retired soldier (Tommy Lee Jones) who is searching for his missing son, who has just returned from duty in Iraq.
When he arrives at his military base in Texas, no-one seems to know what has happened and he enlists the help of a local detective (Charlize Theron) to find out what exactly is going on.
Whilst it didn’t make any waves at the box office, it earned Jones an OscarĀ nomination for Best Actor and managed to be a quietly subversive film about the effects of the current war on terror on those soldiers asked to fight it.
Based on true events described in a Playboy article by Mark Boal, the film explores many of the hot button issues brought up by the recent Iraq conflict such as: post-traumatic stress, the abuse of prisoners, the recording of the war by soliders and the nature of American patriotism.
Although the main plot ticks along like a procedural police thriller, it actually proves a clever way of uinearthing the disturbing fallout from the recent conflicts and how they relate to how wars are fought.
Optimum have done a nice job with the DVD putting on some extras which inlcude:
‘After Iraq’ and ‘Coming Home’ Featurettes: These explore how Haggis approached the film by hiring real soldiers for certain roles, on set interviews with the cast and the parents of the real life soldier who inspired the film.
UK Exclusive Interview with writer-director Paul Haggis
Additional Scenes (including one startling sequence with a wounded soldier)
Trailer
2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
English DD2.0 and DD5.1 Surround
Back in December I spoke to Paul Haggis about the film and you can listen to the interview here:
But aside from the cleverness of the construction, the film isn’t just a technical exercise and is a compelling tale of death, grief memory and revenge.
